The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (film): entirely too long
I don’t know if I ended up with the extended version or something but I started to get frustrated at how long this monstrosity is.
Now I know that anyone who criticizes anything that Clint Eastwood is in runs the risk of invoking the ire of anyone reading said criticism, but I don’t understand what all the hoopla is about this movie.
Perhaps it is because this movie was ahead of its time seeing as how it was released in 1966. If we are comparing it to the cinematography of that time period then I can get on board with that a little bit at least because that stands up even by today’s standards. Perhaps it gets such high marks because it was so influential on other writers and directors due to its overall ambiance including the music and sound (the movie at times feels as though Kill Bill copied it directly.)
I don’t think anyone can deny that the director definitely captured the brutality of the desert in the methods that Sergio Leone shot the dry desert scenes (in particular the one where Eastwood is on a forced “death march.”)
-screenshot.jpg)
All the above qualities being stated though, I still have one piece of opinion that I would love for someone out there to attempt to refute: This movie is pretty boring and seriously doesn’t need to be nearly 3 hours long. I get it, it is a piece of history because of the “wha wha wuhaa” song and all that and the interesting method in which the story is told but what reasoning could there possibly be for a 3 hour long story? I was nodding off and was actually quite pleased when it was over.
I fully expect to catch some flak for my rating. I do not fully understand the impact of new filming techniques (if that is even what happened here) nor can I comment on whether or not this was Eastwood's breakthrough role because I don't know. I can only comment on a film from the entertainment point of view and for me anyway, I didn't find this movie terribly entertaining except for certain parts of it.
I apologize ahead of time to the fanbois out there but this one, despite its legendary status, simply doesn't do it for me.
I wasn't a big fan of Western movies when I watched this (am still not) but it was pretty boring from my view, way too long also.
I will be willing to watch a remake though, maybe out of nostalgia and with the hope that it gives a better version
If you try to compare “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” with some modern cinema, we will not see super-dynamic scenes. In the picture Leone you will find a leisurely course of events - slow, like floating frames, follow the movement of the character, sometimes from a long distance, and the same unhurried dialogues of the characters. Leone's handwriting is a camera that attentively watches the spur of the criminal, and after watching another minute for stepping over the characters. Even the shootings in the film are filed in an unusually seasoned manner without hundreds of shots per second.
In addition, in his paintings there is another pattern - the underlined irreality of what is happening. A classical western has a rigid cinematic form with reference to historical events, while Leone films, on the contrary, do not have a clear time and location reference. About the heroes almost nothing is known, except for rare hints about their dark past. They are endowed with superpowers of comic characters-types: fast shooter, clever rogue, and so on, making them almost invulnerable to enemy bullets and incredible trials.
I watched this movie in one breath, I did not even notice how the three hours that this film lasted went.
Growing up I think I watched it up to 5 or 6 times before completing it. Lol. I kept falling asleep at different points.
Posted using Partiko Android