FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Shortly after a harmonica-playing stranger (Charles Bronson) rides into in a western town seeking a man in black (Henry Fonda) who has just slaughtered a farming patriarch (Frank Wolff) and his children, Wolff’s newly widowed wife (Claudia Cardinale) arrives and is told that a man named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) was responsible for her husband’s death; however, she soon learns that Fonda has been ordered by his boss — a disabled railroad baron (Gabriele Ferzetti) — to do what it takes to earn control over her newly acquired land, and she becomes caught up in a deadly web of greed, lust, and revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Bronson Films
• Claudia Cardinale Films
• Corruption
• Henry Fonda Films
• Jason Robards Films
• Keenan Wynn Films
• Revenge
• Sergio Leone Films
• Westerns
• Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is an enormous fan of this “baroque epic western,” which he refers to as “Sergio Leone’s masterpiece” — indeed, he names it Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars and discusses it at length in his first Cult Movies book. He argues that this movie — co-scripted by Leone, Dario Argento, and Bernardo Bertolucci — is Leone’s “most pessimistic film,” given that “its end signals the death of his ‘ancient race’ of superwarriors (first seen in his Clint Eastwood ‘Dollars’ films) and the moment when there is no more resistance to advancing civilization.” This is “represented by laying down of railroad tracks, the building of a town, and a whore (Claudia Cardinale) becoming a lady, a businesswoman, a maker of coffee, [and] a bearer of water”:

… all of which means that “in the new matriarchal West, money will be more important than the gun and super-gunfighters will be passe, part of the Western folklore.”

In Cult Movies, Peary elaborates his thoughts on how this “mythological progression” came to be across Leone’s westerns, writing:

“In A Fistful of Dollars, civilization doesn’t exist; in For a Few Dollars More, it serves as a background. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the mythological and historical worlds overlap, but ‘The Man With No Name’ is still able to literally send history/the Civil War elsewhere by blowing up a strategic bridge so he can carry on his own greedy activities. But Bronson’s ‘The Man’ is forced to move elsewhere when he realizes that post-Civil War civilization… cannot be denied. He won’t even try to fit into the civilized West as Frank [Fonda] did before realizing the futility of it.”

Back to GFTFF, Peary notes that “in an incredible scene that recalls the family massacre in John Ford’s The Searchers” Fonda’s Frank (he “finally got to play a villain!”) “wipes out Brett McBain (Frank Wolff) and his children”:

… simply so that his boss “can use McBain’s land for a railroad station” — a crucial driver of the narrative, with ongoing impacts for everyone involved. Meanwhile, Frank’s sadistic past comes back to haunt him, as we gradually learn why Bronson is so insistent on capturing and killing him.

Peary posits (and I agree) that the “film is incredibly ambitious, splendidly cast, beautifully shot (no one uses a wide screen better than Leone)”:

… “hilarious, erotic, psychologically compelling, and wonderfully scored by Ennio Morricone;” as Peary notes, Morricone’s score “shifts easily from dramatic to ethereal to ironic to comical,” offering “haunting melodies, musical motifs, theme songs, and choral numbers that comment on the action, add humor, and help move the story forward.” He points out that “among the many highlights are the lengthy, humorous title sequence in which three villains” (Jack Elam, Woody Strode, and Al Mulock*) “await The Man’s arrival by train (only to be killed by him)”:

… “Frank’s seduction of Jill” (I’m not a fan of this sequence; she’s clearly terrified and simply doing what she needs to do, as she always has, to survive — though it is creatively filmed):

… “the elaborately staged gunfight between Frank and The Man (how splendidly Leone uses space and close-ups)”:

… “the final scene between Cheyenne and The Man”:

… “and seeing The Man ride off into mythology at the end of the picture.”

In bit parts, watch for Keenan Wynn as the Sheriff of Flagstone:

… and Lionel Stander as a barman.

* Note: Mulock — a Canadian character actor who trained with Lee Strasberg — committed suicide by jumping out of his hotel window right after filming his scene for this movie; according to one source, he was purportedly depressed and drug-addicted and couldn’t find a fix.

