Lee right now.
Thank you, gods, finally found a world who chooses Lee over Wrinkleface.
You mean you havenât voted yet?
Just did a little while ago 
⌠well, hehe, I didnât know it was a poll until much later.
Lee⌠and itâs not by much but Lee was born to be in spaghetti westerns.
With the avatar and username you got itâs not much of a suprise ;).
A little late response to the first post⌠most SW actors have been doing non-SW films as well.
I know, but Lee Van Cleef and Clint Eastwood, are to Joe the Plummer, the genreâs most famouse personalities.
And Nero (mainly as Django), at least in Europe.
True maybe, but I think Django is more famous than Nero, like Sherlock is more famous than Conan
Which Conan? 
The Barbarian ;).
I have voted for Lee Van Cleef as choosing Clint Eastwood, who is iconic but not in many Spaghetti Westerns, over Lee Van Cleef, who is iconic and the king of Spaghetti Westerns, seems a little strange to me. No offense to anyone who thinks otherwise. Also Lee Van Cleef was a great actor all round, rather than a not-the-greatest actor that has good screen presence.
For me thereâs no doubt whatsoever, Lee of course was one good actor with excellent screen presence, who had the luck of entering the Leone films, his career before that was kind of going down. In those times, before the Leone trilogy became successful, going to Italy/Spain doing western was not considered a good sign for an American actor it was like entering the Love Boat you were a has been.
After itâs success in the Leone films, he kept acting in some good films mainly westerns, but the quality of the projects he entered, soon started to decrease, even Escape from New York was a Russell Show, itâs zenith was the Leone Trilogy (âduologyâ for him) and the westerns that follow it, those films made him an icon a legend a cinema symbol which itâs great of course how many can say that.
Eastwood its different game, he is a legend (a living one) an Icon but he is also a master artist a renaissance man, capable of doing masterpieces one after the other. We are not talking just an actor, Director (not any director), Producer, Musician, he is for me the ultimate American living icon (who can replace him, no one) some say the he is new John Ford, but I disagree Clint itâs unique. And in acting terms, Iâm not just talking about the trilogy films; he made also other excellent westerns, but also the Dirty Harry films, two times Icon status in that matter.
For me his big accomplish come as a director; Bird, the Bridges of Madison County, White hunter black heart, Unforgiving, Mystic River, Letters from Iwo Jima, Gran Torino, just to name a few, it would be enough to direct one of this films to became a great director, watching Gran torino for instance you got the same feeling, as if watching one those classic films you have seen before the digital era.
Of course if we are just talking acting, and western movies it depends on your own taste to choose who was the most charismatic, but if we are talking in everything their all careers, well in that case for me thereâs no doubt who is the duel winner
Gotta go with Eastwood on this one. I love Van Cleef but his sneaky ratlike facial features got him mostly type cast as the bad guy or hard ass superior. He rarely got a chance to show his range since he often ended up with the same roles through his career. But when he did get a chance to play a good guy like in âThe Big gundownâ he showed some versatility and what he might be capable of.
But Clint definitly has more range even though he was of course always type cast as the hero/good guy. But the man was able to stretch his abilities through the years and appeared in so many genres from dramas to comedies and back to action flicks. Although his most recent performance in âGran Torinoâ reminded somewhat of his Blondie character with all those crackinâ one liners. 
But didnât play the hero in both For a Few Dollars More and Death Rides a Horse?
The Man with no name character in both films itâs amoral beyond good and bad,
But if you wanât to see Clint (XX) play a bad guy (well at least with some issues) I recommend the Don Siegel film from 1971 the Beguiled, not a very famous film, but still a small gem of film making and one of Clint best performances in acting
He did indeed now that you mention it. Somehow totally slipped my mind or he just didnât make an big impression on me as a good guy. That said i personally prefer him in the role of the bad guy, his facial features are just perfect for those kind of roles. Kind of like Kinski who mostly ended up playing psychopathic bad guys in spaghetti westerns.
[quote=âEl Topo, post:77, topic:2048â]The Man with no name character in both films itâs amoral beyond good and bad,
But if you wanât to see Clint (XX) play a bad guy (well at least with some issues) I recommend the Don Siegel film from 1971 the Beguiled, not a very famous film, but still a small gem of film making and one of Clint best performances in acting[/quote]
I will have to hunt âThe Beguiledâ down them sometime. I always wondered how Eastwood would portray a bad guy and Siegel is a very solid director IMO. Although his man with no name character is certainly amormal like you said. Most of his decision are based on self preservation but at the core heâs still somewhat of a righteous man. Like most heroes he acts tough but heâs big softie on the inside. ;D
This reminds me of an IMDb thread, called âWhich is the best film of the Dollars trilogy?â Before I started reading it, I was 100% sure, nobody would have voted for A Fistful of Dollars.