Episode 133 - For a Few Dollars More

[00:00:00] Welcome back to Movie Mistrial, the podcast where we put the IMDb Top 250 on trial. I'm Johannes. And I'm Raji. Today we're heading back to the Wild West with Sergio Leone's for a few dollars more. Released in 1965, this sequel brings back Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name, now paired with Levon Cleef as a rival bounty hunter chasing the same target. It's bigger, more character driven and introduces a sense of partnership and rivalry that wasn't there before.

[00:00:30] But here's the question, is For a Few Dollars More a true evolution of the original or just a more polished version of the same formula? Let's flip the coin because today For a Few Dollars More is on trial.

[00:00:41] Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? Um, alright buddy, let's flip a dollar coin.

[00:01:07] I'm gonna go with heads as I always do. It's a 50-50 chance. Uh, tails. Tails today. Okay. Um, I will speak for this film. You'll speak for this film? Okay. And the witness will address this quote as judge or your honor. So, you know, I watched this movie after I finished watching, um, A Fistful of Dollars.

[00:01:33] And I have to say that the core functionality, the core foundation of this film is very similar to what we have in A Fistful of Dollars. And interestingly enough, it's also very similar to what we have in the final version of this film, which was the good, the bad and the ugly. It just seems like we're just adding characters to each film and just widening the scope.

[00:02:04] I feel like the characters are also not very deep. Well, we have, okay. The main character is the man with no name. Uh, I mean, that's not his real name. Uh, what was the name of it? Maricon. Maricon in this version? Um, anyway, I'll think about it. I'll remember that later. Um, you have him playing the cool guy in every single scene.

[00:02:32] Things are happening, but he's too cool, uh, to be bothered by it. Um, and then you have the character played by the colonel who is deeply impacted by what he's doing. So slowly, but surely the story of the colonel becomes a little bit more engaging than, uh, the character who is just doing it for the bounty.

[00:02:58] In that sense, you have a very unbalanced film where some characters have urgency and some have just the will and the need to get money. Um, and I feel like that kind of creates an imbalance between the structure when you have two protagonists who are bickering left and right and trying to solve the same problem.

[00:03:25] Um, and I think it kind of limited because it's not a very balanced, it's not a balanced story in that sense. Um, in the middle, the film kind of stalled as well. There were sequences where, um, nothing was really, really happening.

[00:03:47] We had multiple double crosses, um, multiple, um, multiple events that I felt like didn't push the story, um, forward.

[00:04:02] Um, and I think it's kind of like a Sergio Leone, Leone's, uh, Sergio Leone's, um, trait where he focuses the camera on individual people on the screen and just lets it linger.

[00:04:22] And there were so many examples of those scenarios where nothing was really happening, which is having the camera stay still focusing on individuals with the music playing in the background. And I felt like there was not a lot going on. So in a sense, towards the middle, it kind of stalled.

[00:04:43] Um, and it didn't pick up until the very end where everything just starts to fall apart, which is similar to the sequence in a fistful of dollars too. Um, so yeah, I'll start with this point and I'll give you the mic. Yeah. Uh, so a few dollars more, um, like I say it's, it's the centerpiece of a trilogy.

[00:05:06] And, uh, I, I think this film's arguably one of the stronger, uh, films in this trilogy. It is, uh, doing everything better story-wise, um, than, uh, what they did in, um, for a fistful of dollars. And reason being is, uh, we pit two, uh, traditional antagonists, uh, together to band up in the spirit of, uh, you know, our shared enemy.

[00:05:36] You know, we are enemies, but we have a shared enemy. And, uh, so let's fight them together basically, uh, which is satisfying. Uh, I think the story is a lot, a lot tighter and more, um, straightforward. We try to fight the baddies that, um, broke out of prison and tried to rob a bank. And I think there is some, uh, really nice surprises in, in the, in terms of storytelling.

[00:06:00] Um, like the kind of misdirection that is happening during the bank heist and, and all that. I think there's a lot there that makes, um, the Clint Eastwood's character, um, a lot more sympathetic. And, uh, on, in terms of story, I think it is, uh, a lot more, uh, engaging and satisfying to see how it plays out.

[00:06:25] Now, I think the, uh, the strong suit of this is the music and, uh, the set pieces as well. I think the, um, the genre defying visuals of this as spaghetti western basically is, um, really at a peak in this film. Uh, it looks, it is more distinct than in the first film. Uh, so it really helps having these different locations here.

