For a Few Dollars More (1967)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

One of my all time favorites.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

"For a Few Dollars More" is a highly enjoyable spaghetti western film. Situations and the plot are designed specifically for the fans of this genre. It is the 2nd film of the Dollars trilogy, which is also known as The Man with No Name. The films in the trilogy have nothing to do with each other in the means of story, but after seeing the 2nd film, it starts to make sense to me why they are called a trilogy. Even though the stories are completely unrelated, these films are gathered more or less around a similar plot. Soundtracks are equally beautiful, the leading actor, Clint Eastwood, stars in all three films. Even the names of the first two films are completing each other. "For a Few Dollars More" is more serious and complex compared to the first film of the trilogy, A Fistful of Dollars. From the point of view of action and story, I find this one more satisfying. You can feel that, in "For a Few Dollars More," director Sergio Leone has more trust in himself because of the success of the first film. He is more focused and his distinctive directing style is more visible in this one. The leading actors Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef are completing each other. The villain El Indio, played by Gian Maria Volonte, seems to be the evilest character of the Western films I have ever seen. Besides the performances, soundtracks and the western atmosphere are the strongest points of the film. Even though there is well-structured story, you get the feeling that, things are happening based on the situations. It seems like the characters don't follow a plan, but react to incidents. This makes the film more complex and hard to anticipate.Lee Van Cleef, as Colonel Douglas Mortimer, is added to the second film as an experienced bounty hunter. This gives Sergio Leone a strong hand to play with, he is not limited in the means of characters. This liberty makes him create a better, a more independent story. Clint Eastwood, as Manco, is the other bounty hunter. His role is more or less the same as the first film. He wears the same clothes, talks the same, acts the same and even the way he smokes his tobacco is the same. He is a complete icon for western films. He shares the leading role with Lee Van Cleef, and this removes the responsibility from his shoulders to carry the film on his own. Sergio Leone uses Eastwood in the roles that are more suitable for him, which creates a more reliable character.Both Colonel Douglas Mortimer and Manco are highly talented gunmen, who make living out of the prize money issued for capturing or killing outlaws on the loose. We get to know Colonel Mortimer, Manco and the psychopath outlaw El Indio in the first scenes of the film. These scenes create a credibility for the future references. We are highly aware of what these men are capable of doing. After El Indio is taken out from the jail by his gang, a prize money of 10k USD is issued on his head. Mortimer and Manco decide to go after this guy, for different reasons, which are revealed in the end of the film. When they find out about each other, they decide to team up against El Indio and his gang.The film plays host for the iconic scenes where Mortimer and Manco shoot each other's hats, or the old man talking about the train company who wanted to buy his house to make a railway for the train and how he didn't sell it. "For a Few Dollars More" is a film where English-speaking guys are leading the roles made by Italian speaking people. Like the first film, this one is also a co-production of Italy, West Germany and Spain. Clint Eastwood's presence was critical for the second film, and it was not easy to convince him to star in it because he hasn't seen the first film and didn't know what to expect from it. So, the production company sent a copy of the film to him, which was Italian back then, and Eastwood gathered his friends and watched it. Based on his friends' positive feedbacks he accepted the role for a total sum of 50K USD which is 3 times more than his salary for the previous film. "For a Few Dollars More" has everything in it about western genre. It is action packed, highly enjoyable and satisfying. Because of the reasons I have counted above, "For a Few Dollars More" is one of the best films of its genre.

I was late to the party on this one. I always liked it but after a number of viewings spanning several decades I finally appreciate it's greatness. Leone took his time telling a story. But for me, "For a Few Dollars More" is the only one that doesn't seem to be just a bit too long. Great stuff right from the get go.

