Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Nitpickery -- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Hey y'all.  So now it's time to focus on the most popular of the three films in the Dollars trilogy.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a film that has gone on to make Clint Eastwood one of two most influential western actors in the twentieth century (the other, naturally, being John Wayne).  It's a great film that's possibly one of the best of all time.  It already appeared on my top ten movie list, and I have a feeling it appears on the lists of many others.

Spoilers!

For those uncultured miscreants who haven't seen this movie, it's the story of three criminals on their quest for gold during the Civil War.  Angel Eyes, an evil man bent on getting his own, initiates the chase.  He discovers that Confederates have stolen gold from Union soldiers, and goes off after a man named Bill Carson.  Meanwhile, Tuco and Blondie, two more scoundrels, scam the countryside by turning in Tuco by his reward money and rescuing him to secure the reward money somewhere else.  Their misadventures bring the two to Bill Carson first.  Tuco learns that the gold is buried in a graveyard, and Blondie learns the name of the grave.  Keeping their halves of the secret, they go forward.  Thus all three head out to a graveyard where the $200,000 worth of treasure is buried.

---- Top Ten Things to Say about The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ----

10.  This isn't a trilogy.


Sunday, March 16, 2014

Nitpickery -- For a Few Dollars More

Hey y'all.  So the next movie in the trilogy is For a Few Dollars More.  The strange thing about it is, many people apparently think this is better than the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  I don't.  Granted, it does a few things that make it a huge step up from A Few Dollars More, but in my opinion GBU eclipses it as it's more of a total package.  Few Dollars More has a division of both good and not so good.

So this is a movie about the Man with No Name -- named Manco -- who is going after a new bounty: El Indio, a murderous madman who's just escaped from jail.  The reward for El Indio is $10,000, and that's something Manco has to get on.  He finds out about a rival for his bounty, Colonel Douglas Mortimer. Mortimer suggests they team up to take out El Indio, and they do so, attempting to stop Indio from robbing a bank.

Eh, that's not the best summary I've ever done, but this is a fairly complex movie, and I can't explain it out without ruining at least some of its charm.  Or at least going on too long about details that are better seen than told about.

In any case, be ready for spoilers.


-----  Ten Things to Say about For A Few Dollars More -----


10.  This movie suuuuucks.

And this time I mean it.  Mostly.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Nitpickery -- A Fistful of Dollars

Hey y'all.  So the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (that I shall continually refer to as GBU) is on Netflix, and I've been watching it like you wouldn't believe.  Very obsessed, much.  So why shouldn't I do a review of this trilogy?  After all, if I love GBU so much, then shouldn't I know the full story of Clint Eastwood's character, as told by director Sergio Leone?

Of course, A Fistful of Dollars is first.  It's the story of the Man with No Name -- referred to as Joe -- who enters a town full of thugs and murderers.  Two crime families, the Rojos and the Bakers, have a deadly rivalry going on, and they can't stop antagonizing one another.  In comes Joe, who, through clever thinking and good shooting, sets the two families against one another so that they can destroy themselves and spare the innocent populace.

That's what I gather, anyway.

---- Top Ten Things to Say about A Fistful of Dollars. ---

10.  This movie suuuuucks.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Actors and Flexibility

Hey Y'all.  Been long enough since I posted anything.  Think I'll put some stuff up.

I was thinking about actors and what makes a good one.  Admittedly, I don't like most of the more famous actresses.  Most of them irritate me in the fact that they tend to play such one-dimensional feminist stereotypes, and heaven help you if you portray women having flaws!  

So this makes it hard for me to pick out my favorite actresses.  So far, the only actress I like, in one sense,  is Queen Latifah, and this is more to do with her actual existence rather than her acting.  I like that she proves that a woman can be both bigger and attractive still.  She's a good actress, in what I've seen of her.  Probably a fun person in real life.

The actress I would list as the most skilled (there is a difference between the best and the favorite) is Sophie Marceau, with Mila Kunis getting an honorable mention.  Notedly, Sophie Marceau wins the contest because of her face.  With the twitch of an eye she can convey a ridiculous amount of emotion and give the audience an exact impression of what she is trying to portray.  Her performance in Braveheart aside its King Edward is absolutely astounding.  

Mila Kunis picks up the honorable mention.  I don't particularly care for her as an actress (I'm not going to see a movie just because she is in it), but I do have to admit that she's very skilled.  In That 70s Show, a show I rather despise, she portrays this really annoying chick.  Then I see her in Book of Eli, and it actually takes me a bit to recognise her because she has done such a good job of becoming the person that she portrays.  She doesn't drag any remnant of her 70s Show character into the movie, instead being exactly what the script requires.  I was ready to forgive her for being in That 70s Show, but then she ended up in Black Swan.  You can say that film is as good as you want, but the spiritual darkness of that movie will not permit me to go anywhere near it.  I don't even like talking about it.   So I will now stop.

So while I was thinking about Mila Kunis, I got to thinking about flexibility.  Now, to a certain extent, flexibility is good.  It means that you can take a lot of roles and get a lot of money as an actor.  It means that you can become various people and do an artful and unique job at each.  There is, however, a limit to this.

Okay, so let's start with Eastwood.  I put him on the less flexible side of the scale, because most of his characters tend to be darker, tougher, and have a more or less brutal view of life.  This same theme plays throughout all the movies that Eastwood directs, where life is more brutal and harsher than what most filmmakers would show.  He doesn't play silly people and he's definitely not into fantasy or the imaginative.  He does change from movie to movie, but in the end he is generally crusty and violent to varying degrees.  

However, this is a good thing.  Eastwood does gritty things, and there is an audience for the gritty.  You, as a moviegoer, will think "Oh, Clint Eastwood did this movie.  I like his other stuff, so I'll go see this too".  As someone hiring for a film, the director would go, "Ah, I need a gritty person to act in my movie.  Clint Eastwood does gritty, so I'll hire him".  So therefore a certain level of less flexibility is very good in that people more or less know what elements to expect.

Johnny Depp, on the other hand, is far too flexible.  He's very good at being weird and doing more sarcastic roles, friendly roles, stiff roles, sad ones...etc.  He even said in one interview that he likes hiding under makeup and masks.  And that's the real trouble with Depp.  He doesn't have any concrete identity as an actor.  I can't point to him and say he's anything, other than weird and in some sense very shy.  Seeing his name on a movie poster means pretty much nothing because you never really know what to expect from the guy.  I'm not saying he sucks or anything, I'm just saying that his acting suffers from a lack of himself, a lack of his heart.  There really should be a movie about Johnny Depp, just him being himself.  That might scare the crap out of him, but everyone would like it.  

Yeah, while Mila Kunis is more flexible than Clint Eastwood, she's still good to go.  She's flexible, and yet she's still good at holding down the whole worldliness vs naiivety theme, which right at this point is her actress identity.  It might change as she gets older, as it does for some, but for now, yeah.

Oh, so here's the actors I like.
Favorites: John Wayne, John Rhys Davies
Most skilled: Denzel Washington