While the 2016 version slipped between the traditional superhero genre and the contemporary comedy/sweary/action hero genre, this version caught hold of the latter. While not completely hitting the nail on the head, it was, unlike the first version, worth a watch Building on the original's characters, it brings more depth to them as they are blackmailed by the secret government department into infiltrating a lab containing a deadly monster. There's still a lack of depth to the plot but notthe vacuum of the first film. The Peacemaker series nailed it eventually.

**Where the first film was a good action movie with Suicide Squad characters, The Suicide Squad (2021) truly is a Suicide Squad movie in all its psychotic, unpredictable glory.**
While I am one of the few that really enjoyed the 2016 Suicide Squad, I can't deny that this movie captures the chaos, instability, and expendable nature of the Squad in the comics. James Gunn introduces the audience to a whole cadre of characters that are very deep cuts into DC lore with unknowns like Polka-dot Man, Peacemaker, Bloodsport, Ratcatcher, Javelin, and more. These obscure villains serve as perfect cannon fodder for Amanda Waller's hopeless suicide missions. These C-list villains almost scream that no one is safe. Both new and old characters constantly die throughout the film. Still, somehow Gunn manages to make us care about these obscure and insignificant comic book characters making their deaths more potent and heartbreaking. He also knows how to direct Harley Quinn better than any director who has brought the character to live action. Her insanity and charm are delightfully deranged and perfectly showcased repeatedly. With an army of bad guys, there is plenty of action and fighting to keep the runtime moving and put each squad member's skills on display. After what Gunn did with The Suicide Squad, I am excited to see what he brings to the rest of the DC Universe.

I certainly could have tolerated a LOT more comedic lines. But what the hell, it's just good, dumb, fun anyway.

The Suicide Squad is to Suicide Squad what McDowell's is to McDonald's. Suicide Squad had Deadshot, The Suicide Squad has Bloodsport. Suicide Squad had a computer generated anthropomorphic crocodile, The Suicide Squad has a computer generated anthropomorphic shark. Suicide Squad had a Latino character who could control CGI flames, The Suicide Squad has a Hispanic character who can control CGI rats. Et-fucking-cetera.
These minor differences only serve to emphasize that the only real difference between this movie and its predecessor is a definite article in the title. Even the quote-unquote new characters serve to preserve the status quo, as their introduction allows writer/director James Gunn to repeat David Ayer's formula from the first film: Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), who is clearly a bigger sociopath than any member of the Suicide Squad, scrapes the bottom of the DC barrel for characters who go from feeling sorry for themselves to feeling sorry for each other.
But there is something that The Suicide Squad has that Suicide Squad doesn't: an odd habit of unnecessarily doubling down. Thus, we have Peacemaker, who is interchangeable with Bloodsport does. Or Weasel, a humanoid weasel who is interchangeable with Pete Davidson, a weasely human (Davidson is possibly the only person more annoying than Margot Robbie; thankfully, his character gets his face shot off early on, which actually makes Davidson less grotesque to look at than usual).

Movie is different in terms of the violence it handles, but I feel that it falls into many things previously seen. The beginning of this film is brutal but as the second act progresses it becomes a bit tedious and there is a lot of sentimentality that ends up overshadowing the violence. The special effects are good and the sound is good too, most of the performances are convincing. While I didn't think it was that funny, it has it's few moments, and the main cast of characters is also more likable.

What a surprise, after hearing such great things about this film for the past year I finally decided to give it a watch and it did not disappoint. James Gunn is such a fantastically creative director, and it is shown in full force here. Gunn is able to give each character their own artistic flair that makes even the most ridiculous characters (Polka-Dot Man) memorable. The comedy is on point, like most Gunn films, but there is a more brutal style of humor that is distinctly different the MCU humor that he has pioneered, given the R rating. I was pleased with the fighting choreography, with many unique kills i.e, the Harley Quinn escape scene. The plot is nothing special, but that is really in the background to the characters relationships that build throughout the course of the film.
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

