For a Few Dollars More 4KUHD

The Man with No Name leaves town on his horse, as Ennio Morricone's "The Vice of Killing" plays. Indio and his gang have just pulled the ultimate bank robbery, and The Man with No Name is after them. In the background, The Man in Black leaves town also, but he takes a different path. He's after Indio, too--and he won't let The Man with No Name do it without him.The movie is Sergio Leone's "For a Few Dollars More" (1965). It is my #2 movie of all time, and I consider it the quintessential Western.From the opening jaw-harp, and the whistling and the bells, we know we're in for a ride. Lee Van Cleef is The Man in Black, and he's actually a good guy. In the first several decades of the Western genre, the bad guys wore black. Leone changed that. Van Cleef made a name for himself playing the bad guy. Leone changed that, too.Leone had never met Van Cleef before making "For a Few Dollars More." According to Sir Christopher Frayling in his Leone biography, "Something to Do with Death" (2000), Leone saw Van Cleef in a photograph and instantly wanted him to play Colonel Mortimer, a.k.a. The Man in Black. Van Cleef had not been in a film since 1962--and he had seemingly vanished from the scene. Leone said, "Well I must see him at all costs because physically when I think of this character I picture him.""For a Few Dollars More" (1965) is the second movie of Leone's "The Man with No Name" trilogy, following "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964) and preceding "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" (1966). It's perhaps the least famous of the three, but I say it's the best. Clint Eastwood excels as The Man with No Name, but I believe Van Cleef steals the show as The Man in Black.They're after the same man--the man with the evil laugh. The owner of The Bank of El Paso is boasting: "Only a complete fool would try to rob us." The Man in Black says: "Yeah. Or a complete madman."Hmmmm. I wonder who that might be....Gian Maria Volonte plays the deranged Indio--and he gets my vote for the #1 bad guy in cinematic history. Indio is worse than Liberty Valance ("The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," 1962). He's worse than Frank Miller ("High Noon," 1952). He's worse than Luke Plummer ("Stagecoach," 1939). Angel Eyes (played by Van Cleef in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," 1966) is awful, but he's a crass, shallow character. Indio has more flair, and he gets more screen time, giving the viewer a chance to know him better.Let's move to another genre. Most of us know Clubber Lange, right? He's Rocky's brash opponent in "Rocky III" (1982). Indio makes Clubber Lange look like Mr. Rogers.We know The Man with No Name from this movie's predecessor, "A Fistful of Dollars." I say again that Eastwood is super in the role. We'd love to see him get Indio...but who is this other guy? Why is The Man in Black after Indio? "For a Few Dollars More" unfolds that.Leone's stories take time to tell. On the 2007 Collector's Edition DVD special feature, "A New Standard (Fraylng on the Film)," Frayling says Leone developed his unique style in "For a Few Dollars More:" "The style of telling stories in a rather elliptical way, so you don't quite know what's going on, you discover in retrospect what you've just seen." Leone's style, with its non-linear story-telling and slowing down of the action, has influenced such movies as the Quentin Tarantino classic, "Pulp Fiction" (1994).Ennio Morricone gives us a soundtrack that runs from the jaw-harp, whistling, and bells of the opening theme, to the majestic chorus of "The Vice of Killing," to the haunting chimes of "Sixty Seconds to What?""For a Few Dollars More" surpasses the more famous "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." I like Van Cleef better as The Man in Black than as Angel Eyes. I find the story-line of "For a Few Dollars More" to be more compelling than that of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is an ambitious film with some great music, but it doesn't deliver the way "For a Few Dollars More" does."For a Few Dollars More" is a cinematic tour de force, and it ranks #2 on my all-time movie list.

Classic movie

Good movie

I remember watching this movie on an old black and white 13" tv. I loved it then, and I still love it today. The picture quality is great (probably the best it's ever looked) and the sound is excellent. I watch my blu rays on my pc, I have a flat screen monitor and a thx certified sound card and a thx certified logitech) speaker system, so it's easy to get blown away. I owned this last on vhs, but I sold them off a long time ago to get dvds. I started purchasing Clint Eastwood movies on dvd, but then they kept coming out with collections and different versions so I started to wait until they came out with a concise collection so that way my movies didn't seem like they were out of place, with each one sporting a different "collector's" look. I wanted them to be more uniform, or to be left alone, with original art. fortunately I waited, and now I got it on blu ray. I have all three movies now on blue ray (Fist Full of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the ugly) and I'd highly recommend them to anyone who is a Clint Eastwood fan or a fan of Westerns in general. Clint is to the westers what Robert DeNiro is to Mob movies. Seems he help revive them back in the day with this movie, and then reinvent them with Unforgiven. I do know that some of the same movies that are on blu ray were remastered for dvd as well, so I guess it's a matter of which you prefer. Considering the age of the movie, they probably would look pretty good on both. Clint Eastwood movies seem to have enjoyed some of the better remasters out there. I also own the Dirty Harry Collection on Blu Ray and was happy with that. There are a few moments when the quality of the blu ray shows the flaws of the original film, but it's not distracting enough to be an issue. Also the price of the blu ray is reasonable, and not that much more than a dvd, so I'd definitely suggest you go ahead and buy the blu ray. As for the movie itself, I didn't realise how much fun these movies are, and how much hurmor there is. Watching it as a kid, I just loved the look of it and the attitude of Eastwood's character. considering how much violence is in the picture (though there isn't any blood and no sex scenes) you wouldn't think it would have such a humorous aspect. This is probably one of the first action films to use humor to diffuse the more violent aspects. The movie also has heart, Eastwood's character ends up helping someone when she had no one else to turn to, just when you think he's just in it for the money, you find out, he's not as greedy as everyone else around him. Though the games he plays between the two rival gangs, seemed to me as if being a good samaritan wasn't worth it. But, hey, I'm not Clint Eastwood, I'm not fast on the draw. For an old school good time, pick up this movie in whatever format you wish, and enjoy it. It's worth every penny and a few dollars more.