MovieChat Forums > Giù la testa (1972) Discussion > This Movie Dragged Terribly

This Movie Dragged Terribly

posted 17 years ago by Arquinnian
25 replies | jump to latest

I am surprised by all the praise for this film. I am a huge fan of Sergio Leone, but I had great difficulty making it through to the end. This movie has uninteresting characters, uncompelling plot development, and man does this movie drag, drag, drag.

Casting Rod Steiger in a role that was written for Eli Wallach was the first mistake. Mr. Wallach has a comedic capacity that is utterly lacking in Mr. Steiger. Also, as all of us know, Mr. Wallach is very interesting to watch even when he is doing absolutely nothing. In fact I could watch a 2 hour movie of Mr. Wallach eating potato chips and watching TV, as long as he was in his Tuco character.

As for James Coburn, well, apart from saying "Duck you sucker" three times during the film he didn't do much that was interesting or entertaining. I found the bright white caps on his teeth rather interesting every time he grinned, but that was about it.

The plot? At no point did I find myself entertained by this movie. At no point did I feel compelled to watch and see what else was going to happen. Instead I felt true anguish trying to make it to the end. My only motive was to see this film in its entirety since I am a fan of Mr. Leone's work.

And wow, this movie dragged on and on and on… For instance, the scene when they discover the bodies in the cave is an excellent example of poor editing and an overindulgence in close ups. During the first four minutes of the scene not a single word is uttered, which is fine, but the whole time the camera shifts back and forth between Rod Stieger and James Coburn showing nothing except their upset facial expressions.

Interestingly, one of Leone's trademarks is capturing the subtle expressions and tension on the actor's face through lengthy close-ups or partial close-ups (i.e. the waist up, but the focus is still on the actor's facial expression. and not any other bodily action.). It is very difficult to do these kinds of shots and keep the movie paced effectively so that it doesn't drag. In this film he exhausted way too much screen time to these close-ups and shots of the actors doing nothing but standing around.

In the end I am baffled as to why this movie is so highly regarded. The "Fist Full of Dollars" trilogy and "Once Upon a Time in the West" are true classics of the genre. But in my opinion "Duck you Sucker" is a languishing effort by a great director. Even a great director is allowed to have a bad movie once and awhile, but I am utterly bewildered and perplexed why almost everyone thinks this is one of his best movies. Was this considered a great movie when it was first released? Or has it only gained momentum over time?

Arquinnian

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gonvik 17 years ago

True, Eli Wallach would have brought his own magic to the character of Juan; However Rod Steiger plays the role with a brilliant range of humor and drama.

I also disagree with the editing of the "cave" scene. In the cut American version you instantly see what it is Juan is reacting to, reducing the effect of the reveal greatly. What I love most about the film is its soundtrack by Ennio Morricone. And I must admit that is probably the reason I was never feeling impatient during such long, purposely drawn out scenes.

Lastly, the film was not considered that great during release. There were the problems of various cuts to the film, and overall it was just not received well here in America. I'm very glad to finally have it on R1 DVD and has since become one of my favorite Leone's (only matched by Once Upon A Time In America).

[–] gianlu-1 17 years ago

I'm gonna have to agree with mgtbltp on this one. The film truely needs to be seen more than once to fully get and appreciate the scope of it. I freely admit that i too was bored and dissapointed with this movie when i watched it for the first time. But since i am a HUGE Leone fan, i knew that his movies are to be viewed more than once, so i gave it another shot......and another.......and another..... and another until i realized that each time i watched it, it just kept getting better and better.

This movie MUST be viewed more than once in order for it to be fully apreciate. I can honestly say that Duck You Sucker is a better film than GBATU. Its smarter, its wittier and there are more dimensions to it.

Trust me, give it another shot, you won't regret it.

[–] FinnurE 17 years ago

I think Duck You Sucker suffers most from being an incomplete film. It's painful to see a film where it was necessary to jump from one section of the film to another (From John leaving Juan to the church scene, from John and Juan jumping from the train to a scene where they suddenly are on board another). If it were not for the film being so choppy, it would have been up there with Leone's masterpieces.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666

[–] Het81 16 years ago

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I was wondering what in the world happened a few times and I wasn't sure if it was because I was watching a chopped up version or if this was just the way the movie was edited. I dont really think it drug too bad, I mean it probably had more action than Once Apon a Time in the West, but it just didn't have the same impact. Where as the pacing in Once, was very deliberate and methodical, I found this to be a little Self indulgent and a little too stylized for me. Dont get me wrong, it is still a pretty good film, but in my opinion, it is the weakest of Leone's catalog.

[–] aligncare 17 years ago

And here I thought it was just me.

Admittedly, I'm no fan of Spaghetti Westerns or of Leone's work in general. But it's precisely because of the many flaws Arquinnian cites in his critique of Duck that I do not bow at the alter of Leone nor his effort with DYS.

Drag it does (my opinion based on viewing the director's cut - 2 hr 40 min - version). In Duck, Leone just never seems able to resist using a slow motion or close up shot, or a close up slow motion shot. He seems to use them whether they're called for or not -- almost at regular intervals. There simply is no economy in Leone's directing.

And as for the point that DYS should be viewed multiple times to appreciate or even fully understand ... well, remember Leone's work was released in theaters at a time before VCR's (let alone DVD's) were common consumer items. So I don't think DVD sales were ever factored in a director's decision making. No, ideally an audience was meant to 'get it' on first viewing. If not, the director missed his mark -- and the film's meaning was effectively lost to the audience forever.

