Harry Dean Stanton's good here. Everything else is just weird. There are way too many errors (the horse, the poncho, etc) to make this work.
And yes...it does change the idea of the film. Part of "Fistful's" POINT is the mystery of The Man With No Name. We don't know what his motivations--or his intentions--really are, and we aren't sure if he's really a "good guy", or just a cool killer, until he surprises us and saves the family.
Here, we know from the start that he's there to clean up.
Ok, it's awful no matter what. Nevertheless, it would have been a lot more impressive if they would have taken Eastwood's faces off making the man with no name a man with no face in prologue.
Harry Dean Stanton is always fun to watch but this is not.
Strange...why didn't they have Stanton's character say "Your mule and gun are waiting for you at the front gate"? Didn't they remember he wasn't riding a horse when he entered San Miguel?
The people in power don't like men doing honorable deeds so they changed his motive greed. Towards the end Eastwood gave his money to the broken family.
The critics called Eastwood cynical but he was a Samurai - Yojimbo was the original movie.
It is considered abhorrent to add paint to an artists' completed painting and it should be the same for movies.
ABC did this a lot in the 1970s. The first two airings of OHMSS was awful with someone trying to copy George Lazenby’s voice as they did the film as a flashback narrative.
Since cable and home video they can no longer get away with this stuff.
@mikenunoz Well considering it was tagged on more than ten years after the film was made and has nothing to do with it at all that was unlikely to happen. He showed up because he was a drifter who saw an opportunity and took it. This belongs right in there with Geaorge Lucas not being able to leave things alon and screwing them up.
@mikenunoz Well considering it was tagged on more than ten years after the film was made and has nothing to do with it at all that was unlikely to happen. He showed up because he was a drifter who saw an opportunity and took it. This belongs right in there with George Lucas not being able to leave things alon and screwing them up.
Also this feels a lot like "Escape From New York / L.A.", story wise, making the rest more like a righteous act than just plain looking out for his own ass while being a generally ok guy to innocents scenario which befits the film much better.
@Brucelives my first thought went imediately to Escape from New York too. I wouldn't pass that Carpenter took inspiration from this sequence when he shot the Lee Van Cleef briefing sequence. Plus Harry Dean Stanton was in 'Escape' too
I think the absolute worse thing about this (and there are many) is that is just doesn't have the feel, the visual flair of the movie. It feels like it was made for a TV show based on the films for about a hell of a lot less than a fistful of dollars. Poor Harry Dean Stanton. At least he got to pay some bills with this suckfest.
I recall seeing this tacked on opening scene on tv once. I thought it had been eliminated from the theatres. But the previous comments have made it clear that it was tacked on by American media for television. It was so long ago that I did'nt recall Harry Dean Stanton was in it. Like the rest of us he no doubt did it for the bread.
I never knew about this stuff, and I'm a huge Leone and Eastwood fan. Man, this is awful. It feels like a bad TV movie cash in on Fistful of Dollars (which in some ways, it is).
And what is Monte Hellman directing it for? He's made some really good films, including Two Lane Blacktop and The Shooting. He should have known better.
Those insert of Clint's face are jaw droppingly bad. And hysterical.
This is hilariously terrible. I can't believe Harry Dean Stanton participated. You don't see Eastwoods face because Eastwood refused to be a part of this, as did director Sergio Leone. The idea was, and it would totally fuck up the rest of the movie if I took this seriously, is that the man with no name actually has morals and a sense of honor. The original anto-hero was too creepy for American TV Apparently. But thats what made the original so awesome. He wasn't supposed to be a grand old hero.
@Sam666gelber I agree with you, except from what I heard, Clint Eastwood once saw this and didn't remember shooting it and was wondering if it was something that he just forgot about. I know no one cared for it, hence it only airing once.