[00:06:51] And, um, yeah, I think as a, as an example of a spaghetti western, this one shines really bright. And I think the performances are great. Um, understanding how this was filmed as well, um, with, with some linguistic issues and, and, uh, tribulations. Uh, I think it's remarkable that we get a film that is as polished as this is. And, um, I mean, it's, it's iconic. It's a good direction, good performances, great music.

[00:07:21] And, uh, there we go. I mean, I think you mentioned that the fact that you felt like, um, um, Clint Eastwood's character was a little bit more sympathetic. I'm not entirely sure, um, I find his character any more sympathetic in this one than I found him sympathetic in the previous one.

[00:07:43] I think that they are both characters who enjoy the gray because of their role as bounty hunters. Um, maybe, um, his character is not so killer hungry in this version than in the previous version. But I, I'm not entirely, I don't, I didn't see any, anything about his character that made him feel more sympathetic.

[00:08:14] I was more sympathetic to the colonel's situation where you mentioned the people who broke out of prison, found his sister, um, and, you know, did the wrong things. Um, I find his character, but the thing about it also is that point did not get, um, did not get adjudicated until the very end. I like how that point was introduced.

[00:08:42] Uh, but I do not, I'm not entirely sure if you watched the first 95% of the film, you would get that particular point, uh, from it.

[00:08:57] And I also think that this, the, um, reinterpretation, the, the perspective that was given by the bad guy, um, was also interesting because for all intents and purposes, he seemed, I don't know. Let me not say that. I don't think so. Um, uh, but I felt like we get to experience a particular scene from the perspective of the bad guy.

[00:09:24] He takes a token from that particular scene. Uh, and that token plays a significant role at the very end of the film. Right. I feel like that sequence could have been stronger if we knew what the motivation of the colonel was from the very beginning. Um, I felt like it got hammed in a sense.

[00:09:52] That strong part of it got hammed in at the very end. It felt more hammed in than it actually felt like it was part of the story. Um, is what, is what I'm, what I think. And there were many scenes where Clint Eastwood just was playing the cool guy on the scene. Like even in the very final scene when he picks up the gun and he gives it to the colonel and, and the colonel wraps it around him. And he just sits down and he's watching it and he's like, Hey, well, let the, let the whole thing go, go on.

[00:10:22] Um, I felt like he was not doing much to add context to the story. He was there and things were happening around him and he was there to just be cool.

[00:10:40] I don't, there's a particular scene that I remember where he moved the story along or, or helped the story in any way. Like the scene where they were outside and they were shooting at each other's hats. That was really, really cool. But all the plans, every single thing that came up was come, was decided on by the colonel. He was the brains.

[00:11:05] He was the person who contributed a lot to the pushing forward of this film. Even when, um, uh, was, what's his name? Uh, Manco. Manco. Even when Manco decided to double cross, the colonel was able to read that and appear at the location where Manco was going to be.

[00:11:29] So in a sense, Manco, who was Clint Eastwood's character, played cool. And the colonel played cool and calculated. And in that sense, the story didn't feel balanced at all because only one person was moving the story. And another person was just like, I guess we'll do it. We'll do it when we get there. I'll see you later. All right. Let's see the game go. And I felt like it was quite unbalanced in that front.

[00:11:58] I think the, the interesting thing about this is that we see two people that are very capable of their profession. Um, from completely back, uh, different backgrounds. We have to assume, right? One has a, has a military police background. The other one, we don't know.

[00:12:16] Um, but, uh, the, the Clint Eastwood character obviously is very skilled at what he does as exemplified by the, the hat scene, which is a wild scene. It, it, it, it's a little bonkers, but you know, just, just, just go with it.

[00:12:33] And, and the thing is that, uh, the, the calm, um, assuredness of the colonel when he's, he's basically just doing one example of, of his skillset in that scene with a very, just kind of grounded centered, you know, like, that's cute what you're doing here, but you know, I can do this too. And I can do it better, but I only have to do it once.

[00:13:00] I think that, uh, confidence in himself is, is telling and it's great. Um, that just shows that while they're both very respectable in the field in, in some ways, um, there is an imbalance. There's an imbalance of, uh, temperament of, uh, skillset, I think. Uh, and, um, also an imbalance of confidence in a way.

[00:13:28] And, uh, I think you point out something very interesting, how that imbalance and how, how the colonel is always kind of one step ahead because he's, he's not just a bronze. He's also the brains, um, really compliments the, these two, right?

