I’ve just watched it myself, again for the first time ever.
What to say here? OK, first I’ll get the negatives out of the way. There are two obvious faults with it for me. Firstly, while Lee Van Cleef is excellent as the dyed-in-the-wool villain here, he was the wrong choice for the part as he’d played the good guy alongside Eastwood in the previous film. Imagine Ricardo “Khan” Montalban coming back in a later Star Trek film as a good guy - the audience just wouldn’t buy it. Secondly, like the previous one, this movie is definitely too long. They could easily have trimmed half an hour off it, maybe even a whole hour.
That said, it has some great moments, and I would say is still the best of the three. And I was right yesterday when I watched the second movie, this third one was the one with the iconic music I had in my head.
Blondie and Tuco have some great adventures together while the American civil war rages on in the background, clearly indicating that this is a prequel to the previous two - indeed, for a moment at the beginning, I was wondering if Lee Van Cleef’s character, looking much younger than he had in FADAM, was the same character he played in that one (hence my saying he shouldn’t have been cast in this one). Also evident is Eastwood’s character gradually acquiring the accoutrements he’s shown with in the previous two.
Once again, the mistrust between the two characters is very enjoyable - but this time we get to see an explanation for it at the beginning, they were a partnership that went sour, then Tuco is out for revenge, but then quickly changes his plans when Blondie/Joe/Manco/The Man With No Name becomes the key to his fortune.
I agree Wilycub your comment about Tuco’s comic persona making him more like a loveable rogue next to Angel Eyes makes me think of the musical Oliver! where Fagin compares to Bill Sykes in a similar manner, although in the original book he is very scheming (apparently - I’ve tried reading it several times and never got even halfway!).
The final three-way duel between these characters is indeed excellent, probably the best showdown in the history of westerns. You watch a western, and you know there’s going to be a gunfight at the end, you can’t really have one without it. This is easily the best showdown I have ever seen in any western. The tension is so thick you could cut it with a knife, who’s going to go for his gun first?
I agree again Wilycub about the relative morality of the characters. Eastwood’s character is “the good” because while he has no qualms about killing, he does have a certain code, and you can see that at the end, when he does something that on the surface looks highly dubious, but you quickly realise what he’s up to, although the director manages to spin it out so long that you do begin to doubt your expectations. But in the end, what we expect to happen does indeed happen.
Overall? Yes, definitely a thumbs-up.
