This film has much of the feel of a spaghetti western. It is directed by the king of spaghetti westers. It relies a great deal on scenery, intense staring, minimal but memorable dialog and sudden action broken up by long sequences of walking, staring, panning, or full frame closeups. What makes it different from others is that it obviously spent lots of money on production costs.

The scenery in Monument Valley is memorable and helps "define" the western. The cast includes lots of BIG names, many in cameo roles. The cinematography is first rate. The big problem is the lack of an interesting story.

There are several threads to the story. A railroad baron needs to build his railroad through a certain locality but wants to keep costs down. A fallen women comes west to as a mail order bride only to find her new family gunned down before her arrivval. She is heir to the land the railroad wants. An enigmatic stranger has problems with the railroad's head tough guy for personal reasons. There is also a "bad guy" running around who is not quite as bad as thought and whose life intersects at various points with all of the above. The motivating factors for the cast are greed and vengeance.

This formula can work. It obviously has for them many fans of this film. It did not work in this case with me. Most of the time, I just wondered when something interesting would happen. I got tired of the panoramic sweeps and long images of people riding by on horseback. Maybe I was just not in the mood.

Henry Fonda gives an outstanding performance as one of the bad guys. He is sadistic and evil to to core. This comes across without any problem at all. Charles Broson alos does a great job. He remains an enigma throughout much of the film but eventually we learn his motivation...if you can properly identity the character of the actor who plays him 20 years before. Jason Robards and Claudia Cardinale also do a good job, and in her case, a very decorative one. It's a shame to me that these fine performances did not come together with a better story.

This movie may well appeal to many for any number of reasons ranging from the strong performances to the scenery to even the love of the genere. As for me, I'm glad I saw it but have no desire to ever watch it again.

WOW!!!

I truly enjoyed watching this movie from start to finish. Never got bored. Matter of fact I was thrilled to see the way it was directed, I loved the closeups. The action sequence. The setup. Characters. Soundtrack just right Ennio Is a genius.
It goes without saying that "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly" is the best piece Sergio ever made when it comes to Spaghetti Westerns, but, nevertheless, the movie in my opinion would be the runner up.

To say this film is overtly Freudian is putting it mildly. Leone literally over saturates his film with languid macho tangents and a steroid version of the "Old West". "I like my water fresh."
To Leone, the "Old West" was a standoff of over ripe close-ups and frowny faces grimacing at each other before they find God and blow each other to hell.
Without a doubt, this is one of the most beautiful westerns ever shot and I have no problem giving it 5 stars but, come on Sergio, why must you make genius into tedium? Only Fellini can do that...heh

After watching this film, I found myself thinking, all that for something not much? It really is a film that is much to do about nothing.

This movie excels in storytelling. It presents the story in a very exciting and thrilling manner, and the viewer is constantly trying to piece things together, and figure out who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. The viewer gets a good idea how life was in the West back then. There are some beautiful scenic shots of Western landscape and the cinematography is impeccable. The writing is also superb. I liked the characters' dialogue and the little subtleties that carry the plot forward.

Enjoyable to watch, but it could have used more meat on the plot.

I've watched Once Upon a Time in the West probably three or four times, and think it's a film you either love or dislike. People probably will be arguing over it thirty years from now. That's not bad for a movie. For me, it has always seemed a very self conscious film, with the director straining to deliberately make a masterpiece and the sweat showing. Perhaps he succeeded. The photography is superb, Fonda is terrific, stretches of the film really have tension and energy.

But...again, just for me...the film pushes too hard and becomes "arty." Small things just don't seem to fit right. Every time I hear the nickname "Harmonica" I cringe the same way when I hear the nickname "Noodles." Claudia Cardinale, though no small thing, seems miscast -- not for a spaghetti western but for a western aiming to be a masterpiece.

I suppose that Once Upon a Time in the West can be likened to grand opera, with all the artificiality and excesses present and none of them mattering as long as the singing is great...because grand opera is about nothing if it isn't about the voices. For whatever reasons, Once Upon a Time in the West just doesn't touch me much, even as I recognize many moments that are first rate (as with Fonda gunning down the kid...after thinking about it for a moment).