I cannot help wondering if the writer of this movie was on a LSD trip or something when he wrote it. It is over the top crazy, weird and outrageous. It is also incredibly gory. It is a super hero / bad guy comedy with emphasis on comedy. I was thinking comedy version of Kill Bill (for the gore and killing) with supers in it when I was watching it.
I have to say that I enjoyed watching it though.
The movie makes absolutely no pretense of being taken seriously. The “heros” are outrageously wacky and so are most normal persons in the movie. The plot is just as wacky as the characters and this is a movie in which the normal ludicrous and illogical plot twists that the Hollywood hacks usually comes up with actually feels right for the movie.
I got a bit of a what the f… moment at the beginning when the movie had but started and everything went to hell right away. That was before I had realized how much of a comedy this movie really was supposed to be. If there is a sane moment in this movie I missed it.
If there was one thing I didn’t like about the movie it was the liberal use of jumping back and forth. I hate this “24 hours earlier…” bullshit or any permutations thereof.
I also really didn’t like the “It’s the evil US government conducting illegal evil experiments and we’re supposed to cover it up” story line. It just typical Hollywood overused crap.
I did like the action though. As I wrote before it is ridiculously gory and very very comical. So is a lot of the dialog which of course is as crazy and weird as the rest of the movie. In any other movie as large shark with legs walking on land saying “yum yum” and then eating someone, repeatedly, would be just cringeworthy. In this movie it actually works.
The movie is 2 hours 12 minutes long and it really did not feel too long. It was 2+ hours of fun entertainment.
The post credit scene was a bit lame though. Not at the same level as the rest of the movie.

_The Suicide Squad_ is still one of my favorite films of the year. James Gunn understood what the real Suicide Squad is, the great action, the violence, with a nice balance of heart and humor. The performances made this film a lot better. I didn’t expect that enjoy this film even on rewatch, and even put a spot on my yearly ranking, and I hope Gunn makes more films like this.
**MY FULL REVIEW** : https://boxd.it/2kVcop

The Suicide Squad is an uproarious extravaganza filled with grotesque nom-noms, full-on naked dick shots, and John Cena in tighty-whities and it’s is the most fun you’ll have with an R-rated comic book film in a theater (or at home with HBO Max) since Deadpool. It’s the first comic book film to come along in a good long while that’s charming because of how weird it is.
Full review: https://geekshavegame.com/the-suicide-squad-review-im-a-motherf___ing-superhero/

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-suicide-squad-spoiler-free-review
"The Suicide Squad is everything its predecessor should have been, boasting everything a Suicide Squad film deserves. Proper rated-R content with extremely gory, bloody action sequences, which are impressively shot and choreographed through long takes, exceptional stunt work, and surprisingly outstanding VFX.
With the help of a witty soundtrack, James Gunn brings his dark humor to an expectedly hilarious level, though not all jokes land in a still generic screenplay filled with the usual cliches and formulaic developments. Nevertheless, the phenomenal cast elevates the overall picture with fantastic performances all-around, though Daniela Melchior's breakthrough performance is an absolute standout.
Each squad member receives decent screentime to share their emotionally compelling backstories, transforming a superhero movie into a character-driven story instead of just a team of superpowered nobodies beating up a random CGI monster.
Gunn just can't seem to miss."
Rating: B+

Full Review and Analysis at Spotamovie.com
**The Suicide Squad – Introduction**
Take the weirdest villains, give them an impossible mission, add some creepy humour, actions, colours and talent, and you get “The Suicide Squad.”
If some villains in 2021 try to improve and become better people, see Cruella, for instance, we can’t say the same for our protagonists on the scene. They are looking to please the American government to gain some favour in return. However, some of them will surprise us with some good intentions and actions.It’s an exciting movie, spectacular in its genre and filled with dark humour and great character. So let’s dive into the story and some insights.
**The Suicide Squad – The Story**
The American government organises a secret mission to take control of “Project Starfish” in the South American island of Corto Maltese. However, a recent coup overthrew the friendly American government and, the task forces created by intelligence officer Amanda Waller needs to destroy the laboratory of the secret experiment, Jötunheim. Colonel Rick Flag leads the first team that tries to enter the Corto Maltese’s beach. At the same time, the second team leader is Bloodsport, an assassin who accepted the mission under the blackmail of the American authorities. Both teams will have to strive and survive to accomplish the critical goal.
Our heroes, or villains, needs to save the world from “Starro The Conqueror”, a dangerous weapon in the hands of the not trustable Corto Maltese’s government. But also prevent a tremendous international scandal that will destroy America’s reputation in the world.
Will our team succeed with their mission?
What will be the price to pay?
And what is the difference between a not trustable regime and one which conspires against the world for its interests?
Full Review and Analysis at https://www.spotamovie.com/the-suicide-squad-2021-movie-review-and-analysis/

