Trevor Cameron

YOU A55HOLE! THIS HAD 100% FOR YEARS AND YOU HAD TO ***** IT UP!

Aug 14 - 07:07 PM

Stefans Zvejnieks

Your review doesn't make very much sense. When did Sergio De Leone show that he didn't care who got the cache? Oh, was it during the immense character development? Or during the amazing gun battles?

Anyways, everyone but you gave this a fresh tomato, meaning your last comment doesn't apply very well.

Aug 14 - 10:19 PM

George Burdell

WTF?!

Did this review REALLY just get posted within the last week? Surely there's a statute of limitations on how long you can sit on a bad review before submitting it. If you can do submit this, why not just ruin ALL the 100% ratings by posting a-hole reviews just to knock them down!

Aug 16 - 05:49 PM

Movie Guy

Based on this review i consider you the biggest idiot i've ever read about.

Sep 3 - 03:59 PM

Movie Guy

Based on this review i consider you the biggest idiot i've ever read about.

Sep 3 - 04:00 PM

Movie Guy

your such an idiot this is easily the greatest film ever made and doesn't have the 100% it used to have before you ruined it idiot. it deserves 100%

Sep 3 - 04:06 PM

Zach Caruso

They all pretty much said what I was gonna say. Yeah dude, you're definitely a dumb *****. I wish you could just understand that you (unjustifiably) bashed one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously, not having an amazing experience watching this film is one thing. Criticizing Sergio Leone as well as the film itself... well, that's just a whole new kind of idiot. ***** you, man.

Sep 15 - 07:00 PM

Zach Caruso

They all pretty much said what I was gonna say. Yeah dude, you're definitely a dumb *****. I wish you could just understand that you (unjustifiably) bashed one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously, not having an amazing experience watching this film is one thing. Criticizing Sergio Leone as well as the film itself... well, that's just a whole new kind of idiot. ***** you, man.

Sep 15 - 07:01 PM

David LaVeck

Please ignore this review. This film is still 100%!

Sep 17 - 02:36 PM

Mike Creed

Hey time magazine. You're a dick! You clearly have not watched the movie in a state where you can accurately make an educated decision and the overall quality of this film. Sure, 161 minutes is getting long, but the movie maintains an ever building storyline which in the end results in an amazing climax. I hope you got fired for this!!

Sep 24 - 07:31 PM

chris moser

the buildup to the three way gunfight at end is quite possibly the most masterfully edited scene in the history of motion picture. ntm, tucco is clearly leones (and most peoples) sentimental favorite, and most sypathetic. how can you say Leone, or the audience doesnt care about the outcome? youre an embarrassment to media criticism.

Oct 4 - 12:55 AM

Topi Pertteli

That was interesting. Vintage review from 1968. Good stuff. It explained more the time when it was written than movie how we know it now.

That was rotten then because it was so different than others. Nowadays it is considered among the bests and I fully agree on that.

Great movie - interesting original review.

Oct 11 - 01:04 PM

Frank Hodson

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I'm afraid yours is completely bonkers. This film is an impeccable classic!

Oct 12 - 08:59 AM

Joe Morris

well done for the massive spoiler, ruining it for those who haven't seen the film.
The reason we care why clint wins is because throughout those astonishing 161 minutes of brilliance, we see why angel eyes is the bad, tuco is the ugly and clint is the good guy who deserves the gold. Leone put pulled out all the stops for this. It baffles me that you suddenly decide to post this after years of this film on 100% as if it bothers you this film has so much acclaim. It's deemed the definitive western for a reason you know and the review seems...pointless...like your view of the finale of the film itself.

Oct 12 - 02:12 PM

Charles Hinds

isn't this article from 1968? the dude who wrote this is probably dead.

how can anyone say this is bad? maybe ADD riddled kids of today. But then again millions of people can sit through utter **** like King Kong and Lord of the Rings.

This movie in every way is cool. The style, the actors and the music. Amazing stuff.

This reviewer has a low IQ and probably would enjoy movies like Epic Movie nowadays.

Oct 14 - 03:29 PM

Alex Graham

Wow I've never heard of someone who dislikes this movie. It's a shame that you've taken away it's 100% rating.

Nov 4 - 05:25 PM

Tony Minassian

Is TIME a credible periodicle anymore? Why do they have a movie critic? Just asking.

Nov 20 - 10:24 AM

Patrick Mullen

Casablanca and Gone with the Wind already lost their 100%s. Now this. What's next, The Godfather?!

Dec 9 - 02:27 PM

Geoff Wilkerson

You people need to calm down. This review was written long before the hype this movie has (in my opinion) justifiably enjoyed. The review is an honest assessment of what the critic thought of the film and I'm sure that when the author penned it 4 decades ago, he wasn't concerned with "ruining" the film's arbitrary 100% rating on a website 40 years down the line.

I very much appreciate Rotten Tomatoes publishing this review. It shows that all opinions are welcome on this website, and that it won't turn into a circle-jerk echo chamber of fanboys and nerds.

Dec 18 - 07:51 AM

al clark

Please let's start a petition to have this "review" purged from the site and the so-called reviewer banned.

Dec 27 - 09:42 AM