The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (5 Stars)

Clint Eastwood.

Lee Van Cleef.

Eli Wallach.

This is the third film in the so-called Dollars Trilogy, directed by Sergio Leone, after "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More". Clint Eastwood appears in all three films, but he's a different character in each film. In the first film his name is Joe, in the second his name is Manco, and in the third film he's called Blondie. The film unites him with two giants of western films, Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes and Eli Wallach as Tuco. In 1966 Lee and Eli were very famous actors in the United States, but Clint was hardly known.

Blondie.

Angel Eyes.

Tuco.

The film is about $200,000 in stolen coins which a robber has buried in a cemetery. All three men want the money for themselves, but they need one another's help to find it. They aren't friends, they don't even like one another, but if they worked alone they would never find the money.

It's difficult for me to understand why Blondie is called "The Good". It could be argued that he's the most immoral of the three. He makes his money as a crooked bounty hunter. He delivers an outlaw to a sheriff, collects the bounty, then frees the outlaw and divides the money with him. After this he delivers the outlaw to another sheriff and starts his game all over again. Angel Eyes is a killer, a hit man for hire, but at least he has morals, because he always carries out every job he's given, even if a target tries to bribe him to spare his life. As we see later in the film, Blondie makes deals with both Angel Eyes and Tuco, double-crossing them as soon as they are no longer useful to him.

This film is the best in the trilogy, and in my opinion it's the best western ever made. Quentin Tarantino calls it "the best-directed film of all time" and "the greatest achievement in the history of cinema". High praise indeed. The cinematography is stunning. The suspense is breathtakingly intense, as the story slowly rolls on from one scene to the next, never hurried. The close-ups are both eerie and fascinating. It's as if we're drawn into the heads of the three mian characters.

The film takes place during the American Civil War. It seems to me that the director's sympathies lay with the South. The Union Army is shown devastating towns as they advance, leaving hundreds of dead and wounded wherever they go, while streams of refugees flee. In the prisoner of war camps the Confederate soldiers are tortured and killed. If history were judged on the basis of this film alone we would say that the wrong side won.

For a Few Dollars More (4½ Stars)

This was Clint Eastwood's second spaghetti western directed by Sergio Leone, after "A Fistful of Dollars". In America it was marketed as the return of the man with no name. First of all, despite the identical clothing and mannerisms, Clint Eastwood seems to be playing a different character in this film. Secondly, his name was actually Manco. His name was used twice in the film, and both parts were cut out when it was shown in American cinemas. That's silly. The Blu-ray disc I have in my hand now is a restored version containing the deleted scenes, and I can verify he does have a name. He's called Manco, not Joe as in the first film.

In this film Clint Eastwood plays a bounty hunter. While hunting for a bandit called El Indio his path crosses that of another bounty hunter, Douglas Mortimer, played by Lee Van Cleef. They meet as enemies, but they make an uneasy truce with one another, splitting the reward money of $10,000. Instead of killing him straight away they decide to wait until he attempts his next bank robbery, because his whole gang will be together, meaning more reward money. As it turns out, the other 14 gang members are worth $17,000 between them. Their plan fails and they are unable to prevent El Indio's next bank robbery, but that means there's a reward of $40,000 for the return of the money, so the "few dollars more" is actually $67,000. That's a whole lot of money, even today. How much was it worth in the 19th century? The sheriff in one of the early scenes says that he needs three years to earn $2000. According to online information a sheriff today earns an average of $45,000 per year, so I calculate that the total reward money was worth about $4.5 million. Not bad for a few days work.

When the film was made in 1965 Lee Van Cleef was a highly successful actor, well known in American westerns as a villain, while Clint Eastwood was relatively unknown, so they received equal credits in the film posters. The film even opens with a scene establishing Douglas Mortimer as a character, and Manco isn't seen until 15 minutes into the film. It's interesting to see the way the two actors continued with their respective careers. For Clint Eastwood it was the second of only three spaghetti westerns, after which he returned to making films in America. This was Lee Van Cleef's first film in Italy, but it was the beginning of a new segment of his life. Over the next 20 years, almost up to his death, he made another 20 spaghetti westerns. In America he had been predominantly a villain in his westerns, but in Italian films he was usually a hero. Maybe all that he wanted was to be known as the good guy.

It's worth mentioning the appearance of Klaus Kinski in this film, despite his relatively small role as a member of El Indio's gang. He speaks very few lines, but the variations in his facial expressions from one moment to the next are fascinating. The more I see him, the more convinced I become that he's the best actor who has ever lived.

A Fistful of Dollars (4½ Stars)

I've watched this film a few times, but I couldn't remember what happened in it, however much I tried. All I could remember was the vision of Clint Eastwood as a character. Tall. Thin. A poncho. Sometimes a hat. A cigar. Always walking casually and unconcerned, however many guns were pointed at him.