This is one fun and violent superhero movie that is just entertaining. A nice break from the vast universe of Marvel, this is just a simple fun movie.
Crazy, silly, surprising and hilarious.
Definitely recommended!

**From Director JAMES GUNN : "The Supremely Delectable Art Of, Er, HOMICIDE, 101🤦 ♂️💥😅"**
______________________________________________________
A **-{ _B I G_ }-** Screen **Micro** Review . Film Viewed By Me At **_NOVO CINEMAS_** Sharjah UAE, On August 16
______________________________________________________
So usually, I try and maintain a somewhat orderly structure with my Reviews, namely : 'Intro->-Body->-Summation'. This time, just to 'Keep-it fresh', I just thought I'd shake things up a bit, and { quite literally } write my review, er . . . . 'backwards'. Hence, without further ado, here goes 😉❗
FINAL ANALYSIS :
As a 'doting' parent, I'm going to come clean and tell you that I had a real problem with the fact that I -{ Did }- really enjoy this -Certifiably- { Decadent } "Bloodsoaked Adult Goof-fest", and in no small measure either, at that. Sure it was 'dominated' mostly by -Cartoonish- violence meant only for 'Mature' viewers, ( it has an M.p.a.a certified rating of 'R' ) ; however ...the, um, how shall I say... "Sheerly, Obscenely, Gratuitous" levels of gore in said movie -Did- somewhat take me by surprise . . . given as it comes -directly- from the Director -best- know for his ( -relatively- ) "More kosher" -M.c.u- ( 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' ) . . . blockbuster fare.
HIGH POINTS :
1. "Peacemaker" : The cheeky, sneaky', yet unequivocally -{ "Bold, Fresh & Fabulous" }- takedown of the long, long, long standing -Imperialist- tendencies ; but more significantly, the -{ "Hypocricies & Triple-standards" }- of, "Past United States Governments", -Symbolically- , of course.
2. Simply Put : basically -"Everything"- the { Stunningly 💣 💥❗ } Talented Margot Robbie, ( 'Harley Quinn' ) does ; with an 'Extra-special' mention for her -protracted- "Escape From Coronel" fight scene. 3. Daniela Melchoir, ( 'Ratcatcher-two' ) : This peculiarly endowed 'Anti-heroine' has a seiously -Bizarre- talent... but she, along with Idris Elba's 'Bloodsport', the just bespoke Margot's 'Harley' ( -and Others- ) ...end up bringing a veritable -{ " Ton Of -Unexpected & Genuine- Heart " }- to 'The Suicide Squad'.
**" A Conflicted, yet -Thoroughly- Entertained, 8.50 Marks Out Of 10 From Me " ;** if only out of 'Absolute Admiration' for the 'Funny, & Insanely-Creative' James Gunn. It bears iterating that I ( -Very Obviously- ) won't be letting my kids anywhere "Near" this super-Crazy, Super-Fun picture . . . -{ However }- . . . the Reviewer in me has -Indeed- won over the Parent, in this instance, all the same 🤷 ♂️ 😂 .

I was pleasantly surprised by this one, I had not watched any trailers in the run up to watching it but I was expecting it to be a bit lame but it turned out to be a good movie. I was surprised when pretty much the whole first team was killed off straight of the bat especially since some of the characters where played by well known actors, it wasn't all about Harlequin, John Cena and Idris Elba worked well together, good movie worth going to the cinema to watch it.