Leone's true masterpieces, and quite possibly Leone's most "watchable" film. A Fistful of Dollars is a great film: revolutionary, gritty, violent, and fun, and it certainly was the true beginning of a monumental change in westerns. However, this is the first film where Leone's brilliance fully comes to the front. On the other hand, while not quite as famous (in the English-speaking world) as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (GBU) and perhaps not quite as great a cinematic achievement as GBU or Once Upon a Time in the West (OUTIW), this film is nevertheless not far behind those clear masterpieces. The characteristic Leone visual style and incredible artistry are very powerful here. Although some of this is evident in small amounts in the previous film, here we really get to see the incredible, revolutionary close-ups and the contrast between close- ups and long shots. These and other images are powerful and beautiful. The film also brings the deliberate pacing and wonderful, almost unbearable, build-up of tension before quick action. Leone's sense of irony and brilliant weaving together of various motifs and symbols (particularly religious) also comes to the forefront in this film, as does the humour. Just seeing the quality of the images, the photography, and the cool faces (I can't imagine a western hunter with other type of face), makes this movie excellent. The plot is not very complicated and you can argue some decisions made by the villain, but even with that, I think is very intelligent and probably by that you can't guess what is next. Eastwood, Cliff and 'El Indio' are good in their roles and the direction of Leone is superb. No doubt, Leone can be considered the best western director of all time, not by one movie but for his complete work. This would be the only film from the Dollars Trilogy (between A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, The Bad.& the Ugly) that isn't an Empire 5-star rated film. So, in order to complete the trilogy, I decided to watch this one anyway to satisfy my need for completion to see why it wasn't awarded the prestigious five stars. Compared with A Fistful Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More is a far more developed film, albeit a completely different story. The stories lead into each other though (although you don't need to watch the first to understand the second), as The Man With No Name continues his bounty work which we are introduced to in the predecessor. As "Fistful" did, "Few Dollars More" has plenty of throwaway moments and parts that are shallow and uninteresting, but the style is one all of its own and Leone deserves continued celebration for the way his movies rewrote the essentials of the Western formula. Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef are bounty hunters on the trail of El Indio (Gian Maria Volontè). Eastwood is out for the money, but Van Cleef has other motives. Bullets fly, bodies are stacked like cord wood, and the action never stops all to incredible music by Ennio Morricone. The movie far outshines most of American westerns.Lee Van Cleef is great as veteran bounty killer and the same goes to Clint Eastwood. Gian Volante puts up a good performance as the evil Indio. The plot is a little slow but look at "High Noon" or any of the other old westerns.An all time great western!! performance of "El Indio" in this movie is real high class no doubt.

All three films of the Dollars trilogy are undoubtedly classics, but For a Few Dollars More is better than A Fist Full of Dollars and not that far off The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The man with no name strikes again, and Clint Eastwood is the man with no gimmicks, the guy just doesn't need one, he oozes charisma and demands respect without even needing to open his mouth. Lee Van Cleef plays a great foil for the western legend, but his natural charm and efficiency has to give way for that of Eastwood's, you just knew from the beginning of their partnership who would walk away looking stronger, nobody outshines Eastwood, nobody. I like westerns for their vastness and attempts to venture into the unknown, spaghetti westerns are a particular favourite, Sergio Leone is capable of assembling a cast of relatively unknown foreigners to star alongside the two American leads and just make it work, make a classic out of it. The Dollars trilogy are proper old school, grown up films..., a time before the younger generations took control, cluttered with prima donas and kids who consider themselves to be hard, no-no you're not hard, not at all, Clint Eastwood's hard, the older generations were hard, and this trilogy of films is a shining example. I loved the sound of the gunfire echoing and reverberating across the landscape, loud and raw, you don't get that in film anymore..., I loved Ennio Morricone's haunting score, some of the best music in film I've ever heard, the closet thing to perfect you'll ever hear..., and I loved the slower more methodical pacing of the film, it doesn't go head first or a hundred miles an hour, it's slow at times almost to a crawl, it builds tension and adds to brilliance. El Indio the main antagonist of the film is revolting, a hideous, heartless man with no morals, I was impressed that a character was created such as this without making him over the top and overly animated, he like a lot of the film is slow, somewhat lazily, but he's truly disgusting nonetheless. For a Few Dollars More was released during a transitional time in Hollywood, gone was the golden era but the New Hollywood era hadn't quite reared its head just yet, therefore I don't quite know what era to class this film as, I'm going to go with neither, it doesn't have a category, it stands alone with its two other trilogy mates, making all three films that extra bit special, they staggered the line between two distinctive eras. For any budding film fan or film student, all three films in this spaghetti western trilogy are essential viewing.