The film is the second in a "trilogy" that follows the first in style and elements. The movie is lighthearted and humorous. Wild West and Sandstone are rough but not the picture, and there are close-ups and large depth-of-field shots that look like they're properly abused. The elements are still inseparable from the wandering cowboy, the carriage, the horse, the lonely town, the sand, the wine, the money, the gun, the gunfight, the well-informed old man. Of course, compared to the first film, the film has also developed (of course, there are more leading actors), more attractive to the audience, and better looking. First, the camera maintains the coherence of time and space in the film through the similarity of the characters' faces and objects, so it is more fluid; second, when indio robs the bank, the camera keeps switching between the guard, the cash box and the robber, so as to create a It has a tense atmosphere, so it can attract the attention of the audience; finally, the film has a suspenseful atmosphere, making the audience want to know the answer. For example, the memories or dreams of Indio inserted three times in the film, the shooter played by Lee Van Cleef does not mention the past. Looking at the personable Eastwood in the film, he doesn't look like a bounty hunter at all, but more like a son-in-law. This time he joined Lee Van Cleef in a suit. And their marksmanship is outstanding, I really don't understand. But movies are like that, what you see is just an illusion, so why take it seriously.
View more about For a Few Dollars More reviews