For sure has its moments and also has James Gunn's fingerprints with the dark humor. Not sure I would rank this all that high amongst all comic book movies, nor is it near the top compared with some DC, but it's a step up from the previous entry. The performances all around were well done with Idris Elba and John Cena being the highlights but everyone else were great. **3.75/5**

The Suicide Squad...
...stayed true to the hype of the anti-hero teams in DC.
I feel like it wasn't really a sequel but rather a reboot and ignoring the first film.
The action was insane and BLOODY brilliant, with a stellar cast. And they LITERALLY killed off the first team at the very start of the film! To be honest, I wasn't really surprised as I didn't see more of them in later scenes of the trailer. But I was surprised they killed off Captain Boomerang - he was basically the primary member of the team! And I especially wanted to see more character build up with Savant, learn more of his backstory. Instead, he just turned out to be a totally wuss that's only good at killing small birds! But what shocked me the most was Rick Flagg's death!
Still, Idris Elba and John Cena were fucking awesome as Bloodsport and Peacemaker, respectively. And King Shark was hilariously awesome. Funnier that Groot because at least he says more than three words - although, "hand" would have to be my favourite moment!
I did had mixed feelings from the start, but then I started to really get into it all!

People tended to treat Sergio Leone's work with a considerable degree of disdain, but watching this in 2020 it is still amongst the very best of the genre. A good-looking, calculating Clint Eastwood ("The Good"), is the itinerant bounty hunter who has an uneasy partnership with a scene-stealing Eli Wallach ("The Ugly) to trick the local authorities of the reward money due for his capture before escaping and dividing the spoils. They happen upon a recently robbed stagecoach where they learn of the whereabout of a huge stash of gold - but they both possess different clues as to the location, so must - despite themselves - work together to track down the loot. Meantime, a thoroughly nasty Lee Van Cleef (“The Bad") hears about their treasure hunt and is now joined in the race to the money. There is a paucity of dialogue that only enhances their performances - there are bouts of humour and although the premiss is pretty violent, there is actually very little by way of grisly, gory depiction seen on screen. The scene near the end in the graveyard with the magnificent Morricone "Ecstacy of Gold" theme is as good as Westerns get. The editing is not great, it has to be said - but the cinematography gives a great showcase to the scale and grandeur of the locations. Not a word I use often, but this really is a masterpiece of the cinema.

**One of the best, most famous and most iconic Westerns ever. More than a classic, it's mandatory.**
I'm not an expert nor do I want to sound like one, but I think this is one of the most famous western films ever made, despite being shot by an Italian director and being more European than American. Sérgio Leone was one of the most notable directors of his time and he left us, in this film, one of his masterpieces.
This is one of those movies that is almost perfect. Problems and failures are scarce and reside in minimal details that end up not making a big difference in the overall work. The story was very well written and takes place in the midst of the American Civil War, a time when violence was part of everyday life. In this environment of violence and mutual distrust, two men are looking for a treasure buried in a cemetery: the problem is the fact that each one knows only part of the location (that is, one knows the location of the cemetery and the other knows which grave it is) and there is a third man, a fearsome assassin, willing to do anything to take all the gold.
For this film, Leone put together a very reasonable cast, mostly European, and three great North American actors with enormous talent: Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef. I believe that they knew how to make the most intelligent and skilful use of this film, giving us a truly remarkable job. For this three actors, this is the best cinematographic work of their career, or one of the best, consecrating them as great Western movies actors. The film, however, seems to give Wallach more and better opportunities. While watching it, I got the feeling that he is the actor who receives most attention and best material, in addition to having known how to improvise at the right moments and in creative and intelligent ways.
The film has great visual beauty, emphasized by the cinematography, the filming work and the good choice and design of sets and costumes. At a time when the correct period recreation was something that cinema sometimes blatantly ignored, this film did the opposite, giving us a realistic and believable vision of the past and placing the film in a specific place and time. I'm not saying it was a one hundred percent successful effort, but it was definitely a decisive step in the right direction when it comes to period films. The special effects and visuals are excellent, the best there was then, and the whole film has an epic, grandiose, expensive feel. It is also very long, with almost three hours in length, but it is worth not being afraid or giving up on because of that. Being a Western film, it is quite evident that there is a lot of violence, so it is not a film for children. Even so, it is not gratuitous violence. Finally, we owe Ennio Morricone a salute for the excellent soundtrack he composed. Among his vast work, this is not my favorite nor the best, but it is undoubtedly one of the most recognizable and iconic pieces, a work that we know, even without having seen this film, and that has become part of our collective memory. We can't ask for more than that.

