Running Time: 2 hrs. 41 min.
Release Date: January 1, 1966
MPAA Rating: R
Distributors: United Artists Films
Directed by: Sergio Leone
JJ Rating: B-
There is the Bad and he is, well, bad. Then there is the Ugly and he’s ugly not only in physical appearance but also in the words that fall out of his mouth. Then there is the Good who gets money by cheating the government out of rewards for evil persons he sets free from being hanged, well most of them. They all end up wanting the same thing, money that is hidden somewhere. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.The title credits used the gun sound effect so much I was sick of it by the start of the silent movie. Oh wait this isn’t a silent movie. What is with movies taking so long to have a first line? Is it creative if everyone does it? It’s only creative if the moments without lines are well done. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly would be in between 2001: A Space Odyssey (which was well done) and There Will Be Blood (which was not so well done). It was alright.
Three hours is a long time. I was falling asleep towards the end. There are just long periods of nothing that go on. And of course there is some sort of facial twitches that are telling some hidden story that hides from being interesting and then there’s long scenes that could have been way shorter and still gave the point.
The story was alright. I am not into Westerns. I think they are nothing special, even though I do want to see them if they peak my interest via the trailer. This one was just one of those movies that people talk about and suggested as good so I Netflixed it. I found it to be a drawn out story.
The lines were funny. There were some good moments that were repeated with a different character with the upper-hand and that added a nice bit of sour to the moment repeated. The weird thing was that the beauty that the movie tried to create with the abuse of the Ugly character. Not that it was a thing of peril when he was about to be hanged but a clear moment of hilarity. Him getting the upper-hand was not a moment of shocked sadness but odd humor at how he handles it. He handles it in a weird manner and yet interesting.
I was mostly bored, though. I cannot ever see this movie again. For what it is worth it is not a horrible movie, as in I can understand why people would like it. It was just not something I liked. I was slightly entertained by the wit and the humor but the gun use was nothing spectacular to me. Especially the overly cheesy hat removal via whizzing bullets, I know it was cool at some point in time, but not any more and defiantly not to me.
Clint Eastwood is just a polished cool that really no one tends to match; ever. He had the stare, the swagger and the eyebrow motions. He was not only a character that out maneuvered the others but he was the character that out cooled. That is one thing I cannot see anyone disagreeing with if they were to see this movie, that Clint Eastwood is the pure and the true definition of male coolness.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly had all three represented and represented well. I can now say I’ve seen the film and I can give my opinion on what I thought of it and upset many movie lovers. But that’s what I am good at. I am the person that loves movies that ends up loving really different movies than the average moviegoer. Though I have to admit that if I had the theme music playing while I walk into the room I’d be one BAMF. Ooh look BAMF---not only does that represent the exact words I want to use but not say, they also represent the noise Nightcrawler makes in comic books. Oh I’m more of a nerd than a cowboy.
If you have not seen the film you may want to see it with someone that has and likes it, and maybe you’ll enjoy watching a three hour gun slinging, slow moving, slow going but biting wit with dripping clever of a Western.