When the film made its U.S. network television debut on The ABC Sunday Night Movie in February 1975, additional footage was shot to give the "Man with no Name" character a motive for going to the town (San Miguel) featured in the film. Neither Eastwood nor Leone were involved in the shooting of this additional footage. Stock footage of Eastwood was used. This prologue is now available on the Special Edition released in 2005
@TheSteffen1223 I love the story of how this was recorded by Howard Fridkin and taking out a $1,500 loan to buy a betamax machine to tape it. Remember, He almost stopped recording this because of the prologue but he let it record and this now adds to the history of it.
I saw this in europe in 1978 and everybody said 'WTF".
TheQuesondriac 3 days ago
Came here from Brad Jones' Radiodrome podcast, where they mention this.
We could call this opening "A Fistfull of Bullshit."
MrJohndoakes 2 months ago
Awesome. This is like an SNL skit.
loudhvx 2 months ago
LOL, his poncho is twice as long as in the original movie.
This SUCKS.
Rambo4President 3 months ago 2
Harry Dean Stanton's good here. Everything else is just weird. There are way too many errors (the horse, the poncho, etc) to make this work.
And yes...it does change the idea of the film. Part of "Fistful's" POINT is the mystery of The Man With No Name. We don't know what his motivations--or his intentions--really are, and we aren't sure if he's really a "good guy", or just a cool killer, until he surprises us and saves the family.
Here, we know from the start that he's there to clean up.
RushLimborg 4 months ago
ALWAYS americans ruining movies...
fede018 4 months ago
"call me Joe..."
aBoxfulOfVids 5 months ago
That poncho is so big
allmighty357 8 months ago 2
So, he trades a horse for a mule?
kamdan2011 10 months ago 2
Ok, it's awful no matter what. Nevertheless, it would have been a lot more impressive if they would have taken Eastwood's faces off making the man with no name a man with no face in prologue.
Harry Dean Stanton is always fun to watch but this is not.
lyylski 1 year ago
@CallumJStewart Try reading my comment again.
tavery80 1 year ago
Strange...why didn't they have Stanton's character say "Your mule and gun are waiting for you at the front gate"? Didn't they remember he wasn't riding a horse when he entered San Miguel?
tavery80 1 year ago
is this some kind of joke? college students can make something better than this
DarthBob2005 1 year ago
This part always baffled me and now I know why.
The people in power don't like men doing honorable deeds so they changed his motive greed. Towards the end Eastwood gave his money to the broken family.
The critics called Eastwood cynical but he was a Samurai - Yojimbo was the original movie.
It is considered abhorrent to add paint to an artists' completed painting and it should be the same for movies.
danasutton 1 year ago
This is so bad
MasterClipEditor 1 year ago
ABC did this a lot in the 1970s. The first two airings of OHMSS was awful with someone trying to copy George Lazenby’s voice as they did the film as a flashback narrative.
Since cable and home video they can no longer get away with this stuff.
stoneinboots 1 year ago
this actually makes sense, to why he showed up at that village I liked it, i wish this had been done by the real cast and crew
mikenunoz 1 year ago
@mikenunoz Well considering it was tagged on more than ten years after the film was made and has nothing to do with it at all that was unlikely to happen. He showed up because he was a drifter who saw an opportunity and took it. This belongs right in there with Geaorge Lucas not being able to leave things alon and screwing them up.
JPSplitfoot 1 year ago
@JPSplitfoot you have a point there, mister lucas did fuck up. But we can't act like it didn't happen, we just have to learn to live with it....
mikenunoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikenunoz Well considering it was tagged on more than ten years after the film was made and has nothing to do with it at all that was unlikely to happen. He showed up because he was a drifter who saw an opportunity and took it. This belongs right in there with George Lucas not being able to leave things alon and screwing them up.
JPSplitfoot 1 year ago
So these are the infamous hot-dog westerns I've been hearing about!
xdiesp 1 year ago
Also this feels a lot like "Escape From New York / L.A.", story wise, making the rest more like a righteous act than just plain looking out for his own ass while being a generally ok guy to innocents scenario which befits the film much better.