[00:13:45] Because, um, sure, they both have similar ideas and similar kind of strategy thinking in a way, but being able to, to think that one step ahead really, um, helps them, uh, at the end kind of the fighting, fighting the baddies. Now, the thing that is also interesting is that there's an imbalance, uh, in motivation and, uh, you, you kind of danced around that a little bit, but, uh, we, we find out at the end that it's deeply personal for the colonel.

[00:14:14] And, um, you, you say that is almost a critique of it, uh, because it's not set up correctly. Um, to which I say, I think, um, that handholding that is happening in a lot of the films nowadays, um, where everything is reiterated and set up again and set up again and established again, um, is, is kind of the polar opposite in a way.

[00:14:42] And I think that is, uh, almost using the viewer as, as kind of a dumb person. Whereas here, you know, you're supposed to be captivated and, and engaged for the whole two hours. And then at the end, it's kind of the big reveal of like, oh, this is why he's doing it. He's not just in it for the money. Um, and again, it shows the, the difference in characters, you know, the, the manco person, he's just in it for the money.

[00:15:09] Basically, that's what we have to, to gleam from what is going on here. Um, sure. There's, there's warm and fuzzies about getting the baddies off the street, but the main motivation is money versus the other guy, uh, where it's deeply personal. And the money is nice, I'm sure. But, you know, it's like the, the focus is so different.

[00:15:30] So I think that, that, that contrast between these two is, uh, the strong suit of this film because they complement each other so well. And, uh, the, uh, the performances are great for this as well because they're so different in a way, but also so similar. So it just kind of creates this whole archetype of bounty hunter that is, uh, that has been influential from the 60s onwards.

[00:15:56] Like if, if we think about like Mandalorian, it's kind of similar vibes and similar story beats to a degree as well, but, but also kind of similar just character embodiment of bounty hunter. So I think just as a piece of influential cinema, this is great. And as a piece of, of genre defying a character building, this is great. And, um, I think the story that we have here is, is straightforward. There's not a lot of turns.

[00:16:26] Uh, we get the little turn at the end, a little delightful surprise, uh, that shares a little more light on the character. And I think this, uh, this is just a good example of a Western film with some stakes, with good locations, good performances, great music. And that's why it should be on this list. I think that the, the, the ranking and the place on the list is also adequate for this. Yeah.

[00:16:54] I mean, I don't have a particular problem with the particular place on the list. Um, what else do I have? Uh, I mean, I guess we can go into, uh, sidebar. Sidebar. Overruled. Sidebar. Guilty. Speculation. Here's a. Bailiff. Briefcase. Disregard. In my chamber. Stop Beaver on the witness. Arrest. We could totally be lawyers. Yes.

[00:17:22] Um, I'm not a big Western film guy. This is fine. It's fine. I, I think it's bonkers that you have a cast of characters that don't speak a shared language and you still figure out a way to make a movie that makes sense. That's great. Yeah. I don't, I don't even think the director spoke English very well.

[00:17:49] I think that's the reason why I think he started doing his Westerns in, in, in Italy and he gets transported to Hollywood and he starts to do his own movies out there. But yeah, you're right. I, but it also shows there's some scenes where the dubbing is so obvious that it's like, all right, cool. I guess the, why does it sound this way? Yeah. And then you find out later that they're not even speaking the same languages to themselves.

[00:18:18] So somebody is speaking in English and somebody is responding in Italian and they're like, well, I guess they don't understand each other. Okay. The thing that I found very confusing and also bonkers in a way is that we have the same universe as in the first film, same character, same costume and all that with Clint Eastwood's man with no name. But then we reuse actors in key roles and it's, but they're, they're playing different people

[00:18:46] and it's so confusing to me because I, yeah, the undertaker in the first one is the dude in mine, I think in the second one. And it's just like, for, it took me a while to figure out, oh, it's a different person. And it's wild. Yeah. Like you couldn't find somebody else. And the interesting thing is, okay, so this movie is, uh, the, you know, a fistful of dogs,

[00:19:14] which we've not reviewed and we're not going to review at any point. Yeah. But I happened to watch, um, was a good film. This was definitely better because it had a lot more twists, turns, the character was better. The bad guy was a lot more in depth and they gave him a lot of creases, including the fact that, you know, he was even trying to double cross his men. He was very intelligent. He was smart. Uh, but he was trying to double cross his men as well.