Not as bad as the other Leone Westerns.
Still, that is not saying much at all.
At 3/10, this is better than his totally ridiculous ones.
It's still a dull movie with non credible one dimensional characters who have no motivation for a single thing they do.
Three homicidal maniacs who are called good, bad, and ugly, but really they're all just bad and ugly.
Eli Wallach steals the show. I think most people agree with me on that, and for some people he saves the show, but I need better writing, and more "credible characters in incredible circumstances" than we get with Leone.
Blondie (Eastwood) kills anyone he sees in the wild. He kills other bounty hunters to steal their prisoner to bring in for rewards.
It's a good thing we didn't have Allied soldiers like Blondie, or else all Germans would have to do to win the war would be surrender and let American GIs kill each other to steal prisoners to bring in. Imagine that. We would have lost WW2 if our soldiers were like Blondie (or Manko, or whatever his name was).
The attempts to humanize the homicidal maniacs played by Clint and Eli only work for the brain dead idiots who buy into that. Such brain dead idiots don't last long in the hood or in volatile situations. Sadists do not get human. They only act human at times to get innocent victims to lower their guard.
The three man shootout at the end is stolen from the pair of movies "The Jackal" and "Yellow Sky", and I'm not sure if it's better or not. Neither one is in a top one hundred all time movie gunfights or showdowns. It's weak and stupid.
But when the spaghetti Westerns came out, the drug abusers and potheads loved them, and demanded they be acclaimed. The critics were either scared of the druggies or were druggies themselves, because the critics were bigger hacks than Leone for praising this garbage.
How long will we endure the crack head idolization of this garbage? Probably another 30 years or so, until we get some mature viewers who are willing to make up their own minds about what is classic, instead of being sheep.
Yep, Eli spoke of sheep in another Western, but it fits here.
I give it a grade on a curb to make it 3/10, although compared to 1950s Westerns it is 1/10, but I'm lenient, because it isn't as bad as the other Leone Westerns. It isn't exactly "watchable", and you will fall asleep if you take it in one viewing, but the other Leone Westerns are even more boring than this one. Eli Wallach does do a great job, and for some people, that's enough.

Very good no doubt about it, even if I feel it's an odd fitting third installment of the Dollars trilogy.
In case this review sounds negative at any point, I wanna explicitly state for the avoidance of any doubt that 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' is very good! Any cons noted are relative.
I just feel like it's a drop-off from the brilliant double of 'A Fistful of Dollars' and 'For a Few Dollars More'. The near 3hr run time is one of the reasons, though the pacing is actually pretty good in fairness. I guess it's more so the plot, which is filled with an American Civil War setting which I didn't feel matched the characters.
The man in the middle/bounty hunting aspects of the original two films are perfect for the characters of Clint Eastwood & Co., whereas them tagging along for the war just felt odd; the story didn't feel as raw or volatile to me.
As stated, it's still - on its own merits - an entertaining western. Eastwood remains quality, while Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach are extremely worthy onscreen counterparts. I will say Van Cleef feels forgotten about, probably just by me, towards the end until he magically reappears. Still, as a trio they are really enjoyable. The plot away from the war is properly fun, much more in keeping to what I was expecting. The score is also awesome, yet again.
Minus the ACW and a shorter run time and I'd probably be classing this as great as AFOD and FAFDM. It's still very good though, which I evidently want to stress, and I'd definitely revisit it.
watched: "Extended English-language version".
Even though this version is the same as the original Italian release (177 minutes), but seemingly the US shortened run time is considered the true incarnation? Odd.

