New 4K Restoration Blu-Ray (March 2019)

[Jordan Krug]

Might seem picky but did anyone notice the gun shots are out of sync on the opening credits. A friend pointed it out as he also noticed it at the widescreen weekend event screening at Bradford in the UK in 2014 which was distributed by Park Circus.

Which audio track, the 5.1? (I assume that's what they showed at the screening?).

[Le Bon]

On all 3 audio tracks.

[dave jenkins]

Anybody listen to the Tim Lucas commentary track? It's very good and may be even better than Frayling's. Anyway, it engaged me and got me mulling over many things in the film I've never noticed before or did but have forgotten about. Some of these points may have been addressed by others, but they're worth hearing about again. Here's what I've gleaned from the first half:


Lucas seems to think the invisible gunman in the prologue is Mortimer, and he may be right, but I’ve always believed it is just a generic “Bounty Killer.”

He points out that Leone’s name, in the credits, gets shot down until it forms something resembling  a pair of dice showing snake eyes. He claims there is a snake eyes motif that runs through the picture.


He has a very good explanation for the development of the character of Manco that has to do with industry concerns. Obviously Leone wanted to repeat the success of AFOD by using a poncho-wearing Eastwood who smokes thin cigars. However, he had moved from Jolly Films to Grimaldi’s production and needed to be careful not to infringe on the copyright of his former employers (who apparently sued anyway). He needed plausible deniability that the character in the second picture was different from the one in the first. Hence the gauntlet and the one-armed thing. So they are the same character for marketing reasons, but not the same character due to legal concerns. I don’t think I’d ever understood it that way before but it sounds persuasive to me.

Lucas thinks it is significant that the Bible LVC is reading at the beginning doesn’t have the word “holy” on it. An Unholy Bible? With Mortimer as a dysangelist spreading the Bad News? Well, he is always wearing black (and Sabata means “sabbath”). Still, I think Lucas may be overreading things here. It’s true that in Anglo-saxon countries the book is frequently called “holy”, but I’m not sure that that is a tradition in other cultures.

Lucas fails to take the opportunity, during the Baby Red Kavanaugh sequence, to explore film references having to do with the gunman who has his shave interrupted.

Oddly, he seems to feel that Indio’s killing of his cellmate is wholly capricious and without sound reason. But there is a very good reason for killing the carpenter—Indio doesn’t want to take him along and he doesn’t want the guy telling anyone else about the safe hidden in the cabinet.

He assumes that Indio’s herb of choice is MJ. Obviously Mr. Lucas is unfamiliar with the theory advanced by some on this board that he smokes Jimson Weed.

He has a good comment on Indio’s flashback and the fact that it was hugely influential in the shooting of such scenes in giallo and other types of films.

Lucas has a witty comment on how, considering Eastwood's different paydays between the first and second films, the title is literally true.
 
He identifies the Italian intermission point and makes an observation about the following scene between Eastwood and the three gunmen he cowboys. Before he shoots, Eastwood rubs the end of his cigarillo and places it between his lips. One of the men he shoots is played by Frank Bana, and Frank’s character just before the intermission shot off the end of Eastwood’s cigar. Of course, it is expedient for the 3 men to die, but there could also be an element of pay-back in what Eastwood does.


I'll be enjoying the rest of the commentary as time allows. Really worth everyone's time.

[drinkanddestroy]

Thanks so much for making this, I feel like i can speak for everyone here and say that all of your hard work is appreciated.

Yes, indeed 

[Le Bon]

The Manco character part sounds plausible. In Chris Frayling's book he interviews Carla Leone and she said Leone called it For a Few Dollars More to upset Jolly Film and when they heard about the sequel they tried to muscle in on it. They then tried to get Eastwood to sign a contract with them.

[noodles_leone]

Anybody listen to the Tim Lucas commentary track? It's very good and may be even better than Frayling's. Anyway, it engaged me and got me mulling over many things in the film I've never noticed before or did but have forgotten about. Some of these points may have been addressed by others, but they're worth hearing about again. Here's what I've gleaned from the first half:


Lucas seems to think the invisible gunman in the prologue is Mortimer, and he may be right, but I’ve always believed it is just a generic “Bounty Killer.”

