Post by Vits on Jul 7, 2021 15:30:16 GMT
The whole point of YOJIMBO is to have the main character walking around the village, talking to everyone with no problem. Because of that, there’s never any sense of danger. The pacing is very bad, but Toshiro Mifune's performance is good. The climax, which inspired several future westerns, doesn’t disappoint. This movie was made after RASHOMON. Therefore, by this point, we knew that Akira Kurosawa was capable of making thought-provoking movies. Why he decided to make such a straight-forward movie is beyond me.
5/10
I read that TSUBAKI SANJURO was originally going to be a stand-alone movie and they rewrote it as a sequel to YOJIMBO at the last minute. No wonder it’s such an uneven mess. At times, it’s bad because it’s not like the 1st movie at all. At other times, it’s bad because it tries way too hard to copy the 1st movie. They should’ve found a middle ground and make it similar but unique (like the best sequels are).
1/10
A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS has the same script problems YOJIMBO had, and it’s even more repetitive. While Clint Eastwood's performance is good overall, he doesn’t display the range of emotions that Mifune displayed. However, it did more for the western genre than the original did for samurai movies. You can tell by seeing the iconic shots and listening to the iconic music score. Also, this time, the climax is more thrilling and more clever.
5/10
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE is also repetitive, but a lot less than its predecessor. Also, except for the climax (which is nothing special), it’s more entertaining. Lee Van Cleef's performance is very good. He’s menacing enough to be believable as a rival to someone like Eastwood. Even though it’s very short, the scene with the old man stood out for me because of how unfunny it was.
6/10
Wow! Considering how the 2nd installment was only slightly better than the 1st one, I’m surprised that THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is such a major improvement on quality and entertainment. Usually, it’s a bad idea to make a sequel and give more protagonism to a sidekick, but TUCO is an exception because he’s not a sidekick that relies on the hero. He’s a fully-developed character worthy of his own spin-off. Not to mention that Eli Wallach’s performance is as good as his 2 co-stars'. Why is it that, in this trilogy, each movie has a less deep plot than the one before and, yet, each one is longer than the one before? It should be the other way around. Sergio Leone definitely could’ve removed the scenes about the Civil War. He explained that he added them as social commentary (he was against it). Well, then he should’ve made a movie about that. It doesn’t fit with the rest of the plot.
8/10
LAST MAN STANDING
1/10
INFERNO doesn’t add anything new to the YOJIMBO story. At least LAST MAN STANDING tried by changing the time and place (like A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS had already done). Yes, this one takes place in present day, but there was nothing that made me think “This story could only take place in that setting.” I feared that Jean-Claude Van Damme would just play a tough guy like Bruce Willis did. It turns out that he tries to be charismatic. Unfortunately, that’s not what this movie needed. There’s a reason why Mifune and Eastwood acted the way they did: They kept their distance to make it clear that their characters didn’t want to take sides. EDDIE LOMAX (the protagonist) does that, which makes the plot even more straightforward than it already was. Plus, EDDIE is a hero, while all the other versions of the character were anti-heroes.
1/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
5/10
I read that TSUBAKI SANJURO was originally going to be a stand-alone movie and they rewrote it as a sequel to YOJIMBO at the last minute. No wonder it’s such an uneven mess. At times, it’s bad because it’s not like the 1st movie at all. At other times, it’s bad because it tries way too hard to copy the 1st movie. They should’ve found a middle ground and make it similar but unique (like the best sequels are).
1/10
A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS has the same script problems YOJIMBO had, and it’s even more repetitive. While Clint Eastwood's performance is good overall, he doesn’t display the range of emotions that Mifune displayed. However, it did more for the western genre than the original did for samurai movies. You can tell by seeing the iconic shots and listening to the iconic music score. Also, this time, the climax is more thrilling and more clever.
5/10
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE is also repetitive, but a lot less than its predecessor. Also, except for the climax (which is nothing special), it’s more entertaining. Lee Van Cleef's performance is very good. He’s menacing enough to be believable as a rival to someone like Eastwood. Even though it’s very short, the scene with the old man stood out for me because of how unfunny it was.
6/10
Wow! Considering how the 2nd installment was only slightly better than the 1st one, I’m surprised that THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is such a major improvement on quality and entertainment. Usually, it’s a bad idea to make a sequel and give more protagonism to a sidekick, but TUCO is an exception because he’s not a sidekick that relies on the hero. He’s a fully-developed character worthy of his own spin-off. Not to mention that Eli Wallach’s performance is as good as his 2 co-stars'. Why is it that, in this trilogy, each movie has a less deep plot than the one before and, yet, each one is longer than the one before? It should be the other way around. Sergio Leone definitely could’ve removed the scenes about the Civil War. He explained that he added them as social commentary (he was against it). Well, then he should’ve made a movie about that. It doesn’t fit with the rest of the plot.
8/10
LAST MAN STANDING
1/10
INFERNO doesn’t add anything new to the YOJIMBO story. At least LAST MAN STANDING tried by changing the time and place (like A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS had already done). Yes, this one takes place in present day, but there was nothing that made me think “This story could only take place in that setting.” I feared that Jean-Claude Van Damme would just play a tough guy like Bruce Willis did. It turns out that he tries to be charismatic. Unfortunately, that’s not what this movie needed. There’s a reason why Mifune and Eastwood acted the way they did: They kept their distance to make it clear that their characters didn’t want to take sides. EDDIE LOMAX (the protagonist) does that, which makes the plot even more straightforward than it already was. Plus, EDDIE is a hero, while all the other versions of the character were anti-heroes.
1/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.