Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?"

During the decade of the 80s John Hughes certainly had his share of classic teen flicks. Among some of his classic was Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Sixteen Candles and of course The Breakfast Club. With The Breakfast Club, writer/director Hughes created an essential 1980s teen film.

And what is so great about this teen film? First of all, the characters are some that we can easily relate to. The film is over 20 years old but the teenage stereotypes haven't changed. Hughes captures the complex lives of teenagers in a realistic way. Also evident is the fact that almost everybody in high school carries a label. There's the geek, the jock, the princess, etc. Another aspect that any 80s movie requires is the fantastic soundtrack. The Breakfast Club features some essentially 80's music; including the very famous title song by Simple Minds.

For various misdemeanours, five high school students with absolutely nothing in common are forced to endure a full day of detention on a Saturday (a ghastly thought) under the watchful eye of the school's Principal Mr. Vernon (Gleason). When the day starts at 7am everyone around the room don't know each other and have nothing to say to each other. But by 4pm the five troublemakers strike up a close bond. As the five begin talking they realise that they have more in common that originally thought. After the heavy insults flying around the room and the feel of mutual hatred, they slowly open up to each other and it's revealed that they are all much deeper and more complex than their initial label might suggest.

The Breakfast Club is a character study that begins as nothing more than a hilarious riot. But more into the second half the style shifts to more of a meaningful, deep drama filled with moments of truth and deception.

The cast is full of wonderful talent. Judd Nelson was my favourite character here as the criminal and deadbeat who doesn't care if he scores himself extra detention. And of course Paul Gleason displays a great array of talent as the stressed principal.

On the surface many would dismiss The Breakfast Club as just a simple comedy. On that note the film is recurrently hilarious. The witty dialogue was especially great at times (despite loads of profanity). But the film is something a lot more than a comedy. It's one of the greatest teen films to be released during the 1980s; offering an incisive plot and a thoughtful set of characters. In its 90-minute running time the film embodies the very essence of the lives of teenagers that is realistic and poignant at times. This is definitely one of John Hughes best efforts.

I had been eagerly anticipating the release of this film ever since I discovered that it was another action/thriller from director Michael Mann. Some of Mann's previous films, like Collateral and Heat, are in my opinion arguably among the best films ever made. But when I finally saw Miami Vice I was drastically disappointed. It is a long, drawn out and an incredibly boring film that I wish had never come to fruition.

Miami Vice is an update of the old TV show of the same name; this hard to understand film is basically about two cops whose professional and personal lives become dangerously intertwined. Then there's some convoluted mumbo jumbo about drug dealing with a bunch of unnecessary red herrings in addition to a bunch of horrible sub-plots just to stretch out the running time. That's pretty much all I got of it because not much other exposition is revealed.

The plot is about as weak and non-existent as my enjoyment of this film. The film is structured very unevenly, performances are mediocre, and the action was not at all exciting. I mean, I expected the action to be good (this is the director of Heat we're talking about here) but it's bleak, uninspired and just plain monotonous.

Miami Vice is also a crime film, and hence it is also very hard to follow. The poorly written screenplay included dialogue that is hard to understand and impossible to listen to. It seems that the dialogue is played so softly compared to everything else, so a scene heavy in dialogue did nothing for the film. It didn't make a lick of sense, and I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.

Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx both deliver very poor performance here, which is a real shame because they've both been in some fantastic movies (Foxx was in Collateral, the film Mann directed prior to this mess). The film is also far too long, with my interest disappearing after the first few minutes!

Miami Vice is pointless, worthless and boring. It contains bad casting, bad editing, bad filming, bad sound, bland cinematography and bad directing. Heck, even the sex scenes were boring! It took me countless sittings to sit through this boring film. On incalculable occasions I started watching the film but had to turn it off only to begin watching it again another day. If only this torturous pile of rubbish remained on paper. One of the worst films of '06. Avoid.

"My name is Jack Carter, and you don't want to know me."

Get Carter is a stylish update of the classic 1971 Michael Caine British gangster thriller, and is a lot better than some people have given it credit to be. The film met with a lukewarm reception from critics and audiences; including many reviews that simply shot flaming arrows at it. I strongly disagree with the hate, but even after saying that the film isn't particularly good either.

