MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Spaghetti Western/Stars: Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonté, Mario Brega, Mara Krupp, Luigi Pistilli, Aldo Sambrell, Klaus Kinski, Benito Stefanelli, Panos Papadopoulos, Robert Camardiel, Josef Egger, Antoñito Ruiz, Tomas Blanco, Lorenzo Robledo, Dante Maggio, Werner Abrolat, Frank Braña, José Canalejas, Rosemary Dexter, Fernando Di Leo, Jesús Guzmán, Peter Lee Lawrence, Sergio Leone, Antonio Molino Rojo, Ricardo Palacios, Carlo Simi/Runtime: 132 minutes
If there is one genre that I have always found to be, albeit unintentionally (at least that’s what I hope anyway), hilarious it would have to be the distinct genre of American cinema known as the Western. Not because earlier ones used pretty much the same 5 sets or the cast of characters were the same 10-15 actors who just merely exchanged clothes and attitudes with each other dependent on the script (or so it felt like). Nor for that matter is it because of the fact that all anyone seemed to drink in them was whiskey with a side of whiskey. Rather, it’s because of the fact that, when you really stop to think about it, a lot of what the Western genre gave us was fairly glamorized. I mean I’m sorry, but when a gunfight broke out in the Old West I am fairly sure that people were a lot better shots than they seem to be in a lot of Western shows and movies like Gunsmoke for example (heck even original trilogy Stormtroopers might be better than them, but I digress). Along with that, I also find it absolutely hilarious how they seem dead set on making everyone in them either an obvious protagonist or antagonist right down to the color of their hat with very little chance for someone to be a mix of both as is common in the real world. Oh and the good guy/gal always winning in the end? I mean that right there has to be the absurd icing on this cake…that is if it hasn’t already put there by the people taking part in the fight inside the saloon or the enigmatic individual with a past that they would rather put as far behind them as they possibly can. Suffice it to say that, as you can see from these examples, is it any wonder why audiences eventually were drawn to the so-called spaghetti westerns? I mean not only were the characters more realistic in terms of moral ambiguity, but the stories were darker and weightier from a thematic perspective, the suspense was genuine, the styles of filming them were unique, and the violence was actually…well violent to name a few distinctions. Yet among the various films that make up this iconic subgenre of movie magic, there is a trio that is definitely worthy of mention. That being the so-called Dollars Trilogy from the iconic Sergio Leone and starring the legendary Clint Eastwood. Indeed not only are all three of these movies wonderful examples of their genre, but they are also phenomenal films altogether. It is in this trilogy incidentally that you can find a film from 1965, and the slice of cinema I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, known as For a Few Dollars More and which I love with a passion dear reader. No it’s not a flawless film by any stretch, but with the aid of compelling work behind the camera and gripping work in front this is one slice of cinema that is an absolutely engaging and undeniably enjoyable sit from beginning to end to say nothing of a top-notch example of the genre of which it is a part through and through.
