There’s such a thing as over analysis … You are of course very welcome to offer your opinion, but again it seems odd to love 2/3rds of the film and then dismiss it for whatever reason.
I first watched it 40 years ago, as a boy of 10, and found it the most exhilarating dangerous film I’d ever seen - Indio and his gang were such a terrifying collection of ruthless menacing bastards, and the sense that not one character could be trusted, including Manco and the Colonel makes it unsurpassed and compelling. This film more than any other in any genre shows the genuinely frightening aspect of violence.
Every time I watch it I see more detail, which is more background story and depth - For example: Aldo Sambrell’s character Cuchillo is wearing a priest’s collar, which is never explained, but subconsciously we’re being told that he’s murdered a priest and this is a trophy he wears. These ideas back in 1965 and 1976 when I first watched were socially unthinkable - really outrageous and shocking. Perhaps for a younger generation this imagery doesn’t resonate as powerfully - but for me the film has lost none of it’s impact after countless viewings.
It all depends in what you’re looking for in a film - but I just don’t understand why anyone who is a fan of the genre can have a problem with this film.
PS: Thanks for the link to the discussion - I’ll have a look after posting this.
Anyway, i don’t want to make an impression i don’t like the movie, and on multiple viewings i began to appreciate it more and more, but it will never be up there with GBU and OUTITW, which i consider perfect.
No worries, I was intrigued to read your take on the third act of FAFDM.
My explanation of the anomalies mentioned could be that El Indio, to quote the Colonel, ‘Is a complete madman’. Plus he’s really stoned, therefore his plan isn’t that well thought out - also the wanted poster in the cash trunk is a humorous stylistic touch … in a real situation unnecessary, but in a highly stylised Leone fashion, very funny. It follows on from the scene were he goads Guy Calloway by sliding that wanted poster under the hotel door. He’s a dangerous man who likes to mess psychologically with his prey - Also, if we’re going for hyper critical assessment, why didn’t Indio just kill the Colonel rather than shoot the rifle out of his hand? Simply put, because it’s more fun.
No , i know it is weird to call it perfect and not have it in TOP 20. We can blame for it whole approach of the movie and actors. For example, i like Bronson, but not that much as say Eastwood or Terence Hill, or Tony Anthony. The movie itself has well written story, and it is greatly directed, not to speak of superb music, but for some reason, westerns i have in TOP 20 i find more inspirative, although some of them i wouldn’t call perfect.
Once Upon a Time in the West is a legendary film. When I saw it for the first time, I had really high expectations and was a little disappointed when I watched it. Charles Bronson is boring to watch in my opinion. But still, I like the movie: Henry Fonda as Frank is one of the best Western villains out there, I love Jill and we quote the movie quite often with my dad (he loves the film)
I think it might be one of the best films ever made now, but funnily enough didn’t love it when I first saw. To be fair, that also could’ve just been because I was in early highschool or late grade school and my pallet wasn’t as refined.
Yes, that would explain a lot.
, i know it is weird to call it perfect and not have it in TOP 20. We can blame for it whole approach of the movie and actors. For example, i like Bronson, but not that much as say Eastwood or Terence Hill, or Tony Anthony. The movie itself has well written story, and it is greatly directed, not to speak of superb music, but for some reason, westerns i have in TOP 20 i find more inspirative, although some of them i wouldn’t call perfect.