Wolff also committed suicide the following year.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Frank
  
• Claudia Cardinale as Jill
  
• Jason Robards as Cheyenne
  
• Charles Bronson as ‘Harmonica’
  
• Gabriele Ferzetti as Morton
  
• Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography
  
  
• Excellent use of location shooting
  
  
• Many memorable faces, shots, and moments
  
  
  
  
• Excellent management of scores of extras
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a deserved classic of the genre.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In New York City, two police detectives (Richard Widmark and Harry Guardino) lose their gun while attempting to bring in a suspect (Steve Ihnat) who got away, and are given 72 hours by their police commissioner (Henry Fonda) to find him. Meanwhile, Fonda is distracted both by his affair with a married woman (Susan Clark), and by news that his long-time colleague (James Whitmore) has been caught taking a bribe; and Widmark must try to placate his lonely wife (Ingrid Stevens).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Don Siegel Films
• Henry Fonda Films
• James Whitmore Films
• New York City
• Richard Widmark Films
• Susan Clark Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Don Siegel directed this police drama that, regrettably, has been overshadowed by his later Dirty Harry” — indeed, he argues “it’s a brilliantly crafted film that all directors should study to see how action scenes should be staged, photographed, and edited.” He points out that the film structure “is split in two,” with one storyline telling the “efforts of tough street detectives” (Widmark and Guardino) “trying to nail a psycho killer who got away from them”:

… and the other focusing on “the efforts of police commissioner Henry Fonda to deal with some minor police corruption involving his life-long friend James Whitmore.”

The juxtaposition of these two narrative threads offers an opportunity for effectively contrasting “Widmark’s frantic world of killers, pimps, addicts, hookers, drunks, stoolies, midgets, and assorted lowlifes and outcasts”:

… with “Fonda’s serene and secure world.” Peary notes that “Widmark gives a standout performance as a very believable cop, one of Siegel’s renegade heroes: he has no idea how to comfort his wife (Inger Stevens), who expects him to lead a normal home life”:

… “and he acts like a nervous kid with his hand in the cookie jar in the presence of the commissioner”:

… “but on the streets he is king, the number-one man at getting the job done” — he is “the man crooks fear and despise and outcasts trust.” Peary further adds that this “exciting, atmospheric film takes time to explore the characters so that by the end we know exactly what makes each tick and what they find most essential in their lives.”

While I’m not quite as much a fan of this film as Peary is, I agree that it’s expertly crafted and offers up enjoyable entertainment. The action sequences alone merit close review given how skillfully they portray rapid-fire movements made on the spot, with potentially life-and-death consequences — from the opening scene in Ihnat’s apartment (which very quickly goes in an unexpected direction), to the tragic closing sequence. This one remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Richard Widmark as Daniel Madigan
  
• Steve Ihnat as Barney Benesch
  
• Russell Metty’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of location shooting throughout New York (as much as possible)
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine police thriller.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Talk Review
• Trailers From Hell Review

Synopsis:
A politically curious drama student (Lena Nyman) making a film for a director (Vilgot Sjöman) gets romantically involved with a salesman (Börje Ahlstedt) who has a partner and child on the side.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Movie Directors
• Scandinavian Films
• Sexuality
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “important film breaking down U.S. censorship rulings between 1969 and 1972” contains a “lengthy scene containing full frontal nudity of both the” female and male leads, in addition to other seemingly-natural simulated sexual interactions — all of which are “incorporated into a political comedy,” thus making it “a rare legitimate film that contains explicit sex as just an element of the story.” As Peary writes, “Nyman plays herself, the actress who’d starred in Sjöman’s 491 (1964). She and director-writer Sjöman have become lovers”:

… and “now she is starring in his new film as the daughter of a political sellout (he’d fought with the Republicans in Spain for a couple of weeks before returning home).”

Peary notes that Nyman “considers herself a nonviolent radical and, in a very funny [extended] scene, asks people on the street about class structure and sexual equality in Sweden,” in addition to spending “time protesting U.S. involvement in Vietnam.”

Soon “she has an intense affair with car salesman Ahlstedt,” not realizing “he lives with another woman and their child.”

Another notable sequence — very much of its time — involves Nyman heading off to a spiritual retreat, which is interrupted when Ahlstedt shows up.