Maybe that was the intention of the film. It's not about the story. It's all about the atmosphere. When the film was made in 1964 it was in stark contrast to the many American westerns that had preceded it. Fast action and fast shooting with a dash of romance, that's what American westerns were about. This Italian film directed by Sergio Leone was the opposite. It moved slowly and ponderously, as if the searing Mexican heat had slowed everyone down. Yes, there was action, and there was more blood visible than in its American equivalents, but it was short bursts of action. It was like a rattlesnake coiled in the sun, watching its prey, then suddenly biting, before settling back into its position.

Let me describe the film's plot in a few words, more for myself than for anyone else, because I might forget it again by this time next year. Clint Eastwood is an American who rides into the town of San Miguel, a Mexican town close to the border. He's warned that everyone who comes into the town either gets rich or is killed. It's a lawless town in which only two people do any legal work. There's an inn keeper and an undertaker. Everyone else is a member of one of the town's two rival gangs. Clint sees an opportunity and formally joins one of the gangs, but he plays the two against one another, earning money from both of them. In the first half of the film he seems to be totally amoral, deceiving anyone for his own profit, but in the second half he does perform some selfless acts to protect the innocents caught in the middle of the gang war.

The poster describes Clint Eastwood's character as "the man with no name", but in the film he's called Joe. It could be argued that this was a nickname given him, but I see no reason for this assumption.

"A Fistful of Dollars" is supposedly a remake of the 1961 Japanese film "Yojimbo". Sergio Leone denied this, but an injunction was taken against him preventing the film being shown outside of Italy. He finally agreed to pay Akira Kurosawa $100,000 in compensation, and the film was finally released in America in 1967.

Clint Eastwood made three films with Sergio Leone. They're referred to as the Dollars Trilogy, but even though he looked and talked the same in all three films it's not certain that it was actually meant to be the same character. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It doesn't really matter. I can't remember what happened in the other two films either. I'll have to watch them again.

The Eiger Sanction (4 Stars)

Jonathan Hemlock was one of the top assassins for a secret American organisation called C2. The kills were called sanctions, which was short for government sanctioned executions. Now he's over 40, so he's retired and works as a college art professor. In the summer break he's summoned back to C2 headquarters. They want him to perform one last sanction. The target is a mountain climber, and he is to be executed while climbing the north face of the Eiger, one of the world's most treacherous peaks. Jonathan is the only suitable assassin for the job, due to his experience as a mountain climber in his younger years. They arrange for him to get back into training so he can join the team for the climb.

This is a film that was loved by the public and hated by the critics. I found that after a slow start it was thrilling, as soon as the climbers were in the mountains. However, there is one question I have to ask: what was the point of killing someone during a mountain climb? Why not just wait till he comes back down from the mountain, worn out, then put a bullet through his head? The only reason for this is to give an excuse for the high altitude excitement.

Nevertheless, I have great respect for Clint Eastwood, who both directed the film and played the leading role. He refused to use a body double for himself, so he learnt mountain climbing a few months before the filming. The mountain scenes were filmed at 12,000 feet, only 1,000 feet below the Eiger's summit. It was an achievement in itself getting the cameras up to that height. The cameramen were all experienced mountaineers. The film wasn't made without tragedy. On the second day of the filming one of the crew was killed by a rock fall. That's a high price to pay for a film.

I've always admired Clint Eastwood as an actor, ever since he appeared in the spaghetti westerns of the 1960's. To me he had a lot more depth of character than other western stars like John Wayne. On the other hand, I don't understand why he has so much success as a director. That's his main job today, but I consider him average at most. In my opinion this film, "The Eiger Sanction", is the best film that he's directed. Despite the illogical mountaintop assassination plot.

Play Misty For Me (3½ Stars)

Clint Eastwood stars as Dave Garver, a womanizing DJ who plays easy listening jazz during the night in a five-hour show. Jessica Walter plays Evelyn Draper, a lonely woman who sits listening to his show. Every night Evelyn calls and requests the song "Misty" by Errol Garner. One day Dave finds her waiting for him in a bar and he takes her home for a one-night stand. This is a fatal mistake. After this she pursues him, not leaving him alone when he decides to turn over a new leaf and be faithful to his girlfriend Tobie. First her jealous rage is against Tobie and any other woman in his life; then she turns against Dave himself.

When this film was made in 1971 it was a shocking portrayal of a spurned woman. Today we would call her a stalker, but the word wasn't in use at the time. The film stands in the shadow of "Fatal Attraction", a better handling of the same subject matter in 1987. It could have been made better. The wooden acting of Donna Mills as Tobie is annoying. In fact, none of the characters have real depth.

As well as starring in the film this was the first film that Clint Eastwood's directed. That's something I've never understood. How can a person act and direct at the same time, especially if he's in the main role? It seems to be a contradiction in terms, since the director is the puppeteer and the actor is the puppet.