Ending spoiler...
The best thing about this film is that it is different from other westerns that preceded it. But being "different" doesn't mean it's necessarily very good. Klaus Kinski makes a great villain (as usual), Ennio Morricone wrote a great score (as usual), and the snowy setting creates a raw, forbidding, almost surreal atmosphere. This is one of those films where the mood and setting IS the star of the film.
But this film is just too silly, with characters that are laughably over the top (yet take themselves oh so seriously), and a story that's rather run of the mill (apart from the ending, which is unusual to say the least). Unlike in this film, the great thing about the Leone westerns is that the characters in his films are also rather over the top, but the characters have a sense of humor about them whereby the film acknowledges their often cartoonish unreality. Leone's films have a self-conscious irony and sense of humor about them. But here there is a studied seriousness that feels out of place with the unbelievable hero and villain in the film. Silence is an interesting character, but his muteness leaves him with the inability to make the kind of wisecracks Eastwood was capable of making in Leone's films. You want to run up behind Silence and tape a "kick me" sign on his back. Only Klaus Kinski's character has the disarming humor badly needed in a film like this.
Also, apart from Kinski, the acting in this film is not so good. The actress who plays the woman who hires Silence to kill Kinski is beautiful but so wooden. Her presence alone hurts the film greatly. The sheriff is also miscast with an actor who commands little respect and has less charisma. Trintignant, who plays silence, is pretty good. But he is given a character who is initially unbelievably skilled as a gunfighter, but then at the end of the film he is so unbelievably inept. Silence uses no caution in how he leaves himself open to get gunned down before he even has a chance to draw his gun -- with badly injured hands at that. The ending of this film is praised for challenging the conventional ending of the average western, yet it should be mocked and criticized for how it violates dignity, skill and character of Silence, the lead character in the film. As for Silence getting gunned down, it's not a bad way to end the film, but how could the writer and filmmaker let him get gunned down so easily? Isn't this the same man that easily took out 3 or 4 men at long range in the snow at the opening of the film? How can he be so skilled at the beginning of the film and so inept at the end -- even if he is injured? He's The Big Silence for goodness sake. And why let Kinski's character live? Shouldn't they both die in the decisive battle? Shouldn't the message be that violence doesn't doesn't discriminate? It kills both good and bad? (as in Seven Samurai) Not only the good? (as in this film).
I'll tell you one thing. Eastwood would have never played Silence. He never would have died like an inept little insignificant twerp like Trintignant's Silence dies in this in this film. Sure, western heroes can die, but if he goes to fight then at least let him fight like the skilled gunfighter he is -- or let him get shot in the back by a coward (like Gregory Peck in THE GUNFIGHTER). Does evil rule the day? The way Silence dies in this film is the way certain somewhat politically charged filmmakers want to see western hero die. They despise or despair over the notion of heroism, so they simplify their films, or they violate the context of the film to make some sort of statement. Heroes die in the 60s, fine. But here the filmmakers feel the need to kill the myth of the western in a way that spits on their hero -- Silence. While they're at it, they kill the genre and kill their own film too. Too bad, really, since this film has some good things to recommend about it. By the way, the alternative "happy" ending included on the DVD is even worse than the original. Better to let everyone die -- good and bad.
The best thing about this film is that it is different from other westerns that preceded it. But being "different" doesn't mean it's necessarily very good. Klaus Kinski makes a great villain (as usual), Ennio Morricone wrote a great score (as usual), and the snowy setting creates a raw, forbidding, almost surreal atmosphere. This is one of those films where the mood and setting IS the star of the film.
But this film is just too silly, with characters that are laughably over the top (yet take themselves oh so seriously), and a story that's rather run of the mill (apart from the ending, which is unusual to say the least). Unlike in this film, the great thing about the Leone westerns is that the characters in his films are also rather over the top, but the characters have a sense of humor about them whereby the film acknowledges their often cartoonish unreality. Leone's films have a self-conscious irony and sense of humor about them. But here there is a studied seriousness that feels out of place with the unbelievable hero and villain in the film. Silence is an interesting character, but his muteness leaves him with the inability to make the kind of wisecracks Eastwood was capable of making in Leone's films. You want to run up behind Silence and tape a "kick me" sign on his back. Only Klaus Kinski's character has the disarming humor badly needed in a film like this.
Also, apart from Kinski, the acting in this film is not so good. The actress who plays the woman who hires Silence to kill Kinski is beautiful but so wooden. Her presence alone hurts the film greatly. The sheriff is also miscast with an actor who commands little respect and has less charisma. Trintignant, who plays silence, is pretty good. But he is given a character who is initially unbelievably skilled as a gunfighter, but then at the end of the film he is so unbelievably inept. Silence uses no caution in how he leaves himself open to get gunned down before he even has a chance to draw his gun -- with badly injured hands at that. The ending of this film is praised for challenging the conventional ending of the average western, yet it should be mocked and criticized for how it violates dignity, skill and character of Silence, the lead character in the film. As for Silence getting gunned down, it's not a bad way to end the film, but how could the writer and filmmaker let him get gunned down so easily? Isn't this the same man that easily took out 3 or 4 men at long range in the snow at the opening of the film? How can he be so skilled at the beginning of the film and so inept at the end -- even if he is injured? He's The Big Silence for goodness sake. And why let Kinski's character live? Shouldn't they both die in the decisive battle? Shouldn't the message be that violence doesn't doesn't discriminate? It kills both good and bad? (as in Seven Samurai) Not only the good? (as in this film).
I'll tell you one thing. Eastwood would have never played Silence. He never would have died like an inept little insignificant twerp like Trintignant's Silence dies in this in this film. Sure, western heroes can die, but if he goes to fight then at least let him fight like the skilled gunfighter he is -- or let him get shot in the back by a coward (like Gregory Peck in THE GUNFIGHTER). Does evil rule the day? The way Silence dies in this film is the way certain somewhat politically charged filmmakers want to see western hero die. They despise or despair over the notion of heroism, so they simplify their films, or they violate the context of the film to make some sort of statement. Heroes die in the 60s, fine. But here the filmmakers feel the need to kill the myth of the western in a way that spits on their hero -- Silence. While they're at it, they kill the genre and kill their own film too. Too bad, really, since this film has some good things to recommend about it. By the way, the alternative "happy" ending included on the DVD is even worse than the original. Better to let everyone die -- good and bad.