Peary argues that while this film is “overlong,” it’s “worthwhile” and “has substance.” However, though the film is certainly startling for what Sjöman was willing to put forth at the time, the experimental storyline itself hasn’t aged particularly well; these days, viewers will likely simply be “curious” to check it out once given its historical notoriety.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lena Nyman as Lena
  

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• TV Guide Review
• Criterion Essay
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after attending the funeral of his mother, a French clerk (Marcello Mastroianni) in 1930s Algeria befriends a shady neighbor (Georges Géret) and becomes inextricably involved in a life-altering crime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Courtroom Drama
• Italian Films
• Luchino Visconti Films
• Marcello Mastroianni Films
• Morality Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that Luchino Visconti’s “adaptation of Albert Camus’s existential novel” is “reasonably well made but philosophically shallow.” He argues (and I agree, though not all do) that “Mastroianni is well cast as an alienated man whose great guilt — over his indifference as well as the murder he committed — cannot be decreased because to him God doesn’t exist and the hypocritical men who judge him cannot forgive an atheist anything.”

Peary writes that while Meursault (Mastroianni) “does have feelings and kindness,” “his contempt for the world and his meaningless existence serves to anesthetize his emotions almost entirely” — to the point where taking lethal action on the beach could be seen as “almost a positive act!” given that “he has finally moved out of passivity” (no, but I understand Peary’s point).

Peary adds (somewhat randomly) that “scenes with [a] scabrous old man and his scabrous dog are memorable.”

I don’t necessarily agree with Peary that this adaptation is “philosophically shallow.” While the film can’t — and doesn’t really — get into the novel’s meaty themes of the irrationality of the universe, the meaningless of human life, and the importance of the physical world, we are nonetheless presented with a sufficiently complicated and complex scenario: should a man be judged based on some of his perceived character flaws, such as not showing overt emotions at his mother’s funeral (how dare he smoke a cigarette!):

… going out with his girlfriend (Anna Karina) — who he admits he doesn’t love — the next day:

… befriending and staying loyal to a pimp:

… and not believing in God; and/or could (should) these very actions and attitudes easily be interpreted differently? And even more importantly, should they even matter? For what it’s worth, as pointed out by Meursault’s defense lawyer (Bernard Blier, who co-starred with Mastroianni in 1963’s The Organizer):

… Meursault was actually showing responsibility for his mother by sending her to a facility where she could socialize and receive sufficient care. Regarding his affect and actions at the funeral, people react very differently to grief; it’s incredibly dangerous to judge people based on how they look during a time of stress. Meanwhile, we see Meursault being friendly with the (socially unacceptable) “scabrous man” — and his friendship with the criminal could be seen as simply refusing to judge others for their lifestyle (by which I do NOT mean to condone or justify this man’s hideous treatment of a woman). While we do feel sad for Karina that Meursault won’t tell her he loves her, he is at least relentlessly honest with her — as he is about his lack of faith. This film remains worthy one-time viewing as an interesting adaptation of a morally challenging novel — though I would be curious to see an updated version in which colonial/racial tensions and injustices are given fair due.

Note: The Stranger has an unusual release history which bears noting. According to J. Hoberman’s 2017 review in The New York Times: “It has long been without an American distributor and, owing to complicated rights issues, was never released here on DVD… The movie was eagerly anticipated but suspiciously received when it opened in New York in December 1967.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marcello Mastroianni as Meursault
  
• Anna Karina as Marie
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of naturalistic outdoor settings
  
  
• Mario Garbuglia’s production design
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, as an effective adaptation.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Film Comment Review
• NY Times Review

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, a drifter (Clint Eastwood) collaborates with a wanted felon (Eli Wallach) and a sociopath named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) to find hidden gold.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Civil War
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Eli Wallach Films
• Gold Seekers
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Sergio Leone Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, Sergio Leone’s “exceptional, extremely exciting, extravagant, and funny epic western” — “released in the U.S. in 1968, a year after A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More” — is another “episode in the life of Clint Eastwood’s deadly, nameless superwarrior (a myth figure riding through America’s West)” who “is, ironically, ‘the good’ — so designated because he kills only bad guys.”