The plot is as follows: Taking us back in time to the long-ago year of 1872 and to that iconic and time-honored locale known as the Old West, For a Few Dollars More gets underway onboard a train about to pass through the town of Tucumcari, New Mexico. Or at least that’s normally the case. I say that dear reader because it isn’t long before a mysterious man, later identified for us as Mortimer, pulls the emergency brake and makes his way off the train with his trusty horse in tow. Now usually, this would be seen as a situation that might see the person involved face quite a significant legal penalty at the very least, but unusually that doesn’t seem to happen here. Perhaps it’s because Mortimer has a lovely smile, perhaps it’s because he’s got a nice horse….or maybe it’s because the conductor notices that Mortimer is packing some serious heat and decides to (wisely) avoid giving him too much of a hard time. Yet lest you are now worried that this man is a bad guy out to cause some serious chaos, we see that Mortimer himself puts that to rest by swiftly locating and killing a guy who is wanted by the law before then collecting the 1,000-dollar price out on the man’s neck. Indeed, in case you hadn’t two and five together yet, our new pal Mortimer here happens to be a distinct and highly skilled member of that infamous community known as bounty hunters. Yet, upon inquiring about another outlaw who has an even higher bounty on his head (2,000 dollars to be exact), Mortimer learns that another member of his trade has also been making similar inquiries. One, for all intents and purposes, known only as Manco and who, we are able to witness, is just as skilled as Mortimer when it comes to tracking, finding, and killing a target (plus or minus a few of their posse for good measure). As good as both of our heroes are however, we soon see that they are about to be put to a serious test. This is because in another part of the West in the wee hours before daybreak, a group of outlaws are engaged in breaking their leader, a rather infamous and quite psychotic individual by the name of Indio, out of jail before then proceeding to brutally massacre all but one of the individuals working at the prison (I’m guessing he wasn’t there for tax evasion). A crime that has managed to earn Indio a solid 10,000-dollar bounty on his head with the potential to earn even more for each of his gang members in the process from the law. Yet despite both being highly skilled on their own, we see that Mortimer and Manco instead make the choice (after thinking it through in their distinct indomitable style) to form a partnership and go after Indio and his gang together. Thus, can our dynamic duo stop this ruthless lot and whatever scheme they’ve been cooking up or are they about to be outgunned in the worst way possible? That I will leave for you to discover…..
Now right off, it should be said that the work done behind the camera on this cinematic outing is nothing short of absolutely stellar (despite the fact that the post-production English dubbing work done is more than a wee bit hit or miss throughout the film). Without a doubt this starts with the work done at the helm by legendary film director Sergio Leone and honestly this is easily another winning entry in the man’s iconic catalogue of work. Indeed not only does Leone do a masterful job here at immediately conjuring up for us an atmosphere made up of equal parts suspense and paranoia in equal measure, but he also does a wonderful job at incorporating contradicting between up close and personal shots with ones that were prolonged in nature so as to increase the tension and drama present in the film. Yet perhaps the key thing that Leone brings to this film as a director is the skill in which he permits the spaces when the music isn’t being played and the dialogue isn’t being uttered to not only say more about the characters than they could themselves, but to also spend a generous amount of time showing us how the characters look in a given moment with particular regard to their eyes and the glow (or lack thereof) within them. As a result, both of these elements go a long way toward not only enriching the cast of characters we are following in this film, but also in organically increasing the suspense in a given moment to such a point that when the guns do go off and people do get shot we are left on the edge of our seats. It should also be said that this film features brilliant work from the cinematography department as headed by one Massimo Dallamano who does an incredible job at utilizing the camera in such a variety of ways that it really feels like the film is less a motion picture and more a jaw-droppingly bleak and desolate yet also hauntingly beautiful backdrop on which a narrative is being presented to us. Perhaps the most significant element that works in helping this slice of cinema succeed on the level that it does incredibly well would have to be the nothing short of iconic musical accompaniment from the legendary Ennio Morricone (1987’s The Untouchables, 1986’s The Mission, 2015’s The Hateful Eight). Indeed through the utilization of such components as a church organ, carefully selected brass instruments, a chorus, and even a string section, we see that Morricone is able to do a phenomenal job of conjuring up for audiences an equal parts soul-stirring and poignant soundtrack that reinforces the overall atmosphere of the movie incredibly well. Suffice it to say that yes Morricone will most likely always be remembered more so for the equally as legendary musical accompaniment that he created for The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but this is undeniably a solid effort all the same. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in top-tier work from the editing and costuming departments at further enrichening both the world of the film to say nothing of the intriguing cast of characters that populate it respectively, it’s clear that this slice of cinema is definitely one that (a few minor quibbles aside) is definitely movie magic at its finest.
