Por uns Dólares a Mais

Exceptional performances by three heavyweight actors, Gian Maria Volonte and Lee Van Cleef - both of whom, it's a shame, did not have all that many more opportunities to shine in quality films after this one - and Clint Eastwood, along with taut direction, editing, cinematography and gripping and unique music (by the great Ennio Morricone), make this movie a real standout. (The music's almost a major character in this film, in fact.) Stylistically iconic, this Sergio Leone opus has an endlessly fascinating and spellbinding story that surprises to the end. Plus, we really come to like the co-heroes, Van Cleef and Eastwood - we want to befriend them and emulate them. Volonte was priceless as a demonic villain - his facial expressions rich with narcissism and a strange kind of violence-fueled euphoria no one else has ever matched in film history, for my money. Though he clashed with director Leone and purportedly did not like the Western genre, Volonte's performance rises above the film's genre and could be favorably compared to the best portrayed villains of other more mainstream movies. Volonte brought a realism to his character and an intensity you don't see in many films. But so did Van Cleef, whose work in this film is incredible. You'd have thought other movie makers would have rushed to cast Van Cleef in important roles after this film, but no. Very strange. Though some might question the wanton violence in this film, the truth is that the real wild west was even more violent and the violence often much more capricious and random. Like all great artistic works, this film never grows old for me. I am always drawn to watch it again and again for it is of such a depth and complexity that it only reveals more of itself with each viewing.

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.

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.

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!

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.