And in my humble opinion, Leone missed the mark by a wide margin with Duck.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aligncare 17 years ago

Good point.

The director's completed work should be the result of his original vision. If others change it, well then results may vary.

Encore Westerns has been showing the director's cut of DYS for weeks now. I've seen it several times. I'm not completely hardened against what Leone tries to convey. I enjoy many moments in the film. But, my taste runs to Ford, Mann, Boetticher. (I also deplore the use of modern day expletives in Westerns. They are anachronistic, besides being offensive).

But, again your point is good.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aligncare 17 years ago

It's interesting to note that every age had taboo words, with each period having it's own "dirty" words. 19th Century terms of profanity were typically terms of blasphemy. G**D*** and H*** were potent curse words then. The N word, referring to race, is considered taboo in public today - not so in the 19th Century.

The cylinders show only that there were a few people who liked to shock using the new medium, that's all. While Cowboys of the mid 19th Century may have used the F word, there were social taboos against using it in the general public. As a line in this article said: "The cylinders were packed away in a box with a handwritten tag attached: “Not for mixed company.”" The writer understood their taboo nature.

And that's my point about "offensive" language in Western films - including Duck You Sucker. Using socially unacceptable language is an editorial decision having a consequence. Every element in a film (at least a professionally made, well crafted film) is a deliberate choice of the filmmaker. If they choose to include curse words, they intended it to have some purpose.

Some filmmakers claim this canard about maintaining realism in their films. How silly is that? What's real about vampires, Spiderman, Star Wars, Jumper, or even Sopranos for that matter? What's real about the hero who seems to defy gravity in dispatching the bad guy? Or who musters superhuman strength just in the nick of time, or is shot, but it's just "a flesh wound"? Every Action/Adventure film I've ever seen had elements where the audience would have to say: "Yeah, right. How'd he do that!"

Nose-picking is real; everyone does it, yet filmmakers rarely include "this" element of reality, or other scatological elements. That's because films as mass media should respect audiences and social taboos - and for a time, they did. It's about editorial decisions and intended effects.

Clean films make more money than "artsy" "push the envelop" films. Why do some producers opt for less income? Why risk it? Simple. They want to be cool. They want to be accepted by their peers in self indulgent Hollywood. They want to separate themselves from bourgeois values. In short, they are misguided Marxists thumbing their nose at middle-class values. I have no respect for these producers.

/Rant

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aligncare 17 years ago

Hey Orpheus, at least I spelled Boetticher right! ... and that's no easy task.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

The problem with your post is that Juan is a vulgar, uneducated and amoral Mexican bandit - exactly the type of person who would fall back on rampant profanity. The point that cowboys (which Juan is not) would not have used the f-bomb in public is moot, since Juan was rarely in public for a start, and he wasn't exactly concerned with his reputation amongst respectable citizens.

One of the hallmarks of my style is subtext... and mise-en-SEEN!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ranmel 17 years ago

Arquinnian, stick to Vin Diesel movies. You'll be happier, and we'll be happier.

[–] monsieurdl 17 years ago

If he's the only one, then maybe, but ohh no, he is right- this movie drags on, and the story doesn't really keep you interested in what is happening. Unlike Once Upon a Time in America, which has great characters, a story which keeps interest from beginning to end, and emotional encounters which conver a wide range of emotions, this one bored me to tears. I'm not going to keep watching a movie over and over again until I like it- that to me is 2:30 x2, x3, x4 I would never get back!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tennismenace 17 years ago

I agree somewhat. It wasn't as bad as you make it sound. But it did drag in spots and you mentioned one.

- The Truth is Out There, and I found it in Christ!

[–] Henry J Sosenite 17 years ago

as some one who used to call Once Upon a Time in the West their favorite film, I actually agree with you. there were several scenes (namely the scene in the cave and the last scene with Coburn- I enjoyed the long take with him in the bar.) that lasted about five minutes, that had absolutely no excuse whatsoever to go beyond 30 seconds. the worst part about it was that they were in slow-motion... god, if there's anything to make a long scene seem longer.

"Beautiful evening. you can almost see the stars..."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] adam_the_jedi2001 16 years ago

I have just finished watching this movie for the first time. Did it drag? Of course it did, it was a real movie with a real story to tell about Revolution and friendship and war etc etc.

The two main characters I felt were very likable within the first few minutes of meeting them I knew I was going to watch this film again. The plot was great and I felt that the camera work, lighting etc was fantastic and with all great movies your not handed everything on a plate and have to think about why characters are doing this, that, the next thing?

I have now seen all of Leone's movies and they are all fantastic, am till not sure about that end flashback scene but maybe it was to show how much John had lost in the name of Revolution.

I'm sure the special features and commentary will clear it up for me.

All in all a solid movie which I will gladly watch again.

[–] deadman1206 16 years ago

I kind of agree, although I did enjoy the movie a bit. It was only really good until we find out the movie is not about the bank robbery, but started to drag afterward.

[–] uziforu 11 years ago

The only thing I really like about this movie is the soundtrack... without it it would just be another B-movie. I've tried watching it a few times but I always lose interest 20 minutes in.

[–] Jarrold 10 years ago

Valid points, all of them, but after the Eastwood trilogy we are left with so much hunger for more from Sergio, I am glad he has given us this one. Not his best, make no mistake about it, but worth a watch for the Leone fans.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]