I'm not a huge fan of Westerns in general. I don't hate the genre, but I've not seen many of them. I think the only westerns I've ever watched are Rio Lobo and Tombstone.
And Jonah Hex, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.
I picked The Good, the Bad, and the Etc. based on its inclusion on several "Greatest Films" lists, not realizing that the film is the third part of a trilogy. I found myself a little let down that there was so much character work done beforehand that I just never picked up on.
At least, that's what I assumed happened. I kinda figured I was already supposed to know who Tuco and Angel Eyes were, but after a cursory scan of Wikipedia, I'm not so sure.
My biggest complaint about The Good, the Bad, and the Incontinent is the length. The movie clocks in at three hours. I had to take two naps in the middle before I could get to the finish.
Also, the action moves deliberately very slowly. Sometimes, it creates an interesting effect - there's not a single line of spoken dialog for the first ten minutes (I counted), and the silence helps build the suspense. Frequently, though, I just found the slow pace boring.
The designations of the title characters seem extraordinarily arbitrary. I get that Angel Eyes is "The Bad," but I can't for the life of me figure out what makes Clint Eastwood's character "The Good." He's pretty much a %@#^. The only thing that distinguishes him from the other two is his blonde hair, and if that's what makes him "good," then the film's classification of Mexican Tuco as "The Ugly" is extremely suspect.
So, yeah, I guess I didn't care for The Good, the Bad, and the Santa Maria that much. However, the ending duel between Tuco, Angel Eyes, and the "Man with No Name" is excellent. A single sequence lasting maybe five minutes nearly justifies the entire 150 minute buildup.
Final verdict - the film's a classic for a reason. No real surprise there. It's just not one I feel like revisiting again.
No comments:
Post a Comment