I see where he comes from. But the movie works better for me if the invisible killer is just a regular bounty hunter.

He points out that Leone’s name, in the credits, gets shot down until it forms something resembling  a pair of dice showing snake eyes. He claims there is a snake eyes motif that runs through the picture.

I'll check that out next time I see it.

He has a very good explanation for the development of the character of Manco that has to do with industry concerns. Obviously Leone wanted to repeat the success of AFOD by using a poncho-wearing Eastwood who smokes thin cigars. However, he had moved from Jolly Films to Grimaldi’s production and needed to be careful not to infringe on the copyright of his former employers (who apparently sued anyway). He needed plausible deniability that the character in the second picture was different from the one in the first. Hence the gauntlet and the one-armed thing. So they are the same character for marketing reasons, but not the same character due to legal concerns. I don’t think I’d ever understood it that way before but it sounds persuasive to me.

Very convincing. Also, I always thought that one handed thing was kind of quickly done, never really used afterward... Looked like an afterthough. Which works with that theory too.

Lucas thinks it is significant that the Bible LVC is reading at the beginning doesn’t have the word “holy” on it. An Unholy Bible? With Mortimer as a dysangelist spreading the Bad News? Well, he is always wearing black (and Sabata means “sabbath”). Still, I think Lucas may be overreading things here. It’s true that in Anglo-saxon countries the book is frequently called “holy”, but I’m not sure that that is a tradition in other cultures.

Hm. For the record, I'm pretty sure european bibles tend to just be called "bible" and almost never "holy Bible". My money is on Leone and the prop guys didn't even think of adding "holy" on a regular bible.

Lucas fails to take the opportunity, during the Baby Red Kavanaugh sequence, to explore film references having to do with the gunman who has his shave interrupted.

Oddly, he seems to feel that Indio’s killing of his cellmate is wholly capricious and without sound reason. But there is a very good reason for killing the carpenter—Indio doesn’t want to take him along and he doesn’t want the guy telling anyone else about the safe hidden in the cabinet.

I'm with you on this.

He assumes that Indio’s herb of choice is MJ. Obviously Mr. Lucas is unfamiliar with the theory advanced by some on this board that he smokes Jimson Weed.

All the lines about drugs in the film have convinced me forever that Leone didn't know anything about drugs. Hence, the herbs that Indio smokes are nothing but "drugs".

He has a good comment on Indio’s flashback and the fact that it was hugely influential in the shooting of such scenes in giallo and other types of films.

Yeah I'm sure the way flashbacks are done in FAFDM has been much more influential than they're usually credited for (people always reference OUATITW's flashbacks, which, I think, are much better done, but I cannot deny the historical importance of the ones in FAFDM)

Lucas has a witty comment on how, considering Eastwood's different paydays between the first and second films, the title is literally true.

Haha This is actually true of the whole movie. The budget was indeed increased. And the film made more money too.

[dave jenkins]

There's a great Alex Cox documentary with this showing him visiting many of the filming locations. The old before/after MGM piece is also included (with all the other MGM stuff) but that has static photos and was done some time in the 2003-2005 window. The new one has a 2018 copyright and you get to see Alex huffing and puffing as he goes up some of those hills in Almeria. The documentary is certainly entertaining, but even better, it gave me a new appreciation for the location work on FAFDM. A lot of interiors that I assumed were studio sets turn out to be local interiors (for example, the bodega where Mortimer ices Kinski's character). What studio work there is was done in Madrid, but there really wasn't all that much. The film is mostly location, location, location. My appreciation for the film as a whole has grown.