Alongside the impeccable work done by the various departments behind the camera, this slice of cinema is one that also benefits immensely from the equally as impressive work done in front of the camera by a truly game, and well-chosen, cast of players. Without a doubt, this starts with the legendary Clint Eastwood who is absolutely incredible here as Manco (or The Man with No Name if you prefer). Yes, there are those of you who I am sure will be left more than just a tad bit frustrated by the fact that the film refuses to give us any backstory on this character. By doing so however, we see that the film not only is able to make the character infinitely more intriguing, but also give him a mystery to him that permits what he does to speak louder about who he is as a person than anything he could say. Even with that lack of backstory in mind though, there is no denying that Eastwood still manages to bring a heck of a lot of characterization to this part that is brilliant. Indeed not only does he bring a subtly wry, with just the right hint of gleeful malevolence added in for good measure, sense of humor to the part to say nothing of one heck of a poncho and an aim that just can’t miss, but he also manages to contribute a ruggedness, an efficiency, a wonderful degree of self-confidence and a very blurry set of morals that have all managed to come together extremely well and in the process make this individual quite the endearing character in cinema let alone the Western genre as a whole. Suffice it to say he might not be John Wayne or Roy Rogers by any stretch of the imagination, but what Clint managed to bring to this slice of cinema with his performance here is nothing short than absolutely incredible which, when looking at Clint’s body of work over the years since, really is saying something. As phenomenal as Eastwood is however, he is matched remarkably well by the performance given here by the legendary Lee Van Cleef as Mortimer. Indeed Van Cleef does a terrific job, complete with that intense hawk-like stare of his, at making his character one who is wiser and more experienced at the bounty hunter game and, much like his younger counterpart, is an individual who chooses to let his actions speak for him more so than his words. At the same time though, we see that Mortimer also has a touch more humanity than Manco does which, when you learn his motivation for doing what he does, definitely helps to distinguish the character whilst making him a bit more layered than his reluctant competitor turned partner. Suffice it to say it’s a terrific turn and one that seems tailormade for Van Cleef and his skill as an actor. Lastly, this section would definitely be amiss if I didn’t take the time to praise the phenomenal turn here from Gian Maria Volonté in the role of the film’s main antagonist Indio. Indeed Volonté does a chillingly good job here at giving us a villain that is sadistic and unstable in the worst possible way yet also, in an intriguing wrinkle, someone who very much hates himself and is consistently haunted by those he has killed. As a result, we see that what could have been a very one-note character is instead made into a much more complex (yet still quite nefarious) individual. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid work from such performances as Klaus Kinski, Mario Brega, Aldo Sambrell, Luigi Pistilli, and a small yet pivotal role for Rosemary Dexter among others it’s clear that as solid as the work behind the camera is, the work done in front of the camera manages to match it in terms of quality in the best way possible.
All in all and at the end of the day is For a Few Dollars More a perfect slice of Western cinema let alone cinema in general? Sadly as much as I would love to say that it is, I am afraid that is most assuredly not the case though certainly not for lack of effort on the part of either the cast or crew. With that being said is this the worst Western since 2012’s Gallowwalkers, 2015’s The Ridiculous 6, 2010’s Jonah Hex, or 2007’s BloodRayne 2: Deliverance? Thankfully, for both yourselves to say nothing of my own sanity and peace of mind, I can confirm that this slice of cinema is one that is definitely leaps and bounds ahead of any of the aforementioned movies on that list. With that in mind, I have no shame in saying that I absolutely love For a Few Dollars More. Yes all three entries in the iconic so-called Dollars trilogy will always have a special place in my heart as both a casual lover of film as well as from the perspective of a reviewer of some skill and flair, but as the first entry I saw when I was growing up this one will always be a wee bit more meaningful. Indeed the work done behind the camera is absolutely impeccable and a true masterclass in filmmaking despite dubbing that is a wee bit on the unintentionally hilarious side and the work in front of the camera, with particular regard to the performances given by Eastwood, Van Cleef, and Volonté, are all equally as solid no matter how big or small their overall amount of screentime may be. Suffice it to say that it might not be the best of either its respective genre or in the trilogy of which it is a part, but even so For a Few Dollars More is one rollicking film that fans of both the Western genre to say nothing of movies in general should definitely check out if given the chance to do so. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself raising a bit of a skeptical eye the next time someone tells you that the West had to be fun simply because that’s how Red Dead Redemption makes it appear to be or when you see The Lone Ranger and Tonto save the day for what seems like the millionth time when it’s only the 366th time…or something to that effect. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give For a Few Dollars More a solid 4 out of 5.
