Thought this could be a good thread as we already have a similar thread for non-SWs.
We already have “Disappointing SWs” and “Worst SWs you saw”, but still this is an additional thread where you can spit it all out regarding SWs you think are overrated.
I think For a Few Dollars More is really stupid, silly, boring, childish, and just a lot of bang-bang and ridiculous humour
Both Eastwood and Van Cleef are also so “tough” in a laughable way in this film
Some scenes are good, and it has some dramatic violence, but to me it doesn’t save this Leone failure, sorry :o
One that pops up in quite a few top 20’s, including Tom B’s in Weisser’s book; and Professor Sir Christopher Frayling top 10 in Hughs’ book, but gets on my goat is the ‘hallowed’ MY NAME IS NOBODY.
I KNOW it’s meant to be a film about the sw film genre and the decline of the ‘old’ being replaced by the new - as metaphorically mirrored by Terence Hill as his Trinity character replacing crusty dry ol’ Fonda, who is out of place in this ‘new’ west.
But - it is a clumsy hybrid and whereas Weisser calls it ‘kneeslappingly funny at one moment, and truly touching in the next’, imo he is only (the second) half right.
It is embarrassingly bad and headslappingly unfunny when Hill goofs it up. For a film to switch between, I AGREE, the ‘truly touching’, (as when Fonda resigns himself to his potential prematurely brought about death, instead of his chosen dieing of old age in quiet retirement) … and then to that speeded up slapstick bollocks - it is as bad as a serious movie turning musical. It would take something very special to pull that off.
This film imo is not clever enough to do this. More subtlety would’ve been needed. For the film to work as a metaphor, the audience would need to know both ‘sides’ of the genre, and would have had to have been brought up with the ‘old’. And therefore ‘the joke’ did not need hammering home slappy-stylee. There are humourously subtle touches within the film and these add to the understanding of the ‘takeover’, and more of this type of humour would have better suited.
I think Fonda is brilliant in this, and I think it’s a great idea for a film (about film), but it’s been ‘tossed-off’ for a cheap laugh. In trying to get the ‘new’ market as well as commenting on and to the ‘old’, it sold it’s credibility and its integrity. Trinity is shit, and unfortunately clumsily commenting and contrasting ‘Trinity’ with the glory days of sws, only showed it up as just that. I’ve watched this film twice and that’s enough, I wanna cry :’( when Fonda sighs, and I wanna cry :’( when Hill slaps - and they might look the same tears … but they just ain’t!
I never understood how so many SW fans could hold this one in such high regard. Even after 3 times watching it (you see, I’ll always try to see the paradise), I have no clue where the suspected quality of DRaH is hidden.
It’s an ok western in every aspect, not more, not less.
Well here we go another thread to MALIGN SWs instead of praising :’( We are doing the job of the Anti SW detractors with these sort of threads :’(
MY Candidates As “Top SW” That I DISLIKE or Rate As Mediocre are :
Duck You Sucker 1971 Rod Steiger.
It is more political then western, Poor plot , Not happy with Coburn /other cast NOT in My Top 200
My Name Is Nobody 1974 Henry Fonda
It is as other Terence Hill Comedies/Spoofs very unfunny, unecessary slapstick, has none of the qualities I love In a SW. NOT In MY Top 200.
The Great Silence 1968 Klaus Kinski.
It is very poorly cast (Trintignant/McGee) an even though Kinski is good, plot is gritty/realistic i just object to the Trintignant/McGee miscasting. In my Top 100 Sw Yes.
Maybe some others to be added later.
I am ASTOUNDED / OUTRAGED that technically PERFECT / CLASSIC SW MASTERPIECES :
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE 1965 CLINT EASTWOOD Lee Van Cleef DEATH RIDES A HORSE 1968 LEE VAN CLEEF John Philip Law
That these 2 above For A Few $ 65 /Death Rides A horse 68 should be criticised/demeaned
It confirms my strong belief that these sort of “Worst SW” type threads are regrettable :’(
Mercenary
-Ok, I do like this film but I can’t understand the greatness of it. I’ve watched 3 or 4 times but I just can’t get into it. Maybe because I always tend to compare it with Companeros which I think works much better in every way: better cast, better music, more action.
Death Rides a Horse is another which I recently has started to watch more critically. What’s actually so good about it?
MERCENARY / PROFESSIONAL GUN 1968 FRANCO NERO Giovanna Ralli
This truly GREAT SW is 20 times BETTER than the Vastly Inferior COMPANEROS 1971 which
suffers from too much humour, inferior music, liability of Tomas Milian hamming it up :’(
The MERCENARY 1968 is GREAT because of its plot, character development, music,
direction , FRANCO NERO with GIOVANNA RALLI. Companeros is NOT TOP 40 SW at all.
DEATH RIDES A HORSE 1968 LEE VAN CLEEF John Philip Law
This is a GREAT SW because of its strong characters, outstanding revenge/mystery plot
solid direction, music/scenery/locations top class. Lee Van Cleef/John Philip Law SUPERB.
Have a proper look at this memorable SW with your ears/eyes OPEN & enjoy it.
Oh and by the way, I should probably mention this in the marketplace section, but I have DVD R’s of the above movies I mentioned in good quality anybody want to trade send me a PM.
I guess this again comes down to personal taste and opinion! It might be great to someone. And so there’s that sticky point again…who is to say what film is great or not?
[quote=“Lindberg, post:17, topic:893”]Yes, well, but this thread was suppossed to be about SWs that are commonly held in high regard, that is “Great”, by many fans.
Not “Great” to a small minority or a single person.[/quote]
Point taken (though, these majority rules views don’t hold much water with me…).
Ok…so i guess, OUATITW and Il Mercenario…and possibly They Call Me Trinity (then again does that one really count? ???).
“Duck You Sucker” is a SW that is okay but have never been able to understand its “greatness.” It misses the mark IMO. Too long and drawn out. The slo-mo scenes where the three play “ring-around-the-rosy” kind of wears me out.
(though, these majority rules views don’t hold much water with me…).