All three arrive at the cache at the same time. Who gets it? Director Leone doesn't seem to care very much, and after 161 minutes of mayhem, audiences aren't likely to either.
YOU A55HOLE! THIS HAD 100% FOR YEARS AND YOU HAD TO ***** IT UP!
Aug 14 - 07:07 PM
unbearably stupid comments...
May 10 - 09:26 AM
Stunner... do you have to go to every well respected movie on Rotten Tomatoes that have one or two negative reviews that prevent the film's from a perfect score and troll the people who upset it? There are only a few you've yet to lay your mark upon. They are all repetitive and dull, why must you play Devil's Advocate? Does it make you happy to see someone oppose popular opinion, does it make you feel special when you back them? Really I'd like to know what odd things go on in that lonely mind of yours.
Aug 12 - 01:44 PM
mr. mojo risin
> Stunner... Owned Bi**ch!
Apr 12 - 05:32 PM
damnnnn what a burnnnn
Jul 8 - 03:28 PM
Sep 10 - 09:03 AM
It's okay guys, TIME magazine is for children.
Oct 30 - 07:22 PM
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
I'd also like to add: the Time Magazine website had this under their 'All time 100 movie's.'
Aug 14 - 10:22 PM
I know, not only one of the best westerns ever, one classic that's as good today ore even better than back in the 60's
Aug 27 - 04:17 PM
I know, not only one of the best westerns ever, one classic that's as good today or even better than back in the 60's
Aug 27 - 04:18 PM
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
Based on this review i consider you the biggest idiot i've ever read about.
Sep 3 - 03:59 PM
Sep 3 - 04:00 PM
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
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
Sep 15 - 07:01 PM
Please ignore this review. This film is still 100%!
Sep 17 - 02:36 PM
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
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
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
FINALLY someone realizes this review is from over 40 years ago
Jun 23 - 11:15 AM
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
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
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
Ok, first of all, mr. Time magazine, I DONT CARE IF YOU WROTE THIS IN 68, YOU POSTED IT IN THE RECENT PAST, THAT MAKES YOU ALL ****ING *******S!!!plus, it's called a "film" you sit through it, you suspend your disbelief a bit, and enjoy it.NOT BASH IT BECAUSE YOU FOUND ONE PLOT HOLE THAT ISN'T EVEN PROMINENT!!!shut the **** up, and die of AIDS!and at charlieahinds, what the **** is wrong with people with ADD? (besides the fact that the have a behavioral disorder)what did they ever do to you? did you use them as an insult to try and be cool? are you cool now? **** NO! you too, are a ****ing ******* lunatic, who shouldn't die of AIDS, (at least you appreciate this film), but maybe you should because you're a prejudice waste of precious life. now go kill yourself and rid us of one more incompetent human being!
Sep 6 - 02:21 AM
it's going to be ok...
Oct 18 - 12:50 PM
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
What is wrong with you? This film had 100% for years, and it deserved it, but now whoever submitted this to the site has ruined this film's perfect rating based on a review written 40 damn years ago!
Nov 9 - 06:02 AM
Is TIME a credible periodicle anymore? Why do they have a movie critic? Just asking.
Nov 20 - 10:24 AM
Casablanca and Gone with the Wind already lost their 100%s. Now this. What's next, The Godfather?!
Dec 9 - 02:27 PM
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
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
I'm with scumby on the petition.
Dec 31 - 09:31 AM