"The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" Short Review (1 Viewer)

[steve jaros]

Of course we've all seen this classic in many formats over the years, I think the first time i saw it was on TV maybe around 1978 as a teenager. Eastwood, Wallach, and Van Cleef's characters are all iconic as is Morricone's timeless score.

Still, it was wonderful to view it yesterday, as part of Cinemark's Classics Series, on the big screen for the first time. This was the 2003 version, 175 minutes, 14 minutes longer than the standard USA release, that included newly-dubbed (2003) dialogue by Eastwood and Wallach. While the non-stop action has always grabbed me, I was particularly impressed by the humour in Wallach's performance as Tuco. How he wasn't nominated for a supporting actor Oscar amazes me.

The 14 additional minutes don't add much to the film but they surely don't detract from it either, and the 3 hours flew right by. The restored print looked great and Morricone's score was exhilerating coming out of a multichannel mix.

Cinemark is showing this film again on Wednesday, March 16 so if you didn't get a chance to see it yesterday ...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

While the non-stop action has always grabbed me, I was particularly impressed by the humour in Wallach's performance as Tuco. How he wasn't nominated for a supporting actor Oscar amazes me.

Well, he was not nominated because at the time this film came out it was considered B movie material and nobody took it seriously. I mean it could have been nominated for Best Cinematography as well, as it is a gorgeously shot picture. Beautiful sets and costumes and of course the amazing score. Look at the Best Picture winners at the time this was released (1967 in the US). Just a tremendous piece of cinema that, as you said, does not at all feel like 3 hours has gone by when you watch it. At the time though, the film was basically thought of as a joke or a Western parody by some Italian guy. It certainly was not revered as a "masterpiece" the way it is today. Sometimes it takes a while for people to catch up to stuff. This is why I think Academy Awards are sort of ridiculous. I mean in 1967 In the Heat of the Night won Best Picture...nice film but is it the giant influential and artistic triumph that is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? Not even close.

In the Heat of the Night won Best Picture because of its subject matter and because it was timely...not because it was the Best Picture that came out that year. Look at the following year, 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey is released...nobody has ever seen anything like it. Science Fiction is considered a B genre and so the film is not even nominated for Best Picture...Oliver wins Best Picture that year...could there be a bigger joke? Well, yes, there could. Look at the list of films nominated for Best Picture in 1968...Rachel, Rachel was nominated for Best Picture...over 2001...does anybody even remember Rachel, Rachel?

Wallach is awesome in the film. The story is his part was much smaller but Leone loved him so much he just kept making it larger.

 

[steve jaros]

Well, he was not nominated because at the time this film came out it was considered B movie material and nobody took it seriously. I mean it could have been nominated for Best Cinematography as well, as it is a gorgeously shot picture. Beautiful sets and costumes and of course the amazing score. Look at the Best Picture winners at the time this was released (1967 in the US). Just a tremendous piece of cinema that, as you said, does not at all feel like 3 hours has gone by when you watch it. At the time though, the film was basically thought of as a joke or a Western parody by some Italian guy. It certainly was not revered as a "masterpiece" the way it is today. Sometimes it takes a while for people to catch up to stuff. This is why I think Academy Awards are sort of ridiculous. I mean in 1967 In the Heat of the Night won Best Picture...nice film but is it the giant influential and artistic triumph that is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? Not even close.

In the Heat of the Night won Best Picture because of its subject matter and because it was timely...not because it was the Best Picture that came out that year. Look at the following year, 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey is released...nobody has ever seen anything like it. Science Fiction is considered a B genre and so the film is not even nominated for Best Picture...Oliver wins Best Picture that year...could there be a bigger joke? Well, yes, there could. Look at the list of films nominated for Best Picture in 1968...Rachel, Rachel was nominated for Best Picture...over 2001...does anybody even remember Rachel, Rachel?

Wallach is awesome in the film. The story is his part was much smaller but Leone loved him so much he just kept making it larger.

Good points about how a film's reputation can change and grow over time. That has certainly happened with this movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It is fun to speculate. If we got in our time travel machine and went back to the 1960s we would see films like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and 2001 were not well thought of...but now years later these are films we talk about as masterpieces of that decade.

So, not to hijack your thread, but if we are looking at films today what films will be thought of as "masterpieces" a couple decades from now? Probably not films that have been given awards but rather films that had a major impact on people and filmmakers that will continue to grow in stature and reputation as time passes. Films like this are often not embraced by a mass audience right away because much of the audience just is not quite ready for them.

What I think is very different now as opposed to the 1960s or 1970s is a lot more films were made specifically to fulfill artistic goals of the filmmakers but now most films are made to achieve box office success. The rise of "formula" productions designed specifically to placate the widest audience possible has created a "sameness" to so many films.

Nobody makes films like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly now, a giant three hour Western epic shot on a grand scale with practical effects...and no stuff like The Hateful Eight does not count because that's just a fluttering echo of a film like Leone's. Probably the closest we can come to it these days is The Revenant...which is a huge outdoor adventure film shot as close to the way it was done "back in the day" as we are going to get.

Long live Leone!

 

[lud]

Best movie ever!
Story,acting,characters,directing style, everything..