Eastwood’s ‘Blondie’ “forms an unholy alliance with Eli Wallach’s Tuco, a ruthless (although humorous) murderer who, besides killing people, has ‘robbed countless post offices’ and taken almost everybody over the border for immoral purposes” — and is thus “the ‘ugly’ — a flawed superwarrior” (I wouldn’t use this term for him) “who has emotions, talks a lot, is religious and feels guilt”:

… “and is more human than either Eastwood or Lee Van Cleef’s ‘Angel Eyes,’ Leone’s ‘bad’ — a fallen angel/superwarrior who kills anyone who gets in his way.”

As Peary synopsizes the storyline: “All three men are after a cache of gold and they won’t let even the Civil War get in their way.” (!!! True.)

Peary points out that the film features “an imaginative storyline, elaborate set pieces (some employing hundreds of extras)”:

… “several terrific shootouts” — including “the film’s sensational climax” in which “the three invincible characters face each other in a graveyard, with the gold going to the victor”:

… “much humor (built around the Eastwood-Wallach relationship)”:

… “striking cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli, and Ennio Morricone’s best score.” He notes that the “film has [a] vague anti-war theme and, like all Leone’s works, points out that America was civilized by men who killed for profit.”

He asserts that “the three leads make lasting impressions,” and notes that “even the ugly bit actors Leone puts in close-up have remarkable screen presence.”

Peary’s review nicely sums up the strengths of this iconic western, which isn’t a personal favorite but has clearly been hugely influential, with Quentin Tarantino naming it the best directed film of all time. It should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Eli Wallach as Tuco
  
• Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes
  
• Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography
  
• Fine use of location shooting across Spain
  
• The creative opening sequence
  
• Ennio Morricone’s truly iconic score

Must See?
Yes, as the third in a classic western trilogy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review

Synopsis:
A petty criminal (Brahim Hadjadj) is recruited by a revolutionary leader (Saadi Yacef) to fight with the FLN (National Liberation Front) in the Algerian War of Independence, and is soon among a handful of individuals sought out by French paratroop commander Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) and his men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Revolutionaries

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “extraordinary revolutionary film by Gillo Pontecorvo” — who “directed and wrote the script with Franco Solinas” — covers “the pivotal years, 1954 to 1957, in the Algerian struggle for independence from France.” While the “entire film looks like a cinéma vérité documentary” — especially given cinematographer Marcello Gatti’s use of “grainy stock,” and the intentional hiring of non-actors for all but one key role — this is actually “a fictionalized account of real and representative events that took place during the National Liberation Front’s guerrilla war against the French.”

It “not only shows how to conduct an urban guerrilla war (the reason it was studied by America’s Black Panthers) but also the necessity of violence in revolution” — and “equally important, it shows how oppressors — the French, in this case — conduct a counterrevolution.” As Peary argues, “you won’t believe that the shots of women planting bombs”:

… “and those of innocent people being killed aren’t real,” and “you’ll also feel you’re watching history when the French close in on some holed-up Algerian leaders.”

I should point out that Peary’s analysis of this “fascinating, thrilling” film is just one of many that have emerged since its highly contested release (it wasn’t shown in France for five years), with Criterion’s DVD release including numerous extras for those who would like to dive even deeper. Just part of this movie’s own storied history is that it was screened by the Pentagon in 2003 “for officers and civilian experts who were discussing the challenges faced by the US military forces in Iraq” (and as of the exact day I’m writing this, it remains enormously relevant for different but related reasons).

Indeed, as “fascinating” and “thrilling” as this film may be (and it is expertly crafted), it’s also deeply disturbing and hard to watch, precisely because of its authenticity. To that end, the filmmakers don’t shy away from depicting horrors and challenges on both sides — including, for instance, children mercilessly harassing a drunk man on the street after the FLN prohibited “the sale and use of all drugs and alcoholic drink.”

(We also see explicit scenes of torture, which were excluded from earlier versions of the film). Regardless of its challenging content, however, this remains a masterful depiction of revolutionary (and counter-revolutionary) tactics, and holds a deserved role in global cinematic history.

