It's not Back to the Future. It's not The Godfather. Its damn sure not Lord of the Rings. The greatest movie trilogy of all time is Sergio Leone's Dollars series. Three movies that aren't exactly sequels, but are connected by one common entity. Each film is connected through the same hero, or maybe I should say anti-hero. The history of film has had many great iconic heroes. We've had Bogart and his raincoat, John Wayne and his six shooter, Bruce Willis and his disdain for European terrorists and we've had Clint Eastwood infamously as The Man with No Name. In Leone's first three spaghetti westerns Eastwood was his lead character. He didn't say a lot, stand for much other than himself and if you crossed him, he'd kill where you stood. The Man with No Name wouldn't sacrifice true love for a good cause like Bogie. No, this hero was too cool for that sappy stuff. Back in the 1960's it was a relief to the film world, and it still is today.
A Fistful of Dollars
Before 1964 Clint Eastwood was a generally a TV actor. America hadn't yet caught on to the promise he had. Well, Leone and his Italian westerns would soon make everyone very aware that a new star had arrived. It all started with this movie, A Fistful of Dollars. Now, if you read my last column on Akira Kurosawa you'll know that this movie was a remake of his samurai classic, Yojimbo. Most remakes aren't worth the fifty cents I rent them for at Family Video, but Fistful of Dollars is worth a hell of a lot more than fifty cents. Fistful of Dollars can stack up to any of the great remakes in film history, even if it is a short list. Much like what Martin Scorsese recently did with The Departed; Leone takes a story set in Asia and ships it to North America. Instead of feudal Japan, Fistful gives us the old west.
In a small village, in what I guess is supposed to be Mexico, The Man with No Name wonders into town and is immediately insulted by some of the local gunfighters. He walks into a local tavern, has a drink and learns the men who insulted him are apart of one of the two competing gangs that rule the small village. So, to repay the insult and to show off his worth, he asks the town's undertaker to get three coffins ready. He goes over to the gunfighters that insulted him and demands an apology. Having too much pride, the men draw their guns and are immediately killed by The Man with No Name. He simply walks over and says to the undertaker "Sorry, four coffins." He plays both gangs for all the money they're worth until it turns too ugly for comfort. Only one side can win. I'll just say the smart money's on only one man coming out alive. This movie's a western, but John Wayne sure isn't the hero this time around.
For a Few Dollars More
Remember how I said that these three movies aren't really sequels? You'll need no further proof than in the bad guy for the second installment in this trilogy. Gian Maria Volonte plays Indio, a leader of a band of outlaws who recently escaped from prison. He's perfectly great and totally sinister, but he just happened to play the bad guy in A Fistful of Dollars too. Now not wanting to give away the ending to the first film, but let's just say the character's not a zombie. Nah, these movies aren't sequels. They're not that boring. Each movie is a separate story connected only by style and one cool badass. Why bother with trying to follow one story? These spaghetti westerns had three to roll with!
Now, the aforementioned character of Indio did escape from prison to wreak some havoc no doubt, but along with a wanted outlaw comes bounty hunters in the old west. Indio's head carries a very rich reward, and so two bounty hunters decide to go after it. With the two not being able to decide which one is the better gun hand between them and being outnumbered by Indio and his gang, the two bounty hunters join forces. The Man with No Name (actually he's called Monco in this one) teams up with fellow bounty hunter, Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef). Both men want the reward on Indio and his gang, or do they? Monco is always a man of profit, but Mortimer seems to have a little motivation beyond his want for Indio's reward money. How does it all play out? It plays out as a sequel that's better than the first film.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
There are quite a few great westerns in movie history. The genre has fallen on hard times over the last few decades, but there's no denying the quality of movies the genre will always hold. Still, there's no clear cut one movie that is the best of the genre. Some could claim John Ford's efforts with Stagecoach or The Searchers occupy the mantle. Maybe some would say Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch instead. I pick Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The movie doesn't date itself as much as the best John Wayne movies tend to and it doesn't strip the genre of it's romanticism like The Wild Bunch. The gunfighters are still rough and brutal, but they still pull it off with a measure of glamour. Not to say I haven't enjoyed some of the more "realistic" westerns that have been made, but all movie genres are generally at they're best when they're at their razzle dazzle heights.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is an epic tale of greed on a "Sierra Madre" level. Three men all viciously search for gold buried in the grave of a soldier amidst the Civil War. One, the ugly (Eli Wallach), is a filthy career criminal that will use anyone to further his own ends. Two, the bad (Lee Van Cleef), is a psychotic General that'll kill anyone in his way and enjoy doing it. Finally, third is the good and The Man with No Name. Each man allies with another only to betray each other and join forces again and again. That is until all three men are in their own camp and standing facing each other around an open circle at base of the graveyard where the money is buried. Three guns for three men.... Who will win?
**********************
Why do I say this is the greatest trilogy in movie history? Well, Back to Future started strong, went darker and then tapered off in its finale. The Godfather would've come close, but the third movie isn't worth being mentioned in the same breath with the first two supreme classics. Lord of the Rings, well, if you've read my column for awhile (and why wouldn't you?) you'll know I'm not a fan. No, Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy is the best. It starts strong, gets better with the second helping and finishes with the most epic of finales. All three movies are excellent and get better with each following installment.
No other trilogy can quite get it right. They either peak too soon (Spiderman 2) or are completely mismanaged (Episodes I&II). Leone did it right! I guess it doesn't hurt when you have three great stories, one of the best action heroes and the greatest music ever put to film. For all the talk directors do today about their influences from spaghetti westerns, maybe they should look back at them before they attempt a trilogy. It's an extremely hard art to master, but it has been done before. At least once anyway, with these three classics!
See you in two weeks!
 email this column to a friend
|
| Out of the Past |
Every other Thursday
Discussing classic films from City Lights to Apocalypse
Now and everything in between and beyond.
|
| Andy York |
Andy is a life long movie fanatic. The first movie he saw in the theater was Back to the Future, Part 2 at the age of 3 and he has loved movies ever since.
|
| Contact |
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to Andy York by clicking here.
|
|