Jack Carter (Stallone) is a loan shark in Las Vegas who has spent many years dedicated to a job away from his family. While a job is going down, Jack is informed that his brother Ritchie - someone he hasn't spoken to in years - was killed in a car accident due to driving under the influence. Jack returns to his home town where he finds a family that he has neglected for so many years. While he has his stab at redemption, Jack also begins his own investigation into the killing of his brother.

As he begins interviewing friends and acquaintances, Jack's shot at redemption soon transforms into a shot at revenge when he realises that the death of his brother was no accident.

The film follows an identical plot to that of the 1971 film while updating the time period and setting to suit the typical contemporary American audience. I found it a positive when I realised that the filmmakers never tried to duplicate the original; instead only loosely based on the plot of the original movie.

There were a few scenes that were obviously inspired by the original, but in a completely different setting.

Sylvester Stallone plays a very different Jack Carter to the portrayal the world saw from Michael Caine in the 70s. Instead of charismatic and hard-hitting Stallone is brutal, relentless and quite intimidating at times. To respect the original many will say that they preferred Michael Caine's performance. In all honesty I find them to be almost even. Both Caine and Stallone are so different, but I liked both interpretations.

Many would dismiss this film as just another vehicle for a Stallone action movie. This is incorrect as Stallone's performance was his best in years. He appears to speak clearly and he's in great shape. Above all it was also a heart-felt performance. Something I've never seen from Van Damme or Steven Seagal in recent years.

Along with Stallone there are a lot of highly memorable performances from many members of the cast. Mickey Rourke in particular was very menacing. Rachael Leigh Cook was also extremely good as Jack's niece who gives him a cold reception upon arrival.

Get Carter is a film told with great style. There's some fantastic cinematography that showcase some very atmospheric locations that give the sense of dismay. And the picture looks great; using a very dark colour scheme that makes it seem overcast and hence quite depressing.

Some of the cinematography got very irritating towards the end as the editor decided to use some very flashy, show offy visual gimmicks that get very monotonous. One thing I found interesting was that both the original and this remake still can't get a good screenplay together. The conversations are cryptic and make the film hard to follow. Very little was conclusively revealed by the end.

Get Carter is a good remake that is almost up to the standard of the original. The film was widely hated but I found it good entertainment. If you like your action movies with some intelligence (dare I say it?) then there will be little to complain about.

"You know, I'd almost forgotten what your eyes looked like. Still the same. Pissholes in the snow."

Get Carter is a classic 1970s British crime film that is good, but far from great.

Having seen the remake of the film first I had high expectations for this one. Unfortunately my expectations weren't entirely met, and I was mildly disappointed.

Michael Caine plays the principal role of Jack Carter; a malicious London gangster. Carter travels to Newcastle for the funeral of his recently deceased brother. Upon arrival in Newcastle he begins asking questions about the death of his brother and suspects that it was no accident, but foul play was involved. Carter begins interviewing people who were associated with his brother and starts putting together the pieces of the puzzle to solve the crime.

As Carter is slowly getting somewhere with his personal investigation, the underworld crime bosses wish to get him out of the picture to avoid the truth being uncovered.

Regrettably, you will have to be a mind reader to understand the inscrutable conversations between the central characters. Even though watching the movie closely, I was none the wiser until the characters finally spelt it all out in the concluding 15 minutes.

Unfortunately the film's slow pacing dramatically affects its overall value. And the final showdown was quite unsatisfying. It was unexpected, sure, but the ending is one of the many factors that affect the quality of the experience.

Michael Caine was cool and charismatic in the title role. He is quite the ladies man, and displays this with the endless amount of women he ends up sleeping with throughout the movie.

Which brings me onto my next point - the film contains too much sexual content for my taste. Not that it was overly distasteful, but every time Carter sleeps with another girl the audience gets the sense of "here we go again". It got highly tedious towards the end as well as getting quite discomforting.

For a 1970s production there was a shocking amount of nudity. It's not overly graphic but it has its fair share of bare breasts, bottoms and bed scenes. For its time I'm sure it would have raised a few eyebrows because said scenes certainly raised mine. And the violence undoubtedly packs one heck of a wallop.

