lofuagfy

I just watched this film interestingly today, in light of the fact that clearly it should be incredible or something to that effect. I'm recently persuaded that the main individuals who really like this rubbish, are old to the point that they are starting to go decrepit and are having not kidding mental issues. Above all else, the coordinating. It's only completely terrible. Simply a ton of talking and whimpering. Where could all the activity have been? Where could the climactic fight have been? Presently I've heard that this film should be about youth. For what reason doesn't Kane just battle his adolescence? brief scene toward the end where kane in a real sense thoroughly demolishes a more youthful kane utilizing the sled. It would be graceful, and such an improvement of the awful consummation we get in the real film. Next we have the altering. So awful. Simply decide on which story you will tell. Quit changing between various ones continually you schizo. Did your manager blow up and simply begin assaulting the film and sticking it together like a baby does with their "specialty"? Cause it sure seems as though it. After that we have the alleged "advancement". This film Is so nonexclusive I can scarcely even beginning with this point. I've seen this load of stuff previously.More so than the overseer of kane was. Orson welles is such a misrepresentation with such stupid endeavors at "advancements". Assuming they are so inventive orson, why have I seen them all previously. Hah. Checkmate. At long last, we have the primary storyline itself. Kane is so stressed over his adolescence continually. For what reason doesn't he basically grow up as of now! There, film is settled. What a crazy plothole. Taking everything into account. Citizen kane is an exaggerated catastrophe of a film, and orson welles is a horrendous chief. He once obviously said that you could get the hang of filmmaking in a day and a half. Well it sure resembles that is comparably lengthy as he spent on any of them!

Sergio Leone will one day, maybe fifty years from now, replace Mister Wood on every critic's list as the worst movie director of all time. He'll at least make the top ten. At least Wood could make a story interesting, at least one character you might care about, and didn't have the gigantic Leone budget. Leone fails on every level. The story is very disjointed. It's mostly just comically unrealistic gunplay, with some guys being able to kill minor characters from great distances, but unable to kill major stars that should be easier. That's nothing new, but the circumstances are quite laughable. The story is just killing after killing, to take land away, and it follows sadist Henry Fonda, and his opponents, Charles Bronson and Jason Robards. Jack Elam appears in what amounts to a cameo. The characters aren't much to like. Bronson makes little jokes like an underdog hero of a Japanese movie, but the plot is so bad, and the characters so unlikable, you don't really care. To be fair, they aren't as unlikable as other spaghetti Westerns, but they don't have any appeal, either. You struggle to watch the film. You won't be able to do in one sitting. You'll have to watch a piece at a time, because you will fall to sleep. What makes the movie a bomb is the use of such outstanding cool music that neither matches or contrasts the situation. It falls flat, and it is a waste of good music.

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.

Before i start reviewing i am a big Nolan fan here. Doodlebug, Memento, The Prestige, Inception, **** starts off well enough, and the backward visuals look interesting enough, but gradually everything starts to feel very gimmicky.I couldn't even hear what the characters were saying. Nolan, I have loved your stories in the past. What happened?