I expected that I would like this, and I do enjoy it. I'd be lying if I said I weren't somewhat disappointed, though. The plot is light and unbothered, going nowhere fast; the overall vibe is more lighthearted, also especially reflected in the title character and the performance of Terence Hill; a fair bit of the scene writing is obviously built for comedy, and in turn the direction of filmmaker Tonino Valerii. All this is fine. Or, it would be fine, except for that the intended comedy is never specifically funny, only lightly amusing if anything at all: the would-be humorous scene writing lacks the vitality to evoke a reaction, and just isn't clever enough; the flat tone is of no help, and some bits are too drawn out for their own good, or too outwardly cartoonish. For Nobody to be flippant, and Hill jovial, is no more sufficient fuel on their own for laughs than in some flicks where we're supposed to delight in the childishness of "Look at that silly man! Haha! Isn't he so silly?" Even esteemed composer Ennio Morricone is drawn into this tack; while some of his themes here are as wonderfully rich and flavorful as we anticipate and hope, others just as surely embrace the unimpressive inanity, with his interpretation of "Ride of the Valkyries" frankly just turning me off. I don't think 'My name is Nobody' is everything it's generally cracked up to be.
There isn't necessarily any wrong way to make a comedy, particularly when playing in the space of another discrete genre. One can make a straight genre flick, and let small touches of levity manifest naturally among the characters, dialogue, and scenario (e.g., 'The good, the bad, and the ugly'); one can firmly establish the genre roots with the story, then layer the comedy on top (the failure to do so being a chief failing of 1987's 'Ishtar,' for example); or one can employ a genre as broad foundation to build a comedy that then just aims for all-out wackiness (see recent farce 'Hundreds of beavers'). It seems to me that Valerii, with writers Fulvio Morsella and Ernesto Gastaldi, tried to split the difference between the latter two styles, but the problem is that (a) the western plot and its development aren't entirely convincing, coming off as scarcely more than a loose framework instead of a fully-fleshed out saga, and (b) for all the stated reasons, the comedy is unable to achieve the desired reaction. Factor in some scenes that are simply bad, pointless, and ill-advised (the urinal), and the lack of a comedic partner like Bud Spencer for Hill to bounce off of, and the favor I might have bestowed continues to diminish.
Strictly speaking, if it's a spaghetti western you want, then it's a spaghetti western you'll get. Set aside the screenplay that is far too questionable in several crucial ways, and at large the picture is duly well made. We get gorgeous filming locations, detailed sets and costume design, and excellent stunts, effects, and action sequences. Save for where the contributions are guided to ends as dubious as the writing, the cinematography is lovely, and the editing sharp. The audio is strong, and I repeat that at its best Morricone's score is just as terrific as we assume of the icon. Though themselves impacted by the nature of the material, the cast give commendable performances, with Henry Fonda easily standing out above his co-stars. And while I place the responsibility mostly on the shoulders of the writers for how this feature went wrong, in fairness I think there are some splendid ideas herein that, approached mindfully and used judiciously, could have been outstanding for either an earnest western or a comedy. Then again, even the climax is troubled by gauche, unnecessary flourishes, the ending is overdone in some measure, and I'm really of the mind that even on paper far too much of the story is thin and weak. In every last capacity, for every one stroke of brilliance, there are two notes of tawdriness, or tidbits that raise a skeptical eyebrow.
I don't dislike 'My name is Nobody.' I recognize what it does well, and I see the potential that it carried. I also think its shortcomings are at least as readily evident, and possibly more prominent. There are worse ways to spend your time, yet since there are far better ones, too - even among western-comedies - our reasons for watching this dwindle to "well, maybe if you have a specific impetus." I'm glad for those who appreciate this movie more than I do; having now watched it once, that's more than enough for me.
There isn't necessarily any wrong way to make a comedy, particularly when playing in the space of another discrete genre. One can make a straight genre flick, and let small touches of levity manifest naturally among the characters, dialogue, and scenario (e.g., 'The good, the bad, and the ugly'); one can firmly establish the genre roots with the story, then layer the comedy on top (the failure to do so being a chief failing of 1987's 'Ishtar,' for example); or one can employ a genre as broad foundation to build a comedy that then just aims for all-out wackiness (see recent farce 'Hundreds of beavers'). It seems to me that Valerii, with writers Fulvio Morsella and Ernesto Gastaldi, tried to split the difference between the latter two styles, but the problem is that (a) the western plot and its development aren't entirely convincing, coming off as scarcely more than a loose framework instead of a fully-fleshed out saga, and (b) for all the stated reasons, the comedy is unable to achieve the desired reaction. Factor in some scenes that are simply bad, pointless, and ill-advised (the urinal), and the lack of a comedic partner like Bud Spencer for Hill to bounce off of, and the favor I might have bestowed continues to diminish.
Strictly speaking, if it's a spaghetti western you want, then it's a spaghetti western you'll get. Set aside the screenplay that is far too questionable in several crucial ways, and at large the picture is duly well made. We get gorgeous filming locations, detailed sets and costume design, and excellent stunts, effects, and action sequences. Save for where the contributions are guided to ends as dubious as the writing, the cinematography is lovely, and the editing sharp. The audio is strong, and I repeat that at its best Morricone's score is just as terrific as we assume of the icon. Though themselves impacted by the nature of the material, the cast give commendable performances, with Henry Fonda easily standing out above his co-stars. And while I place the responsibility mostly on the shoulders of the writers for how this feature went wrong, in fairness I think there are some splendid ideas herein that, approached mindfully and used judiciously, could have been outstanding for either an earnest western or a comedy. Then again, even the climax is troubled by gauche, unnecessary flourishes, the ending is overdone in some measure, and I'm really of the mind that even on paper far too much of the story is thin and weak. In every last capacity, for every one stroke of brilliance, there are two notes of tawdriness, or tidbits that raise a skeptical eyebrow.
I don't dislike 'My name is Nobody.' I recognize what it does well, and I see the potential that it carried. I also think its shortcomings are at least as readily evident, and possibly more prominent. There are worse ways to spend your time, yet since there are far better ones, too - even among western-comedies - our reasons for watching this dwindle to "well, maybe if you have a specific impetus." I'm glad for those who appreciate this movie more than I do; having now watched it once, that's more than enough for me.