[dave jenkins]

Another point Tim Lucas makes is regarding the final gundown. Of course, it is overseen by Manco to insure that it's fair. I'd always assumed that that meant keeping Indio from cheating but, as Lucas points out, Manco is also making sure Mortimer is on the up and up. Remember, he took out Wild with a trick derringer, and he's a veritable Inspector Gadget where weapons are concerned. Manco gives Mortimer his pistol, belt, and holster to use, ensuring no tricks will be used in the settling of accounts. Mortimer has never used Eastwood's weapon, so he may not be entirely comfortable with the unfamiliar gun. Except that after he gives Indio the business he returns the pistol to its holster with a very fancy twirl, eliciting a surprised reaction from Manco. Maybe he hadn't evened things up after all.

[dave jenkins]

Lucas seems puzzled by the fact that Mortimer gives up the bounty biz at the moment of his greatest success, but surely Mortimer was only doing it as a means to get to Indio. While Indio was in jail he couldn't kill him, and meanwhile he needed to earn a living. Why not do something that brings in cash while sharpening your man-hunting skills? Going through Indio's gang to get to Indio was always going to be a difficult proposition. And once Indio is dead Mortimer can give the whole thing up and go home (with the two pocket watches reunited to boot). Seems pretty obvious to me.

[drinkanddestroy]

Lucas seems puzzled by the fact that Mortimer gives up the bounty biz at the moment of his greatest success, but surely Mortimer was only doing it as a means to get to Indio. While Indio was in jail he couldn't kill him, and meanwhile he needed to earn a living. Why not do something that brings in cash while sharpening your man-hunting skills? Going through Indio's gang to get to Indio was always going to be a difficult proposition. And once Indio is dead Mortimer can give the whole thing up and go home (with the two pocket watches reunited to boot). Seems pretty obvious to me.

Mortimer was a bounty hunter for a while - as the “Prophet” says, and as we see in opening scene. Not only as a “means to get to Indio.”

[cigar joe]

Lucas seems puzzled by the fact that Mortimer gives up the bounty biz at the moment of his greatest success, but surely Mortimer was only doing it as a means to get to Indio. While Indio was in jail he couldn't kill him, and meanwhile he needed to earn a living. Why not do something that brings in cash while sharpening your man-hunting skills? Going through Indio's gang to get to Indio was always going to be a difficult proposition. And once Indio is dead Mortimer can give the whole thing up and go home (with the two pocket watches reunited to boot). Seems pretty obvious to me.

agree

[noodles_leone]

Mortimer was a bounty hunter for a while - as the “Prophet” says, and as we see in opening scene. Not only as a “means to get to Indio.”

Yes it was only a way to finance his quest and stay on the move. I'm also pretty sure he needed to be in touch with outlaws in order to hear the whereabouts of Indio. At least that's how I always took it.

Then he doesn't want ANY money directly related to Indio's bounty because that would tarnish his revenge. That's just movie revenge 101.

[mike siegel]

'can't remember a line where he says he'd never ever again would work as a bounty hunter...

Because he refuses the money?    Who would want to earn money with his sister's death ??
Because he won't continue working with Manco?    He's a loner anyway, he just enjoyed his partnership to track down Indio.
So he rides off alone and maybe tracks down another one in week or a month... Or not. Who cares, the film plays before such events  .
I don't quite get the discussion....

[drinkanddestroy]

Yes it was only a way to finance his quest and stay on the move. I'm also pretty sure he needed to be in touch with outlaws in order to hear the whereabouts of Indio. At least that's how I always took it.

Then he doesn't want ANY money directly related to Indio's bounty because that would tarnish his revenge. That's just movie revenge 101.

I agree that he doesn’t want any money from the Indio and gang bounty because that would tarnish his revenge. I disagree that he’s going to stop bounty hunting. “What about our partnership?” “Maybe next time.”

He was and will continue to be a bounty hunter for money. It was only the Indio deal that he didn’t want money for.

[drinkanddestroy]

'can't remember a line where he says he'd never ever again would work as a bounty hunter...

Because he refuses the money?    Who would want to earn money with his sister's death ??
Because he won't continue working with Manco?    He's a loner anyway, he just enjoyed his partnership to track down Indio.
So he rides off alone and maybe tracks down another one in week or a month... Or not. Who cares, the film plays before such events  .
I don't quite get the discussion....

It’s because of the damn trains!