The atmosphere of the movie was quite superb for a British film. The authentic locations give the audience a sense of dread and decay. Especially with scenes set during overcast or rainy weather. The film has been made quite well, with effective cinematography and a valuable score that solidifies its solid atmosphere.

Kudos to the director as well, who added to this atmosphere of such despair. On top of this the film has more to offer: brutal, hard-hitting action as well as a high level of violence.

Get Carter is far from being a masterpiece due to its flaws, but sits amongst some of the finest films to be imported from Britain.

"He knew the risks, he didn't have to be there. It rains... you get wet."

Heat is an absolutely stunning film; this epic, brilliant crime drama is unmissable and unforgettable.

Many will lose interest due to the film's length, but I found the film essentially perfect despite the running time.

First of all, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in the same movie. These are two of the best actors on the planet, and both are in top form. The script (written by director Mann) is nothing short of remarkable. The dialogue is always witty, realistic, and is never contrived. The actors further cement this realism in an amazing way.

Mann's direction for every second of the movie was stunning. The way Mann approached this movie was destined to equal excellence. First of all, he penned the damn fine screenplay himself and thus knew what he wanted on screen. Second, he employed incredible cinematographic techniques to achieve his vision. And finally, he knew what actors he wanted and was not going to stop until the result is exactly the way he wants it. Even a dialogue scene between De Niro and Pacino can sustain interest in the viewer without showing any action.

Neil McCauley (De Niro) is a thief who indulges in precision jobs along with his team of professionals. After the robbery of an armoured car, the police are now investigating. Vincent Hanna (Pacino) leads the investigation. Hanna is a master at his profession, and McCauley is at the peak of his.

This epic crime film then becomes a game of cat-and-mouse as Hanna works to bring McCauley to justice. In amidst this, we have plenty of time for a character study as Mann digs in-depth into the private lives of the protagonists.

And of course, the occasional action scene is both spectacular and incredibly violent at times. The action scenes are crafted to perfection, with cinematography that blew me away.

De Niro and Pacino share very little screen time together, but when those two are in a scene together the results are unbeatable. The memorable scene at the diner between De Niro and Pacino is something we rarely ever see in a movie - great script, great direction, great performances. And the final showdown isn't your usual "good guy/bad guy" showdown but something a lot deeper.

The highlights of the movie include magnificent cinematic techniques during the few action scenes, and the wonderful performances from everyone in the cast.

Michael Mann's Heat is absolutely unmissable. This epic crime story is most definitely one of the best movies ever made. If you have not yet seen it, I urge you to get a copy of this film in your hands immediately.

"Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching? And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!"

Words cannot do justice to accurately describe this movie; Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is an unmissable event and without doubt one of the best movies to hit cinemas during 2007.

This is another of those masterpieces that separates those who love the blockbusters and those who love good filmmaking. In order to appreciate the movie, you must be in the latter category.

Daniel Day-Lewis completely stole the show here; his portrayal is unlike anything I have seen in such a movie. Set in the oil fields at the turn of the 20th Century, the film chronicles the rise of prospector Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) who becomes an independent oil man. He becomes a very wealthy man as his oil wells begin to take in lots of money.

This sprawling epic is a tale about greed, corruption and the pursuit of the American dream. Focusing heavily on the troubles and dangers of working at an oil well; some of the scenes of brilliant, compelling drama are never likely to be seen again. This powerful drama is reliant on performances by the actors; without Day-Lewis or the members of the supporting cast the film would not have succeeded. There are many other memorable characters who are developed perfectly over the running time, but it would take too long to talk about each individual, brilliant performance.

The film is a prime example of a modern masterpiece with improper marketing. The marketing campaign for the movie didn't do much for me, and it was only after the reviews I read that sparked an interest in seeing it.

The script is exceptionally well written. There Will Be Blood is a character study that shows us many scenes of drama and development of characters. Because of the strong script (based on Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil!") and remarkable direction, the film works. We can feel the tension between the characters due to such accomplished performances.

Overall, There Will Be Blood is among the finest films to hit cinemas during 2007. In a year filled with disappointing sequels and remakes, it's great that masterpieces like these get made. Highly recommended if you can spare 150 minutes of your time.

" I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five years old..."