Note: For those seeking more precise historical context on the era, I recommend this video on The Cold War channel.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marcello Gatti’s cinematography
  
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring cinematic classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Movie Diva Review
• WSWS Review
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
When a suddenly-mute actress (Liv Ullmann) is sent to an island to recuperate with help from a young nurse (Bibi Andersson), the two women’s identities slowly become merged.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Ingmar Bergman Films
• Liv Ullmann Films
• Mental Breakdown
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Ingmar Bergman’s intense, powerful film” — one of the most analyzed in all of cinematic history — “has tremendous impact on American viewers,” ushering “in a new era of Bergman films.” He writes, “It excited us not only because it made us aware of the filmmaking process… and the unique power film has to tell stories, make personal and/or political points, and probe the minds of characters, but also because it dealt with themes that were relevant: isolation, identity, alienation, communication, loneliness, guilt, horror, [and] schizophrenia.”

Peary points out that, famously, “Bergman places the two actresses, who resemble each other, in close proximity and uses camera tricks (superimpositions/split screen) to make it seem as if two different women were fusing into one character.”

This brings up countless questions and points of contention: “Could it be that they’re exchanging identities? Are the two women the split halves of a schizophrenic woman? If so, then is the nurse real and the actress imaginary? Or is it the actress who is real? Or, perhaps, is this woman neither an actress nor a nurse?” Peary notes that “Bergman doesn’t let us know the answers,” adding that “Figuring out — or not being able to figure out — the puzzle is much of the fun.”

I wouldn’t exactly say “fun” is the most accurate word, given how dark so much of this film is; perhaps “intrigue” is a better choice. And with that said, not everyone will be taken with a story this “meta” — a film which not only critically explores complex issues of identity and psychology but plays its cinematic experimental hand so openly. So much has been written and debated about this film that first-time viewers are recommended to simply dive in and see what sense they make of it; there’s no right or wrong.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bibi Andersson as Alma
  
• Liv Ullmann as Elisabet Vogler
  
• Sven Nyqvist’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an iconic Scandinavian classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Criterion Essay
• What Makes This Movie Great? Video Analysis
• Discarded Image Video Analysis

Synopsis:
When a well-to-do housewife (Giulietta Masina) begins to suspect her husband (Mario Pisu) is having an affair, she consults help from both psychics and private eyes in learning what’s going on, and leans on her friend (Valentina Cortese) and sex-positive neighbor (Sandra Milo) to explore new potential paths for herself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fantasy
• Federico Fellini Films
• Housewives
• Infidelity
• Italian Films
• Marital Problems

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “difficult Federico Fellini film” tells the story of “a meek, passive woman… who suspects her husband… is having an affair with a young model” and thus “consults a medium, hires a detective to spy on her husband, and slips in and out of a fantasy world full of spirits from her past.”

He notes that the “picture has advanced, pre-women’s-movement themes” — such as that “women shouldn’t equate themselves with their problems; women withstand humiliation out of fear of being alone; women secretly wish they had freedom that could come only if their husbands leave them” — and he argues that “Masina’s feeling that she is unworthy and deserving of persecution and punishment can be tracked back to her childhood, when her character in a religious school play was raised to the rafters while being symbolically burned to death” (though the exact meaning of this connection isn’t clear).

Peary points out the “picture has such interesting themes that after a while you wish Fellini had forgone his confusing trips into the surreal world of Massina’s unconscious and just told his story.” He concludes his review by noting that “the casting of Fellini’s wife in the lead seems ill-advised,” given that “Masina looks like a Plain Jane in a world of flamboyant grotesqueness” (I agree, but figured there was a point to this somehow).

Like Peary, I’m not really a fan of this film — which, as many have pointed out, seems in some ways like a feminist “version” of Fellini’s 8 1/2 (1963). Gianni Di Venanzo’s cinematography (this was Fellini’s first film in color) is beautiful, and much care was obviously put into all aspects of the creative set and costume design:

… but the storyline is ultimately unsatisfying. While Fellini fans will naturally want to check it out, it’s not must-see for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Colorful cinematography and sets
  
• Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
No, though of course Fellini fans will certainly want to see it.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Criterion Collections Essay
• Village Voice Review (Part 1)
• Village Voice Review (Part 2)
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Video Essay: “Giulietta & Giulietta and the Spirits of Fellini”