Solid western, which generally isn't a favorite genre of mine, with great performances and some well shot scenes and landscapes. Been a long time since I saw A Fistful of Dollars or For a Few Dollars More, but this is a great entry in the "Man With No Name" Trilogy. **4.0/5**

There is one word to define The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. And that word is “transcendent”. This movie is not only the pinnacle of the Spaghetti Western, but it transcended into the pinnacle of the Western genre in itself. It’s safe to say it transcends that too, and can be considered one of the greatest pieces of filmmaking ever. It counts with memorable performances by three different leads, a story that breaks the “black and white” concepts of morale, and an original score that can only be defined by the word “epic”.
Directed by the man responsible for the revitalization of the western in Italy, Sergio Leone, the film does an incredible job of introducing every character, and showing each and every one has a dubious concept of moral values. “The Bad”, Sentenza, or Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), is shown to be a ruthless, greedy gun for hire, but also someone who lives by the mantra of always getting the job done. “The Ugly”, Tuco, is a greedy backstabber, but he is also a man who comes from an extremely poor environment and family conflicts, showing a bit of determinism in the film. “The Good”, Blondie (Clint Eastwood) is not much better himself. While he is surely the less greedy one, he also has no problem with killing and backstabbing other people. To put it in perspective, he is ironically announced as “The Good” right after abandoning a man to die in the desert.
The story follows all these three personalities as they engage in their particular gold rush: a buried treasure that is hidden in a cemetery. In order to find it, they must form an uneasy alliance, while trying to outrun each other, and claim the prized gold alone. All of this while the Civil War happens around them.
The performances are nothing short of amazing. It goes to show the range that Lee Van Cleef had once this villainous role is compared to his work in the previous installment of the trilogy, For a Few Dollars More, as a heroic, friendly and almost fatherly figure. His presence is as intimidating as ever, and one of the best he has given in his lengthy career. Eastwood is as eye-catching as one would expect: his deep stares and lines delivered in a whispery, yet gravelly voice, defined The Man With No Name. But the best of the bunch has to be Eli Wallach. His comedic timing is as precise as any bullet shot in this film. But the most outstanding part of his characterization is that while he is extremely funny, he also manages to be a credible threat for the “hero”, Blondie.
The original music score for this film deserves a whole book just to talk about it, and it still wouldn’t do it justice. It’s simply a lesson by the maestro, Ennio Morricone, on how music can change a film. Thanks to a track such as L’estasi dell’oro (The Ecstasy of Gold), a man running around a cemetery becomes one of the most epic scenes ever made. Thanks to a composition such as Il Triello, three men staring at each other, pondering their options for almost seven minutes straight, becomes tense enough to have the viewer on the edge of its seat. There is simply no other way to put it: Morricone crafted one of the best scores in this art’s history.
At the end of the day, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is more than just a great western film. It’s a show of great acting, writing, directing and music scoring. It’s a real once in a lifetime classic, that has been around for a long time, and not aged a little bit, and will still be talked about for generations of cinephiles to come. To conclude, all I can say is… There are two kinds of people, my friend. Those who have watched this film, and those who have not. You watch.

I am not a fan of Sergio Leone. In fact, this movie and Once Upon a Time in the West are the only movies of his that I have seen. But I think they are both classic westerns. He seems to bring out the best in his cinematographer, both for scenery and for his characters.
In one review I read, he was criticized for staying with facial close-ups too long, and I would probably agree if he populated his movies with beautiful actors and actresses as many films do, but he relies heavily upon actors with interesting faces.
Sometimes I feel he relies on too many shootings, and on having his gunfighters be too damn good. Two, four, six opponents? Doesn’t matter, these guys kill them all and come out unscathed. But that is part of the western movie gunfighter mystique.
On a different level, I have owned the soundtrack for this movie: The Good the Bad and the Ugly, for close to 50 years. I write novels in my spare time, and I started listening to this soundtrack (plus others like Thunderball) for background music as I wrote. I moved on to Ambient music, such as Brian Eno, but still listen to this album. As a side note, I heard a great version of this movie music on YouTube, performed by the Danish National Orchestra. Check it out.
So the movie works for me on multiple levels, and I own a copy so I can watch it any time the mood strikes me

Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic Western film. Clint Eastwood is the Good, aka the Man with No Name, a taciturn wanderer who follows his own sense of justice. His opposite is Angel Eyes (Lee van Cleef), the Bad, a brutal mercenary who kills anyone who stands in the way of making ready cash. The film's comic relief is Tuco (Eli Wallach), the Ugly, a Mexican bandit wanted in several states who ends up inadvertently doing some good turns. At the height of the Civil War, as Union and Confederate armies battle each other in the West, these three men vie for an abandoned cache of gold coins.
The film is especially memorable for its pace and cinematography. The opening scene, for example, juxtaposes closeups of anxious faces with vast panoramas of the Western landscape, and 10 minutes passes before a single word is said. It is like Tarkovsky transplanted to a vastly different setting. That's not to say it's all so serious, though. In a sense the film is a "two buddies on the road" movie, with Tuco the wisecracker and Eastwood's character the straight man. It is also a war film, with Leone apparently sparing no expense in presenting a realistic image of hundreds of men charging each other on the battlefield. This is not among the greatest films I've ever seen, but it's very well-made.
Because this is a "spaghetti Western", an effort in the genre realized by a joint Italian-Spanish production team with American lead actors, the film has some curious qualities. Because of the use of locals, all the faces of Civil War soldiers are so clearly Italian, even though Italian immigration into the US picked up only later. The Mexican bandit Tuco is played by a Jew from New York, and furthermore Leone mocks the character's Catholicism in a way that Americans of the era would, although the faith would be in no way foreign to his Italian audience.

I'm looking for the owner of that horse. He's tall, blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig!
It's debatable of course, since there are legions of fans of the first two films in Sergio Leone's Dollars Trology, but with each film there not only came a longer running time, but also a rise in quality - debatable of course!
Here for the third and final part of the trilogy, Leone adds Eli Wallach to the established pairing of Lee Van Cleef and Clint Eastwood, and brings all his tools of the trade to the party. Plot is slight, the three principals are on a collision course to find some buried gold, with each man having varying degrees of scuzziness, so how will it pan out?
Such is the genius of the narrative, it's a fascinating journey to undertake. The characterisations are ripe and considered, the various traits and peccadilloes beautifully enhanced, and with Leone being Leone, there's no shortage of cruelty and humour. He also brings his style, the close ups, long shots and some outstanding framing of characters in various situations.
The story encompasses The Civil War, which pitches our leads into "The Battle of Branston Bridge", where here we get to see just how great Leone was at constructing full on battle sequences. It's exciting, thrilling and literally dynamite, whilst Aldo Giuffrè as Captain Clinton turns in some memorable support.
The Euro locations pass muster as the Wild West, superbly photographed by Tonino Delli Colli, and then of course there is Ennio Morricone's musical compositions. It's a score that has become as iconic as Eastwood's Man With No Name, a part of pop culture for ever more. It mocks the characters at times, energises them at others, whilst always us the audience are aurally gripped.
There's obviously some daft coincidences, this is after all pasta world, and the near three hour run time could be construed as indulgent. But here's the thing, those who love The Good, The Bad and the Ugly could quite easily stand for another hour of Leone's classic. I mean, more barbed dialogue, brutal violence and fun! Great, surely!
From the sublime arcade game like opening credit sequences, to the legendary cemetery stand-off at the finale, this is a Western deserving of the high standing it is held. 9/10

.

