A Fistful of Fingers

Before spoofing zombie movies and action flicks, Edgar Wright took a stab at the spaghetti western. It's an understandably amateurish production with zero budget and baby-faced actors. Rather than the character-driven homage format of his later films, here Wright takes more of a rapid-fire gag approach, with echoes of Mel Brooks, Looney Tunes, Monty Python and Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker. It's a style that demands to be judged on the quality of its jokes. And there are some pretty good ones... I especially liked the final showdown that starts with a debate about the end of BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. However, a lot more gags fail than succeed. I'd say roughly 1 in 4 find their mark. It's not a very impressive ratio, but it could be a whole lot worse. If it's not exactly a comic masterpiece, at least it's generally watchable and supplies a few good laughs.

Graham Low is the Man With No Name and Oli van der Vijver is the Lee Van Cleef character in Edgar Low's first feature film.

As you might guess from the title, it's a burlesque of the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns, with a sketch of a pot and a lot of actors of whom you've never heard doing a mediocre job. There are plenty of juvenile gags, and it gives the impression of a bunch of amateurs who really liked MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL and figured they could do the same for westerns.

I was disappointed, in part because, while the flow of gags never stopped, each one was offered as if it was hilarious. When you've got that rat-a-tat pacing, you need to offer a gag and then move on to the next.

"The greatest western ever made...in Somerset"

Edgar Wright's official directorial debut, because for some mysterious reason his high school "Dead Right" doesn't count, is a parody of the spaghetti westerns, with an obvious emphasis on Leone, Eastwood, and even Morricone's music. The film is low(no)budget and the actors are amateur kids, as is the author himself, but you can already see all the elements that characterize his future masterpieces. From his trademark parody stories, through completely wacky characters and silly dialogues, to specific directing and editing, and refined sense of rhythm and detail. The humor is very reminiscent of Monty Python and, although it has some good and original jokes, it is mostly worn out and forced, but when you take into account the age, (in)experience and budget of the author, this film is astonishingly good.

7/10

Edgar Wright's first film is... not good, pretty bad in fact.

'A Fistful of Fingers' does work in small doses, though all in all it's rather limp. The early stages, the opening 25 minutes or so, are solid if hit-and-miss, unfortunately the rest is heavy in the miss department. There are some mildly amusing bits, the Clint Eastwood/'A Fistful of Dollars' schtick is decent but quickly runs dry.

There isn't much to talk about regarding the cast, they give alright performances I guess - Graham Low sticks out most, as you'd expect. The film coulda done without the Native American stuff, which is not only lazy and rather unsavoury. The, unexpected, animated bit was cool though.

The best part of this film? The poster. Noice.

This is very funny in parts and a send up of the great 'Spaghetti Westerns'.'Fingers' is high spirited, low budget production but i'm sure all involved, had a passion for the wonderful subject matter. You can't help but get sucked into some very silly situations and a film you can have a few beers before hand (no doubt).