For a Few Dollars More

Leone's 'A Fistful Of Dollars' is a bona fide western classic, but amazingly he managed to top himself with this "sequel". Yeah, I know it isn't REALLY a sequel. In fact Leone's "Dollars" trilogy actually have no connection with each other, and Eastwood's so-called "Man With No Name" actually has many! (In this movie Monco, in the previous one Joe). Most people seem go for 'The Good, The Bad And The Ugly' as the best of the three movies, but I think 'For A Few Dollars More' just beats it. Anyway, there's no argument that they are three brilliant films, Eastwood is super cool in all of them, Leone is on top form, particularly in this one, and Ennio Morricone's scores are amazing stuff. 'For A Few Dollars More' is helped enormously by Lee Van Cleef playing Colonel Mortimer, and the scenes between him and Eastwood, and the ones between him and Klaus Kinski are pure gold. This is not only one of the best westerns ever made, but one of the best movies of any genre released in the 1960s. It was also a highly influential one. I can't imagine Peckinpah's 'The Wild Bunch' for example existing without Leone. Words fail me praising movies as brilliant as this one. All I can say is WATCH IT NOW. Or if you've already seen it WATCH IT AGAIN!

This movie is the second best western i have ever seen with The Good, The Bad, The Ugly being first. I disagree with someone who wrote that this movie is not as good as A Fistful of Dollars. This movie is way better than a fistful of dollars. The reason is (as i pointed out in my other post) is that Clint's role or character is better when he has a good supporting member because it gives Clint's character more depth as well as throw a wild card into the mix. Lee van clef is excellent in his role, i still have him labeled as the bad but it was surprising to see him play a good guy in this one. Both bounty hunters have their own styles which meshes really good on the screen. Gian had more depth to this one which played perfectly into Lee Van Clefs character. In a fistful of dollars Gian didn't have much depth at all and some of the characters were annoying. I like how leone tied all of the characters into each other in this one, having all of their stories somehow play a role in the other ones. If you haven't seen this movie i suggest you watch Leone's films in chronological order with A fistful of dollars first, this one second, and finish it off with the good the bad the ugly. You'll be glad you did.

As the second of the three films legendary filmmaker Sergio Leone collaborated on with Clint Eastwood (not to mention his first with Lee Van Cleef and his second with 'Fistful' actor Gian Maria Volonte), For a Few Dollars More gets well earned respect from the fans of the director and the groundbreaking star. And yet, occasionally there are those who'll not even know this film from Leone and Clint exists since it does sometimes get under the shadow of their two most infamous works, Fistful of Dollars (which for the most part introduced Clint and Leone to the public's awareness) and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (which solidified Clint as a Western icon and gave Leone a similar status for film buffs). But taken as a film unto itself, aside from its place in the trilogy, this is a Western that simply delivers the goods, and it does so with a spectacular marriage of style and substance.

The story begins by introducing our two (anti) heroes, bounty hunters Douglas Mortimer (Cleef), former Colonel, and Monco (Eastwood), a drifter. They both set their sights on the leader of a gang of bandits named Indio (Volonte), who is plotting to go after over a million locked in a bank in El Paso. At first, Monco and Mortimer seem like their after Indio for the same reason- reward money- though there seems to be more than each man counted on with him and his gang.

From the opening scenes with Cleef and Eastwood, to the scenes in El Paso, and then into the set pieces in the stone ruins in the Mexico desert(s), For a Few Dollars More displays the utmost skill by Leone in his storytelling, as well as in his use of the camera. Using Fistful's camera-man Massimo Dallamano, Leone does what he does best in his spaghetti westerns- he creates a perfectly in sync mood with his characters: each look in a scene, whether it's intense waiting for guns to be drawn, or just regular conversation, the look of the film draws the viewer in without over-doing it. Some points are made bold or repetitious (like Ennio Morricone's score, that keeps its whistling theme and serene watch theme completely in check), though it's not done to any degree of annoyance or by accident.

In fact, that's what makes his westerns such fun, is that you take them seriously as films, yet he always reminds you that it's all in the 'movie-world' just by the way Mortimer or Monco strikes up a match. As for the actors themselves, Eastwood and Cleef are total pros in this genre, so ever line of dialog comes out naturally, and the supporting actors (however dubbed over from original Italian) all contribute great notes as well. At the least, it can appeal to a new generation of kids looking back to older movies, which may look at this and consider it more modernly crafted than a John Ford oldie. A+

Col. Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) and Monco (Clint Eastwood) are both bounty hunters. They're both after the bank robber El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté) for his bounty. They decide to join forces to bring El Indio and his gang of robbers down.

Lee Van Cleef makes this a superior spaghetti western. He's not only as good as Clint. In many ways, he plays a superior character. His character has secrets. He has mysteries. Clint is playing a much more simpler character. For me, this is superior to 'A Fistful of Dollars' in the trilogy. The story is more iconic, cleaner. The characters have more depth.

Excellent fun with sadistic humor from Leone. Eastwood's best performance in a Leone film. Van Cleef is good in a role similar to Chuck Bronson's in "Once Upon a Time in the West". He is menacing and sympathetic, whereas in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" he is just campy and all "bad guy" (but still fun). What makes both performances so memorable I think is that Van Cleef seems to be in touch with Leone's dark humor, where Eastwood is used as a straight man. Volonte is also excellent in the bandito role Leone used (an example of a standard European character type who reminds the audience of earthiness and the basic ignorance and greed of man). A much better film than most people who've seen it on a Saturday afternoon on TV probably realize -- you have to see these movies in the theater to get the full hit.