**A very well-made film, with great actors.**
As a non-American myself, it's a little tricky for me to understand how well this justice system works. Don't get me wrong, but in my country it is not usual to resort to this type of trials, where the decision depends largely on the lawyers' ability to convince a group of jurors. Here, the decision depends more on the judge, or on a collective of judges. Resorting to a jury trial is provided for in Portuguese law, but must meet a tight set of prerequisites, which turns out to be a very unusual option.
So to understand this movie better I had to go read a little bit about how a real life jury trial works. And this is where my doubts about this film are greatest. Is it really a film that respects what really happens in the room where a jury deliberates what sentence to pass? Throughout the film, it is quite clear that the trial did not go well, mainly due to a largely ineffective defense and incapable of securing the interest of the accused (something difficult to admit, especially in a case of capital punishment). Could the jury have done anything about it other than pass sentence? I confess, I don't know. I leave this to the jurists, lawyers and people who can understand more about the subject.
The film is a bit like one of those plays that ends up being taken to the cinema: the action takes place overwhelmingly in the same environment, quite confined, and with a limited group of characters who interact with each other and dialogue. Dialogues are an essential part of the film and they are not always nice. It is noted that there is an increase in tensions, and if there are several jurors interested in dismissing the matter and leaving, this changes little by little, as the details are analyzed and doubts about the trial increase. It is a frankly well-written, well-directed film (Sidney Lumet's best) and with a strong and competent cast where Henry Fonda assumes an unequivocal role, giving us one of the best works of his career. Also, Lee J. Cobb deserves a round of applause for the way he interprets and acts, in a deeply caustic character. Every actor has the time and material he needs to do a good job, and they all did.
On a technical level, it is an extremely discreet film, largely due to the low budget it was limited to. However, it is one of those films that proves that it is not necessary to have infinite money to do an excellent job. The setting is very believable, but where Lumet shined was in his clever use of cinematography and shooting angles to amplify feelings of confinement or discomfort. Sometimes, the camera gets so close to the actors' faces that we can see how much the excessive heat and subject tension is getting on their nerves.

Twelve jurors are sent to their deliberating room after hearing the evidence in a murder trial. It's potentially the hottest day of the year as this collection of white, male, individuals take their seats around the table and wait for foreman Martin Balsam - none of the characters have names, here - to call them to order. A first vote is in order - it's a slam dunk - the accused is obviously guilty - 11-1! Henry Fonda is the dissenter. What has he seen that the others missed? What has he not seen that the others have understood? What now ensues is one of the best written and characterised, compelling, dramas cinema has ever produced. Excellent efforts from Lee J. Cobb, in particular, but from all concerned allow the tension to positively leap from the screen at us. This story gradually fills us in with the details of the crime, with the statements of the witnesses and, initially at any rate, illustrates just how cursorily many of these men treat this case. They want to get home for dinner, for a baseball game, to their wives and children. The fact that they are considering the life and death of an eighteen year old man seems tangential to the inconvenience they are facing or to the value they place on this man's survival. Reginald Rose's original screenplay takes us through the whole gamut of human bigotries and intolerances with everything from ageism, racism, respect and sexism rearing their ugly heads as the tension in their discussions rises and the true nature of these characters starts to emerge. Timidity, assertion, rationality - all are on display as these men start with a position that they may well not end up with. Ninety minutes seems far too short - but it works very well, rarely coming up for air - but what will their verdict be? Big screen if you can. Not because the scenario (a jury room) needs it - but there is so much energy and vitality in this film, that is just the best way to appreciate it a strong cast who put their all into their roles - and it works!

Unassuming. This is the first impression one may have, upon reading what this movie is about: 12 jurors deliberate about a murder case, where the accused suspect is the victim's son, a 18 y.o. boy. They must reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or innocent.
As it starts, it seems pretty much set, and everybody appears sure of the boy's guilt, except for one man. "How can someone still have doubt, when so many (incl. more experienced jurors) are so sure?".
What follows is an exciting and carefully constructed script of more deeply detailed observation and reason-based discussions, often derailed by outburst of anger and impatience, as apparently firm evidence succumb to a more thoughtful and impartial analysis. Ultimately, not all is what it seems - specially true regarding *all* the jurors. Worth re-watching as much as you feel like finding all hidden clues and details therein.

A timeless classic in which the characters really come to life. Slowly exposing each man's thoughts, personalities and prejudices, ‘12 Angry Men’ isn't really about solving the crime, but about the power of reasoning, discussion and dialogue.
9/10