The Coen Brothers have had their finest hours and weakest hours, but No Country for Old Men will forever stand as their best hour. The film just manages to beat Fargo (a film which I loved) with its mix of engaging drama and a script that doesn't feel compelled to follow the standard conventions.

The trailers didn't do much for me, and I was a little bit apprehensive at first...but it raked it awards endlessly and I felt like it was my duty to investigate. Boy am I glad that I did. "Do not judge a book by its cover" is all the advice I can give you in this case.

A hunter named Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) stumbles across a pile of dead bodies, a stash of heroin and millions of dollars in cash. After collecting the money for himself, he is endlessly stalked by a madman named Anton (Bardem). Violence and mayhem ensue as the bloodbath commences, and there will be no stopping it until someone is dead.

The plot is a lot more complex and interesting, but I found the film more enjoyable when I didn't know where it was going. Every scene is filled with intelligent dialogue and necessary character development. On top of this, the Coen Brothers have injected their special kind of subtle humour into the mix.

The film is incredibly violent, and some of the scenes are really hard to stomach. But the film is well made, and once the intensity begins it never eases up. During some of the scenes I was on the edge of my seat, with the slightest noise causing me to jump uncontrollably.

The way that the film is constructed and crafted is superb. There is not a scrap of music to be found during the film. Only during the end credits. Without music, we are able to be further engaged in the action, and I think we're more able to feel a certain character's emotions to an extent that can't be beaten.

The ending was something that had me thinking for about half an hour as it felt incomplete at first, but then I realised how clever and unconventional it is, albeit quite sudden. The ending just put things into perspective and kept the story out of standard Hollywood territory.

Kudos to the Coen Brothers for keeping the violence taut, the dialogue worthwhile and the characters realistic. Although I had little hopes for this film, No Country for Old Men is one of 2007's best movies and truly worthy of its Oscar nominations.

"Bring the noise!"

Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg's second feature film collaboration, 2007's Hot Fuzz furthers the pair's cinematic interests that were previously established in 2004's excellent Shaun of the Dead. It's easy to parody a film genre, but it's another thing entirely to achieve a parody that simultaneously works as an effective entry to the genre it sends up. Shaun of the Dead accomplished this extraordinary balancing act, and Hot Fuzz pulls off a comparable miracle. Simply labelling Hot Fuzz as a parody would drastically undersell this gem - it's a loving valentine to Hollywood action flicks, with their overblown absurdity, macho posturing, gratuitous violence and frenetic camerawork. And with Wright and Pegg masterminding the project, the result is a home run, a riotously funny British comedy brimming with wit and energy.

A hard-nosed, career-focused London police officer, Nicholas Angel (Pegg) is so exceptional at his job that he makes his far lazier colleagues look bad in comparison. Receiving a promotion to sergeant, Angel is forced by his superiors to relocate to the small country town of Sandford, where crime is rare and there hasn't been a recorded murder in decades. Partnered with overeager action film buff Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), Nicholas is appalled at the lenience afforded to both the public and the incompetent police force, with the village's Chief Inspector (Jim Broadbent) eager to bring his new officer down a couple of pegs as Nicholas hands out speeding tickets and arrests petty shoplifters. However, Nicholas's interests are soon piqued by a series of "accidents" that may not be accidents. Suspecting foul play, Nicholas finds himself the only one prepared to deal with the situation adequately.

Hot Fuzz's primary target of adoration and satire is the buddy action movie, with the screenplay referencing and paying homage to everything from Bad Boys II to Point Break, and even the Miami Vice TV show. Danny is particularly fond of post-mortem one-liners, and he relishes the chance to educate his new partner by showing him as many Hollywood productions as possible. The real beauty of Hot Fuzz is that, on top of being funnier than most comedies, it has a story to tell, and the narrative is given a surprising amount of attention. The central mystery provides genuine intrigue, and there are stakes here, not to mention Wright manages to deal with plot and characterisation sufficiently whilst maintaining incredible narrative velocity. Other satirical targets include murder mysteries, with the genre's convoluted motives and investigations given a brilliant dressing down. Wright gets plenty of mileage from the picture's satirical elements, but the screenplay is also full of side-splitting one-liners and uproarious bantering. Above all, the gags aren't dumb or obvious; the humour is more cerebral, which is more satisfying than broad American comedies. Wright and Pegg's script is a work of art, and the on-screen execution is flawless.

