W2TCH

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

1965 • 2h 12m • Western • R
On September 27, 2026
#1545▲ 5342
1545th by Pulse movie online
51.1PULSEPulse MeterOur daily Pulse Meter measures public activity and popularity signals across the web.How it works →

All reviews

dfle3 on For a Few Dollars More

8/10 · Jan 22, 2025

A spaghetti Cornetto trilogy? 75+% A lone figure on horseback slowly approaches us from a distance before an apparently senseless act of violence occurs. It’s unclear to me whether this loose end is resolved later or mainly serves to establish the setting, demonstrating how little value human lives hold in this place. Following the opening credits, the film begins with two men inside a train carriage; one obscures his face while reading what appears to be a Holy Bible. As the story unfolds, we come to know this man, and I find myself wondering if I’m alone in questioning whether that initial introduction was genuine or intended ironically when his journey concludes. It's difficult to say for sure. After all, Americans often don’t see a conflict between faith and wealth, as “prosperity gospel” theology suggests. The main narrative follows two independent bounty hunters operating near the border of America and Mexico. There’s an air of uncertainty about how these hunters, who are pursuing the same targets (the film uses the term "bounty killer"), will interact. Is conflict inevitable? The timeline is suggested when a minor character appears in a humorous scene involving the disruptive introduction of passenger train service to the area. The early action reminded me of video games, where players often chase small bounties at first, increasing their size as they become more skilled and seek larger rewards for better equipment. As the bounties in this film grow, they seem to follow a linear progression, similar to "on rails" video game sequences. This feels less open than its predecessor, “A fistful of dollars.” One of the bounty killers looks familiar from “A fistful of dollars”—the character played by Clint Eastwood. Obviously, there’s a physical resemblance and perhaps even identical clothing between them, but they strike me as distinct individuals. As I mentioned in my review of that earlier film, Eastwood's character had a playful quality; here, his humor is more understated or sardonic. That doesn't quite capture what I mean to say. In the first film, Eastwood’s character was playful and shared that trait with another character (I recall a scene where they were "hanging around"), whereas in this film, he keeps his reactions close to his chest; amused but not showing it, as seen in the earlier scene with the minor character discussing trains. Wikipedia lists these first two films as part of a trilogy: “The dollars trilogy” or “The man with no name trilogy.” Given that I don’t see Clint Eastwood portraying the same person in both films so far, I'm inclined to view them similarly to "The Cornetto trilogy," where unrelated films share the same actors and are loosely connected. I admit I know very little about this "Cornetto trilogy" despite having seen “Shaun of the dead” and “Hot fuzz.” Apparently, all three films make brief references to Cornetto ice creams, which is what unites them as a 'trilogy.' Perhaps Clint Eastwood’s poncho is Sergio Leone's equivalent of a Cornetto? It may not seem like one at this point, but maybe the third film will prove me wrong—it doesn’t feel like a trilogy in the same way as "Star Wars." An interesting aspect of these first two films is how to interpret returning actors. As I said, I'm viewing Clint Eastwood’s characters as separate individuals. Gian Maria Volonté also returns, playing the main villain again, though clearly portraying a different character each time—a necessity given their shared ethnicity. We have common archetypes in both films: the poncho-wearing man with no name and the menacing antagonist. A scene involving a beating is another recurring element; I thought the first film’s version was more brutal. Joseph Egger is another returning actor that I noticed. Since I wrote this portion of the review weeks after starting it, some details are hazy. Regarding the man with no name, in this film, Eastwood's character is referred to as “Manco,” and it seems like a genuine name. A translation app on my PC translates this variously as "one-armed" (in Spanish and Italian) or "not

Source on TMDB