Brucelives 1 year ago 2
@Brucelives my first thought went imediately to Escape from New York too. I wouldn't pass that Carpenter took inspiration from this sequence when he shot the Lee Van Cleef briefing sequence. Plus Harry Dean Stanton was in 'Escape' too
erriwan 1 year ago
I think the absolute worse thing about this (and there are many) is that is just doesn't have the feel, the visual flair of the movie. It feels like it was made for a TV show based on the films for about a hell of a lot less than a fistful of dollars. Poor Harry Dean Stanton. At least he got to pay some bills with this suckfest.
Brucelives 1 year ago
THIS is why the whole world hates USA...at least it's why i hate it.
golDroger88 1 year ago 2
THIS is why the whole world hates USA...at least it's why i hate it.
golDroger88 1 year ago
I recall seeing this tacked on opening scene on tv once. I thought it had been eliminated from the theatres. But the previous comments have made it clear that it was tacked on by American media for television. It was so long ago that I did'nt recall Harry Dean Stanton was in it. Like the rest of us he no doubt did it for the bread.
70bonnie 1 year ago
"NO, just listen." -
What? did the stunt double forget he wasn't s'posed to say anything? lol
squinkque 1 year ago
Made me cringe.
Zangalwaal 2 years ago
What a stupid tacked on sequence. Its up there with the Star Wars Holiday Special.
tomtcf76 2 years ago
This crap would have made viewers believe that the man with no name was some government agent.
lizgannon 2 years ago
So if I understand this, this was shot by a nervous studio who wanted to give Clint's character a back story? Oh, dear lord!!!
This is beyond awful.
GoblinGirl 2 years ago
I never knew about this stuff, and I'm a huge Leone and Eastwood fan. Man, this is awful. It feels like a bad TV movie cash in on Fistful of Dollars (which in some ways, it is).
And what is Monte Hellman directing it for? He's made some really good films, including Two Lane Blacktop and The Shooting. He should have known better.
Those insert of Clint's face are jaw droppingly bad. And hysterical.
GoblinGirl 2 years ago
what the f*~k is this shit
ultramagnus73 2 years ago
No, just listen.
ZackisDead 2 years ago
This is hilariously terrible. I can't believe Harry Dean Stanton participated. You don't see Eastwoods face because Eastwood refused to be a part of this, as did director Sergio Leone. The idea was, and it would totally fuck up the rest of the movie if I took this seriously, is that the man with no name actually has morals and a sense of honor. The original anto-hero was too creepy for American TV Apparently. But thats what made the original so awesome. He wasn't supposed to be a grand old hero.
Sam666gelber 2 years ago 9
@Sam666gelber Actually neither of them knew about it...
Clay3613 1 year ago
@Sam666gelber I agree with you, except from what I heard, Clint Eastwood once saw this and didn't remember shooting it and was wondering if it was something that he just forgot about. I know no one cared for it, hence it only airing once.
waydetheblade 9 months ago 2
Awful.
mickaka 3 years ago
terribly lame
SethP666 3 years ago
The barrel of the pistol is too long to do quick draw for shooting..It doesn't make sense..
donnahide 3 years ago
who cares, its not even the same gun used in the film.
ThingsFallApart 3 years ago 5
When the film made its U.S. network television debut on The ABC Sunday Night Movie in February 1975, additional footage was shot to give the "Man with no Name" character a motive for going to the town (San Miguel) featured in the film. Neither Eastwood nor Leone were involved in the shooting of this additional footage. Stock footage of Eastwood was used. This prologue is now available on the Special Edition released in 2005
freedailyspam 3 years ago
When Clint Eastwood saw it on tv he asked " When did we shoot this scene"?
TheSteffen1223 2 years ago
@TheSteffen1223 I love the story of how this was recorded by Howard Fridkin and taking out a $1,500 loan to buy a betamax machine to tape it. Remember, He almost stopped recording this because of the prologue but he let it record and this now adds to the history of it.
capnspl0tch 5 months ago 2
That stock footage copypaste is so damn obvious!
MasterMacLeod 2 years ago
je comprends pas, cest une scene coupeé avant le film?
je ne pense pas que ce soit du "sergio leone" cest pas son style.... ca colle pas...
filumar 3 years ago