MovieChat Forums > Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1967) Discussion > Why is this higher than For A Few Dollar...

Why is this higher than For A Few Dollars More?

posted 9 years ago by jgroub
24 replies | jump to latest

I just finished watching the trilogy for the first time. Fistful was laughably bad; there, I said, I stand by it. See my list of reasons why it's so bad at that board.

But FAFDM? Wow! That's some great picture. Start to finish, I was riveted. Had no idea what was going to happen, great pacing.

But this one? Okay, it was good, I liked it. I understand why others think this is a very good movie. But just as I had a list of problems with Fistful that I just couldn't get past, this one's got a lot of problems, too:

1. There was no reason for that bridge when the water is only waist deep - or more to the point, no reason for fighting over or keeping that bridge.

2. The bridge is in the wrong location anyway; just 50 feet up the river, the crossing is half as wide.

3. Dynamite wasn't invented until 1867.

4. There were no trains anywhere near that far west.

5. There were no Gatling Guns in use in 1862, and certainly none that far west.

6. Trench warfare techniques were not in use in the Civil War in 1862.

7. There were no multishot rifles for Blondie to use that far out west in 1862.

8. Not all of the Confederates would be in gray uniforms in 1862 out west in 1862.

9. A captain would not be in charge of all of those men, or of that attack.

10. There were no prison camps at that time; and no Andersonville, which didn't even open until 1864. Before 1863, prisoners were paroled and/or exchanged almost immediately.

11. That graveyard was ridiculously large for New Mexico at the time - and with no town anywhere in sight. While cemeteries are located outside of towns, they're not located in the wilderness, miles from anywhere. And thousands of graves out in the middle of nowhere? Come on. Outside of a big town or city, maaaaaybe. And if you're thinking those were all graves of dead soldiers, think again. Only about 100 soldiers total from BOTH SIDES died in the largest battles in the New Mexico territory.

Now, as opposed to Fistful, I don't have a major problem with these errors, because, for the most part, except for the first couple about the bridge, and the last one about the cemetery, they're not so incredibly stupid as to ruin the movie for me.

BUT - that being said, they do detract from the overall movie experience for me. Why don't they detract from it for you?

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] Arthur_Lemming_of_the_BDA 9 years ago

Because it's better. Well, a lot of people, including me, say so. That shouldn't detract your enjoyment of either, really. You don't have to agree with the general public.

Yum yum.

[–] meguroutsubo 8 years ago

Just because the soldier, Arch Stanton, was killed on "3 February 1862" does not mean that the rest of the film takes place in 1862, does it? It could've been in 1863 or 1864.

But a lot of the facts you cite are only known to Civil War aficionados; most of us have a hard time knowing exactly which states constituted the Confederacy and which the Union (not to mention those which hadn't even joined the US yet). So Leone is giving us an interpretation of the Civil War based on its most commonly-known facts. The Civil War is a backdrop to these films, and its major issue, slavery, is not even mentioned in the movie.

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

I think they're both equally as good as the other. I'd give this one the slight edge though for how epic it is in comparison. I watch both these movies all the time and Fistful of Dollars only a handful of times. I absolutely love the score from all 3 though. Ennio Morricone helped make all 3 of these better with his music, so classic.

[–] simonxlong 8 years ago

I've seen this film a doaen times and I never realized this film was supposed to be set in 1862. I would have guessed 1864. Everything about the mood of the film argues that the war has been going on for years, from the depiction of Gen. Kirby Smith as old, worn out and tired to the drunken captain commanding a regiment because all his superiors were probably dead. Even the cemetery in the middle of nowhere I thought of as a military cemetery near what was a battlefield, hence its isolation. Everything about this film screams late war period, not 1862.