Aesthetically, Wright sets out to ape the Tony Scott style of contemporary action filmmaking with frenzied camerawork, rapid-fire editing, extreme close-ups and overblown sound effects. Yet, Wright ultimately manufactures a style that is distinctly his own, and above all, he succeeds in crafting kick-ass action sequences that are both exhilarating and amusing. Wright's exaggerated technique delivers the lion's share of laughs - for instance, the shortest police pursuit in movie history is turned into a frenzy of over-editing and zoom-heavy cinematography. It is a credit to Wright's directorial sleight-of-hand that he can employ these typically irritating gimmicks in a coherent and riveting way. The climactic action sequence is, naturally, the picture's centrepiece - a masterclass of action filmmaking. Gloriously R-rated and filled to the brim with creative ideas (witness an old lady wielding dual pistols on a bicycle), the climax sustains excitement and intensity despite running for the better part of twenty minutes.

Hot Fuzz is also played with an incredible poker face, as nobody involved in the picture seems to be in on the joke. (Witness the sincerity of the scenes involving a runaway swan.) Wright's directorial excellence goes beyond the action scenes, too - an early montage to convey Angel's transition from London to Sandford should be studied in film schools worldwide. American productions treat such sequences as homework, inserting drab second-unit footage set to some upbeat pop song, but, impossibly, Wright uncovers opportunities for further laughs and maintains the furious energy levels. It's superb craftsmanship all-round. Additionally, the original score by David Arnold (late of several James Bond movies) is exceptionally memorable and catchy, perfectly complementing Wright and cinematographer Jess Hall's slick visual compositions while also contributing to the momentum of each set piece. It isn't easy to believe this technical brilliance was accomplished on a paltry $16 million budget.

There is a heart at the centre of the story: the touching platonic bromance between Nicholas and Danny. Although the pair are polar opposites in terms of appearance and personality, they grow a particular fondness for one another, and it's a sweet friendship that grows organically. As the confident Nicholas Angel, co-writer Pegg is tasked with playing the archetypal macho action hero, and he's an ideal fit. Pegg slimmed down and trained hard to nail the role's physicality, and he's a terrific straight man to boot. As usual, though, it's Frost's turn as goofball Danny Butterman that stands out. Similar to his Shaun of the Dead role, Danny is naïve and childlike but also very lovable.

The supporting cast is packed with recognisable British names. One of the most notable actors is former James Bond Timothy Dalton, who contributes a fine performance as the shady Simon Skinner. As Sandford's chief inspector, Broadbent is expectedly great, while Paddy Considine and Rafe Spall score a handful of laughs as other members of the Sandford Police Force. There are even cameos from Bill Nighy, Steve Coogan and Martin Freeman, and Bill Bailey gets a small but amusing role. Other famous actors also pop in, including Paul Freeman (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and The Wicker Man star Edward Woodward. It's a full roster, and all thespians are spot-on, contributing laughs and plenty of colour.

Although Hot Fuzz does seem long in the tooth at first glance, it improves with repeat viewings when you can appreciate all the subtle nuances of the script and marvel at the sheer brilliance of the storytelling. It's deliberately full of genre clichés and pays homage to countless movies, yet Hot Fuzz also manages to be boldly original and unique. It walks the same fine line as Shaun of the Dead: it's hilarious, exciting, and sometimes oddly emotional. For fans of Shaun of the Dead and/or the TV show Spaced, Hot Fuzz is a gift.

10/10

"There are many stories about Michael Sullivan. Some say he was a decent man. Some say there was no good in him at all. But I once spent 6 weeks on the road with him, in the winter of 1931..."

Following Sam Mendes' success with his masterpiece American Beauty, I found Road to Perdition to be a stunning, captivating, brilliant gangster thriller. The film is one of the best additions to the gangster genre of late and places itself in the league of such other gangster greats as The Godfather and GoodFellas.

Tom Hanks is an Irish mob hitman named Michael Sullivan who has dedicated his life to his career. Sullivan feels very distant from his family, especially his children who don't really know what he does for a living. His son Michael Jr. (Hoechlin) is curious, and is challenged by his younger brother to follow their father to work one night. But that night his life is changed when he witnesses a brutal slaying.

