Lee Van Cleef wins it. Clint Eastwood, for me, is an average actor with a few stellar performances. (Dirty Harry, Escape from Alcatraz.) Van Cleef outshines Eastwood in “For a Few Dollars More.”
Van Cleef’s performances in “El Condor,” “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” (in which Eli Wallach and Van Cleef both outshine Eastwood) and “The Big Gundown” are fantastic and whenever Van Cleef is in a bad movie it’s worth the watch just for him. I understand Eastwood broadened his career beyond westerns and it’s pretty difficult to find good non-western Van Cleef movies but it’s performances in “Kansas City Confidential” (1952) and “Escape From New York” (1981) showcasing Van Cleef at opposite ends of his career, they prove his eye catching ability at both a young and old age.
I would agree and say Eastwood holds the greater acknowledgment in the acting industry and non-spaghetti fans most likely would not have even heard of Van Cleef if it wasn’t for “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.” And although Eastwood had the much wider and consistent film career, Van Cleef’s faultless performances in the western genre way outshines Clint’s average performances.
It’s worth noting both actors are similar in the sense that they both got type cast: Van Cleef stuck to Westerns and Eastwood seemed to always play a hard case.
I actually prefer Eastwood as a director, “Mystic River” and “Flags of our Fathers” are both directed specularly. But I believe Eastwood is Eastwood on screen and off screen.
As I said beedy eyed Van Cleef wins it, in my opinion…he also has better facial hair.