[00:19:44] Um, and they gave the protagonist a lot of reasons to want to kill the bad guy, including the fact that, um, what do you call it? The bad guy, uh, killed somebody's sister. Um, amongst other things. But I, I liked the double cross in the bank initially when they sent him to, um, they sent

[00:20:08] him on a wild goose chase to, uh, force the other cops in the current city to go to the city where they were being robbed. Um, and I liked that particular scene. I also liked the fact that, you know, they, the, uh, Connor Mortimer knew that that was going to happen and he planned for that.

[00:20:30] So in a sense, the movie is a little bit, is significantly better than the, than the second one, uh, than the first one. And then you have the good, the bad and ugly, which is a significantly better film than this. I, I like the good, the bad and ugly. It's almost like the good and bad and ugly is the, the creme de la creme of all the ideas that they were trying to do in this one.

[00:21:00] It has the music, it has better standoffs. They do tension even better than this one, even though the tension in this movie is very good. The story has a lot more twists and turns. Um, in that sense, I agree with you that this movie is where it deserves to be. Um, and I feel like, um, it, it, it's getting there, uh, with the second one. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:21:27] I, it's, it's like, um, the first film is kind of proof of concept in a way for the character a little bit. I think the first one was bonkers. If you just think about what's going on there that you have, uh, this dude show up in town and he basically, uh, pits the two different rival gangs in that town against each other and they wipe each other complete out completely. And then all that's left is an undertaker and a barkeeper. It's crazy.

[00:21:58] It's responsible for a complete, just. And don't forget, he murdered a lot of people too. Yeah. So, so that film was just bonkers in a lot of ways. So, so this film that we're talking about in this episode is, um, not as crazy because now we finally have an antagonist and the gang, um, that, that do something very tangible. I think somewhat the problem with the first one was that it's not necessarily super clear

[00:22:26] who's the evil, um, gang here because they're both just, you know, two gangs. Um, versus here we have a clear, like, these are the bad people. We broke them out of jail. Um, and, uh, I think that, that makes, from a story perspective, this makes us a lot stronger from the get-go. Uh, and then having two pretty strong, um, main characters that are, um, that work together,

[00:22:54] but like I said, very kind of same skillset, but different strengths, um, also makes this film more interesting. I think that, like I said, the, the, the Levon Cleef and, um, Clint Eastwood are doing a good job at portraying these people. So, yeah, I think this is a stronger film. Um, good, the bad, the ugly. It's been quite a while since we talked about that one. So I don't remember a lot of it, but, um, you know, I, I think this is a perfectly fine

[00:23:23] Western film for somebody who doesn't like Western films a bunch. It's serviceable. It's okay. Yeah, I agree. I agree. But I, I still think that Sergio Leone's, um, gets in his own way for the most part. Um, just like all his movies, they do a ton of like, um, stop camera just focuses on characters

[00:23:48] and it just zooms in or, and if they play music in the background, they do a lot of those kinds of things in all these movies and it's, it kind of, you kind of get used to it. Like once upon a time in the West, they also did that too. Um, so it's like one of his, his signatures, but honestly, this movie, they don't do a lot

[00:24:13] of talking to, you know, there's this, there's conversations, but if they don't have to have conversations to drive the story forward, they just rely on the stylistic nature of it. Uh, and the actions of the individuals doing the stuff in there, like the scene where the guy goes to the bank and he gets blown off. I don't remember any dialogue happening at all. It's like somebody comes out of the bank.

[00:24:38] This guy goes into the bank with his gun, sits down on his table, that whole thing blows up. And next thing you know, they're, they've carried the safe into the chariot and they're out of there. Not a lot, not a lot of conversations. The story gets moved on just by how stylistic it is, how interesting some of those things are and how the music makes you feel. I think the music at the end was very good.

[00:25:02] I think, I think you were right on the music being very, very engrossing, uh, as, as a means to tell a story too. The use of the stopwatch was very, very good. Um, I, and the fact that, you know, Manko had the other side of it too, was very, very cool. Um, I mean, he stole it from Colonel Mortimer, but at least, you know, it was, it was nice. It was interesting. I liked it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:25:32] I think that's all I have for this film. That's all I have too. All right. Well, uh, you know what we'll have in the next film? Dinosaurs. Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park. Until then though, where can people find us? They can find us on Instagram, on Facebook, on, um, X and on Blue Sky at Movie Mistral. And you can send us an email to contact at Movie Mistral.com.

[00:26:02] All right. Looking to hear from you. Ciao.