A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

This will be the first western I've ever seen. It was made in Italy so it's a spaghetti western. I'll watch it pretty quick as I'm pretty bored.

Review time!

As stated in the first post, this is the first western of any sort I have seen so I had very little idea as to what to expect from this. Of the three films in the "Man With No Name Trilogy", this is the worst according to IMDb.com. This wasn't bad at all so I'll probably see the other two films at some point.

The plot here was your typical western. Although I haven't seen any westerns I am under the impression that they're basically a shoot 'em up type of story. This had plenty of shooting so it fits the bill. There's a plot with it and it does require you to pay at least a little attention to know exactly what's going on. There's enough action in here that even if you're not paying any attention at all the film might still be somewhat enjoyable. The plot itself, while nothing overly-spectacular, was still good.

As for the acting, this has Clint Eastwood and a whole bunch of foreign actors most people have never heard of. Eastwood's character was pretty cool and Eastwood is perfect for this type of character. I don't think I've ever seen an Eastwood film in its entirety but this is the type of actor I thought he was. Due to their foreignness, the other actors don't speak a word of English so all of their voices are dubbed. That makes it a little tricky to rate how good they are so I'll say they're good enough. Eastwood, while playing the man with no name, is the only actor that really matters in here. Everyone else is just sort of in the background and they all suffice.

As alluded to a moment ago, the voices are dubbed. That's a little distracting as none of the audio matches up perfectly with the video, but it's not that bad. In fact, Eastwood's voice is dubbed as well despite the fact he speaks English. This film was shot basically silent and all sound was dubbed in later. This film had a very low budget so this is all to be expected.

Overall, this film is a good effort and is probably a must-see for any Eastwood or western fan. While the plot wasn't the most entertaining one I've ever seen, or even close, it's still good enough to keep the viewer interested throughout and leaves them willing to see the other two films in this "trilogy".

71.5/100
C-

UP NEXT: My next film, later tonight, will be The Bridges at Toko-Ri.

It is a good movie!

Give it a 80!

gs78 wrote:

It is a good movie!

Give it a 80!

Thanks! That's logged!

You are Welcome

I'm surprised you picked this over the instant classic The Good, The Bad and the Ugly - which by the way is probably about a 90 on your scale. If you're going to watch westerns make sure you see that first in order to compare. That and Wyatt Earp.

ScubatheHooD wrote:

I'm surprised you picked this over the instant classic The Good, The Bad and the Ugly - which by the way is probably about a 90 on your scale. If you're going to watch westerns make sure you see that first in order to compare. That and Wyatt Earp.

The reason I picked this is because my dad had the DVD of it and sent it to LA with me (along with the horrible The Sunshine Boys and the not yet seen Das Boot and The Best Years of Our Lives). This was the first of the three movies in their "trilogy" followed by For a Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Those last two both made IMDb.com's top 250 including #4 for The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Yeah I got all 3 of them. Good-Ugly is my favorite, For a Few Dollars More is real good too. Well they're all good.

They are good movies