For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Excellent fun with sadistic humor from Leone. Eastwood's best performance in a Leone film. Van Cleef is good in a role similar to Chuck Bronson's in "Once Upon a Time in the West". He is menacing and sympathetic, whereas in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" he is just campy and all "bad guy" (but still fun). What makes both performances so memorable I think is that Van Cleef seems to be in touch with Leone's dark humor, where Eastwood is used as a straight man. Volonte is also excellent in the bandito role Leone used (an example of a standard European character type who reminds the audience of earthiness and the basic ignorance and greed of man). A much better film than most people who've seen it on a Saturday afternoon on TV probably realize -- you have to see these movies in the theater to get the full hit.

Fmovies: "For a Few Dollars More" is the middle film of Sergio Leone's classic western trilogy starring a then upstart Clint Eastwood. Sandwiched between "A Fistful of Dollars" and the finale, "The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly." This film provides further insight into Eastwood's "Man with No Name."

Eastwood is a bounty killer who is in search of the feared bandit known as El Indio. Colonel Douglas Mortimer (played by Lee Van Cleef) is in a similar position, and the two cross paths many times in their pursuits of El Indio. The premise has similarities to that of the first, and in fact won't be all that surprising to most younger viewers. But at the time, the various plot turns and twists were unique and revolutionary.

The pace is both a pro and con at the same time. Unlike modern films, the usual western showdown scenes unfold very deliberately. Rather than simultaneously begin and end in a furious volley of bullets, the encounters are set up slowly. On the bright side, this gives both the characters and the viewers an opportunity to fully appreciate the choices made and the consequences that will follow. From a negative perspective (not mine), one might say that the gunfights are plain slow, and the action is too sparse. While I enjoyed the change of pace, I also understand why some will say otherwise. Others portions of "More" can hang with any western sequences ever put on film. Highlighting the action is a robbery scene, the creativity of which ranks with any modern heist out of "The Score" or "The Italian Job."

This trilogy catapulted Clint Eastwood to Hollywood fame, and one can see his star-making charisma ooze through the screen. Blending stoicism and machismo wonderfully, Eastwood produces the epitome of the tough and arrogant loner cowboy. In a role that could easily have been overshadowed, Van Cleef holds his own against Eastwood. His character was probably similar to Eastwood's in his youth, but Van Cleef accurately reflects the wisdom that would likely come with his character's age. The motley crew of baddies is filled with men who completely look their parts. That's about all that is asked of them, and they deliver.

The cinematography of "More" follows in the groundbreaking footsteps of "Fistful." While one might not notice anything revolutionary now, at the time shots like that had scarcely been seen. Shots like the low-angles utilized prior to a few shootouts, as well as the framing of space are all now staples of cinematic westerns, and they originated here.

Ennio Morricone's score is also a classic. Whether serving as epic background music for sweeping crane shots or providing aural cues during action sequences, the music is always appropriate and often the best part of the film.

Bottom Line: While it might not seem as great now, so much of this movie was groundbreaking and remains classic that it merits 8 of 10.

"For a Few Dollars More" has become the template for which most Spaghetti Westerns derive.

As Leone went along, his films got more daring and complex, exploring new ideas and raising not only the bar for Spaghetti Westerns (which, contrary to popular belief, were around before "A Fistful of Dollars") but for Westerns in general. However, this exploration at times affected the quality of his films. Leone was a popcorn director - a visual stylist who always entertained first and maybe provoked a thought or two second. However, his films were never think pieces so when he tried to integrate depth into his films the results became uneven.

"For a Few Dollars More" is his best film because it catches Leone in his most transitional period. At once the film is more complex and stylized than "A Fistful..." and more tight and efficient than "The Good, the Bad and The Ugly" (which is almost on par with "For a Few..."). The revenge sub-plot involving Colonel Mortimer is more compelling than the similar one in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West" because Mortimer is more developed as a character than the Harmonica Player (which is not to insult the great Charles Bronson).

And hell, it has Lee Van Cleef as one of the biggest bad-asses of all time. The mere presence of Colonel Douglas Mortimer elevates the film to a new level. He steals the film from "Manco" completely. And Van Cleef's theft of the film is what makes it a cut above "A Fistful...". As a character, "The Man With No Name" (who in actuality has three: Joe, Manco and Blondie) isn't very interesting and there always needs to be a counterpoint to play off of him. That's why "A Fistful..." isn't nearly as good as this film or "The Good..." (which had the great Eli Wallach in one of the best scenery munching performances ever).

So in closing, "For a Few..." is a tight masterpiece of fluff Western entertainment. It's mean, violent and immoral, just the way any good Spaghetti Western should be.

For a Few Dollars More fmovies. This movie is the second best western i have ever seen with The Good, The Bad, The Ugly being first. I disagree with someone who wrote that this movie is not as good as A Fistful of Dollars. This movie is way better than a fistful of dollars. The reason is (as i pointed out in my other post) is that Clint's role or character is better when he has a good supporting member because it gives Clint's character more depth as well as throw a wild card into the mix. Lee van clef is excellent in his role, i still have him labeled as the bad but it was surprising to see him play a good guy in this one. Both bounty hunters have their own styles which meshes really good on the screen. Gian had more depth to this one which played perfectly into Lee Van Clefs character. In a fistful of dollars Gian didn't have much depth at all and some of the characters were annoying. I like how leone tied all of the characters into each other in this one, having all of their stories somehow play a role in the other ones. If you haven't seen this movie i suggest you watch Leone's films in chronological order with A fistful of dollars first, this one second, and finish it off with the good the bad the ugly. You'll be glad you did.

Col. Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) and Monco (Clint Eastwood) are both bounty hunters. They're both after the bank robber El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté) for his bounty. They decide to join forces to bring El Indio and his gang of robbers down.

Lee Van Cleef makes this a superior spaghetti western. He's not only as good as Clint. In many ways, he plays a superior character. His character has secrets. He has mysteries. Clint is playing a much more simpler character. For me, this is superior to 'A Fistful of Dollars' in the trilogy. The story is more iconic, cleaner. The characters have more depth.

Leone's 'A Fistful Of Dollars' is a bona fide western classic, but amazingly he managed to top himself with this "sequel". Yeah, I know it isn't REALLY a sequel. In fact Leone's "Dollars" trilogy actually have no connection with each other, and Eastwood's so-called "Man With No Name" actually has many! (In this movie Monco, in the previous one Joe). Most people seem go for 'The Good, The Bad And The Ugly' as the best of the three movies, but I think 'For A Few Dollars More' just beats it. Anyway, there's no argument that they are three brilliant films, Eastwood is super cool in all of them, Leone is on top form, particularly in this one, and Ennio Morricone's scores are amazing stuff. 'For A Few Dollars More' is helped enormously by Lee Van Cleef playing Colonel Mortimer, and the scenes between him and Eastwood, and the ones between him and Klaus Kinski are pure gold. This is not only one of the best westerns ever made, but one of the best movies of any genre released in the 1960s. It was also a highly influential one. I can't imagine Peckinpah's 'The Wild Bunch' for example existing without Leone. Words fail me praising movies as brilliant as this one. All I can say is WATCH IT NOW. Or if you've already seen it WATCH IT AGAIN!