Now Sullivan and his family are in danger as the mafia are afraid that little Michael will talk. The film then follows father and son as they flee their home town to avoid the wrath of the men Sullivan used to work for, and to ensure that young Michael does not end up like his father.

The plot is fairly simple and straight-forward, but expanded upon extremely well by the screenwriter. The film does not go on for very long at all when you compare it to the running time of the other gangster classics. And this works because it doesn't waste any time with boring dialogue, but keeps the audience enthralled in the action that is occurring.

But the prominent thing that was vital for the success of the movie was the performances by the cast. Each performance was engaging and vibrant, with Tom Hanks in what could be his finest hour. We have never seen Hanks like this before. He is very sadistic and quite soft spoken. It was in his accent that helped the audience feel so mesmerised by every line that he delivered. Newcomer Tyler Hoechlin was fantastic. He is still a reasonably young actor, but he was able to make the audience feel a sense of intensity during the more thrilling sequences. I was unable to recognise Jude Law in such a unique performance here. Playing a hitman who is sent to eliminate Hanks' character, he feels so evil and so mesmerised by what he's doing. With each line he gives the audience the impression that he's some kind of a mad man. He looks and sounds like a man on the edge, who is usually very calm and concentrated on the task at hand; be it killing someone or photographing a corpse. Daniel Craig was fascinating to say the least. He's not his usual wooden self, but a completely different person altogether. Paul Newman was superb as a mob boss.

Sam Mendes excelled himself in the directing aspect. It was the film's visual style that keeps the audience engrossed for the film's duration. He keeps the dialogue taut, and in the scenes of action (which are very rare, to say the least) he keeps the violence strong and highly realistic.

It was a magnificent creative choice about the dynamic sound design. The gunshots sound so loud and deafening compared to the dialogue or anything else. And hence the dialogue will sound faint, but audible, and then when a gun is fired it sounds so deafening and something we did not expect. The sound is very contrasting to keep the audience on the edge and it does a fantastic job of it.

Road to Perdition is an extremely good movie and will become a gangster classic. The beautiful Oscar-winning cinematography, the focused direction, the engrossing performances and the vigorous sound design all add up to one fantastic experience. Do yourself a favour, and watch it.

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is hands down the greatest western of all time - the third and final of Sergio Leone's trilogy of westerns with Clint Eastwood is the best of the bunch.

This film succeeds in every aspect where its predecessors failed, making it the essential spaghetti western. Clint Eastwood rides back into action as "The Man With No Name" - the good - who is now living in the time of the Civil War. Eli Wallach is a filthy outlaw named Tuco - the ugly. And finally Lee Van Cleef (returning from the cast of the previous film playing a different role) is a man known as Angel Eyes - the bad. In a remote cemetery an outlaw has buried a stash of $200,000 which immediately sparks interest from the 3 protagonists. Tuco and "The Man With No Name" form an uneasy alliance and have no choice but to trust each other when it's discovered that each possess half the information of the location of the hidden treasure.

Angel Eyes is also focused on finding the money and thus begins a race as the three men move through rugged landscape and across harsh deserts to get to their desired destination.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a very unconventional western. The plot of this third instalment is actually pretty easy to follow, and this simplicity makes the film not as confusing as its predecessors.

Each moment of the film is enthralling, and exceptionally created. Although clocking at almost 160 minutes, the film is not too long. My interest was sustained for each minute of its running time; containing intriguing characters and clever set-ups.

Clint Eastwood is fantastic as always. As always he plays the part to perfection - never showing signs of emotion and always being dark. Eli Wallach was a welcome addition to the cast. He portrays a very realistic outlaw, and his character is most certainly "the ugly". I was disappointed that Lee Van Cleef didn't stick to his original character from For a Few Dollars More, but he still plays this new part exceptionally well.

Of course what addition to this trilogy would be complete without Sergio's magnificent direction and Ennio Morricone's triumphant score. Ennio's music is nothing short of remarkable.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is an enthralling western. For those with short attention spans, go rent a Michael Bay flick. But for those who enjoy good quality westerns and don't mind the slow pacing then go right ahead. One of the best movies of all time!