The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Gorgeously stoic art film.

There are two kinds of people, my friend. Those who love Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and those who resist the machismo and gallows humor of what is arguably the definitive spaghetti western.

An improbable masterpiece -- a bizarre mixture of grandly operatic visuals, grim brutality and sordid violence that keeps wrenching you from one extreme to the other.

Though ordained from the beginning, the three-way showdown that climaxes the film is tense and thoroughly astonishing.

A massive, many-faceted film that continues to hold up, viewing after viewing.

All told, and in giant widescreen, it's only blood-red adolescent fun, but it blooms like Douglas Sirk with a Gatling gun compared to the teenage demographic's current fare. Matrix, schmatrix: This is the season's supreme party movie.

A curious amalgam of the visually striking, the dramatically feeble and the offensively sadistic.

Excelente super recomendable. Para emocionarse hasta las lágrimas! Realmente muy buena

I really couldn't understand most of the reviews here that place this film as a great western or even the best ever for some fans. In my opinion this is just a watchable and good western, but not much more than that. I think the only possible explanation would be that IMDb reviewers consider "spaghetti" westerns a sub-genre within the western genre. If that is so, "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" would probably stand among the best (if not the best)in the "spaghetti" westerns ranking. But the point is that in my opinion there are no sub-genres within the western genre. So I analyze this film just for what it is: a western film. In such terms, this film has its moments, fine open-wide outdoor locations, good action gunfights (though hardly believable) and an acceptable plot. Good acting too mainly in Eli Wallach's Tuco. But what really demerits this movie is its incredibly unnecessary overrun; there's no way the story can stand almost 3 hours in duration and so the development is definitely slow. Overruning has always been a characteristic of director Sergio Leone; he sort of engages madly with some sequences and he goes on and on and on at it (the final duel here is an example with all those unnecessary close shots in the men's faces and eyes). Another clear sample of what I'm saying was the incredibly long -and even boring- opening sequence of "Once Upon a Time in the West", where Leone takes more than 10 minutes in the opening sequence where three gunmen are waiting for Charles Bronson at a train station. Come on guys, let's face it. "Spaghetti" westerns are "B" movies and even if at the very start they could have seemed sort of original and somehow enjoyable, once you take an honest critical look at them they're not great films but just good a few of them but no more than that. Sorry again.

Not boring. One to be watched once or twice in a life, but people are definitively more clever, sensitive and aware of the psychological ropes used at that time nowadays.

The Good the Bad and the Ugly. How about The Bad Actor the Generic Goofy Villain and the Only Likable Character would be the best words to describe this film. The Good the Bad and the Ugly is a classic of it's time and influential in the Western genre. However it is far from the best Western movie and is more suited to be watched on a airplane when people are about to vomit. It is overly long, overbearing and pretentious. The main character is cool looking but lacks the depth that other better protagonists have like Django Freeman from Django Unchained and Marquis Warren from The Hateful Eight. The Man with no Name is a flat, uninteresting, frivolous character who has the personalty of a run down car. The Man with no Name is more of a wizard with magic sharpshooting skills than an actually cowboy. Clint Eastwood is a sub par actor at best and his directing is good but he has yet to actually make a good script that would make his films a bit more tolerable. Sometimes people say you have to watch a movie twice to get it but two hours and a half of boring bullcrap is enough for me. Opinions are subjective and that word is kryptonite for film critics. Django Unchained is the best western of all time, so **** on that.

I decided to watch this movie based on the great reviews it received. Unfortunate for me, it was a complete waste of time. I came into the movie knowing it was long, but was told it was worth it. That statement caused me to waste 3 hours of my life. Anyway, on to the reasons why it was a waste. The movie itself had a decent storyline. The problem with this movie, however, was that it is the longest, drawn out movie known to mankind. This movie could have been played out in literally 20 minutes based on what all happened in the movie. Instead, viewers get to wait 30 minutes while it shows Clint Eastwood crawl 20 feet through the sand not saying a word. Against my better judgment, I continue watching, waiting for something spectacular to happen in the end. As the end approaches, viewers get to wait through yet another drawn out scene, of 3 men standing in a triangle pointing guns at each other. After, 10 minutes of watching that, I lost interest of who was going to die anyway. It literally switches cameras more times than I can count. Then, the finale comes. That is when I comprehend just how much time had been lost in this movie. I am writing this review as a friendly favor to warn you of this lame excuse of a movie, because no one was there to warn me.