you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I would advice watching first the Good, the bad and the ugly, before watching the sequels. Fantastic cinematography!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was the third one in the trilogy. It's definitely a fantastic film, and all three of them are worth watching. However, the third one is a bit more of an epic. The first one is more approachable as an entry into the spaghetti western genre, both in themes and runtime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Ho-ly-shit. I feel like that lady that had only seen the first part of The Sound of Music, and thought the boy was a mailman.

    I thought, because "A Fistful of Dollars" starts so abruptly and "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" has a proper introduction of the nameless gunslinger, the chronology was backwards, but yep, you're right and I've been a fool for years! Years I say!

    Then again, time is not linear so I guess it didn't matter :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Hey, a Pulp Fiction approach to it could work. 😄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    What's worse: I first got "A fistful of dollars", then checked the first 10 minutes and thought:" this can't be the first one, they haven't introduced the characters", so I got the last one, and watched it first. And for the longest of times that was how I thought the trilogy was sorted...

  • source
  • parent