Synopsis:
Six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese submarine is spotted off the coast of Los Angeles, setting in motion a host of responses from various military and civilian stakeholders.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Christopher Lee Films
• Comedy
• Dan Aykroyd Films
• Dick Miller Films
• Elisha Cook Jr. Films
• Historical Drama
• John Belushi Films
• Mickey Rourke Films
• Nancy Allen Films
• Ned Beatty Films
• Robert Stack Films
• Steven Spielberg Films
• Toshiro Mifune Films
• Treat Williams Films
• Warren Oates Films
• World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “pointless mayhem” — about “a lot of panicky and crazy soldiers and civilians rac[ing] around LA in 1941 thinking that the Japanese are launching a full-scale invasion” — “was directed by Steven Spielberg,” it’s “the type of comedy (i.e., Casino Royale) that looks like it was directed by anyone who came along.” He points out that while “at the outset the film has some period flavor” and “introduces some interesting characters”:

… “it becomes increasingly stupid.” Indeed, it’s “alternately smutty, racist, cruel (unless you think watching someone’s house slide off a cliff is funny)” and “it is always wasteful of its large budget.” He notes that given that “screaming, explosions, fights, car and plane crashes, and destruction in general seem to be the order of the day:”

… “one can understand why in the best scene officer Robert Stack would stay away from the chaos in the streets and tearfully watch Dumbo.” (This character and his actions were based on real life.)

The rest of Peary’s short review of this critical failure — though it did fine at the box office — lists the truly astonishing number of big-name actors either co-starring or making a cameo appearance — including John Belushi (as Captain Wild Bill Kelso):

… Treat Williams (playing an effectively cartoonish baddie):

… Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, and Ned Beatty:

… Toshiro Mifune (as Commander Akiro Mitamura):

… Christopher Lee (as Captain Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt):

… Sam Fuller:

… Warren Oates (as Colonel ‘Madman’ Maddox):

… and many, many others. Blink and you’ll miss Patti LuPone (seen here — blinking):

… and, naturally, Dick Miller makes an appearance as well.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• The incredibly filmed dance sequence
  
• Fine production design
  
• Impressive pre-CGI special effects
  
• William Fraker’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a one-time look for its infamy.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When a nameless bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) meets vengeful Colonel Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef), the pair unexpectedly team up to hunt down the leader (Gian Maria Volontè) of a vicious outlaw gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bounty Hunters
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Revenge
• Sergio Leone Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of “Sergio Leone’s follow-up to A Fistful of Dollars,” Peary notes that this film “moves from a mythical age to a time when civilization (symbolized by the coming of the railroad to the West) and recorded history emerge.” He argues that the sequel is “more elaborate, more imaginatively plotted, better photographed, funnier, more brutal (the violence becomes more realistic), and more overtly adult and political than the original,” and points out that “Eastwood and Van Cleef form the first of Leone’s unholy alliances”: “whereas Eastwood’s mysterious gunfighters kill to make money rather than to achieve revenge (he has no past)”:

… Van Cleef has a very specific reason for hunting down Volontè, which we don’t learn about until the tension-filled final shoot-out.

Eastwood’s once-again-nameless, cheroot-chewing gunslinger doesn’t have much to do throughout this film other than squint and participate in cleverly choreographed gun fights:

… but of course he’s an essential component of the film’s iconography. Van Cleef (in a role which revived his later-life career) also acquits himself well — though it’s Italian actor Volontè who pulls out the most dramatic acting chops:

… and it’s Ennio Morricone’s incomparable score — filled with “twangy jew’s-harps, insanely catchy guitar riffs, iconic whistling, bell tolls, church organs” and a musical pocket watch — which ultimately steals the show.

Note: Watch for Klaus Kinski in a memorable supporting role as an outlaw enraged by being used as a human match-striking surface.

His interactions with Van Cleef lead to my favorite random exchange of the film.

Van Cleef: It’s a small world.
Kinski: Yes — and very, very bad.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lee Van Cleef as Colonel Mortimer
  
• Gian Maria Volontè as El Indio
  
• Massimo Dallamano’s cinematography
  
  
• Notable editing
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as part of an essential western trilogy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review (scroll down to second review)
• TCM Article
• Matt Draper’s Video Review