Weblog Assignment #4 Film Review
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
Overview: the film starts off during the days of the American Civil War, with Tuco (Wallach, Nuts), a notorious Mexican bandit with a bounty on his head. Eastwood plays the nicknamed Blondie, the bounty hunter who claims the reward for Tuco's capture, but just as Tuco is about to hang, Blondie shoots him free, and the two make their escape (at least until they can run the scam another time). However, Blondie soon realizes that Tuco is never going to amount to much in bounty and decides to get rid of the dead weight by abandoning him out in the desert. As Tuco makes his return and vows revenge, another bounty killer, nicknamed Angel Eyes (Van Cleef), learns of a cache of gold coins amounting to about $200,000, last seen in possession of a man going by the name of Bill Carson. It just so happens that Tuco and Blondie encounter Carson one day, just as he is about to die. Tuco learns of the place where the gold is buried, while Blondie learns the exact spot, turning mortal enemies into uneasy allies (at least until the gold is found). However, Angel Eyes is quite tenacious in his quest for the gold, and soon it's apparent that the gold is going to have to be something to fight for, as well as to die for.
Main events or points in the film that stuck out to me:
1. - The strong and well defined personalities of the characters.
2. - The originality, humor and double meaning of the quotes and dialogs used.
3. – The irony of the context.
Why were they significant in the film? Because these events and points keep the interest of the audience with a high level of awareness of the human cost of the Civil War while at the same time provides a delightful entertainment with the performance of the characters.
Why were they significant to me? I like Western Movies with historic value.
Contextual (outside) information as it relates to my analysis: The “North and South” novel by Elizabeth Gaskell.
How does the film conform to, or diverge from, generic norms? It conforms to generic norms because it fits in a specific category (the spaghetti westerns) and provides with accurate historic information.
What changes would you make to the finished visual product if you were the producer? It would be nice to watch this movie in 3D.
What assumptions are made about or by the audience, and are they accurate? The most common assumption people make when watching the movie for the first time, is that the good guy will win over the bad and the ugly guys. The assumption is correct, making the movie very predictable and the audience is assumed to like a happy ending which I believe is also accurate. Most people like happy endings with the death of the bad guy.
Do you agree with the premise of the film, or the perspective it enforces? The premises are that good always prevails over evil and that war is a waste of human life. I do agree on both premises.
What did I think about the cinematic and/or narrative elements of the film (camera techniques, editing, sound, direction, and flow/sequence)? I think this is a masterpiece of cinema and should be viewed and enjoyed by every generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ
No comments:
Post a Comment