@rapunzel666 said:

What it says on the tin. Would you say it is worth it? Does it add anything extra, does it become too long or what do you think? :)

From what I remember the new bits were dubbed more recently when the actors are old. So the voices sound different, which is jarring. But it's an interesting watch if you like the film enough. I wouldn't say it makes the film better.

Thank you, sir. I'll just stick with the original. :)

@JustinJackFlash said:

@rapunzel666 said:

What it says on the tin. Would you say it is worth it? Does it add anything extra, does it become too long or what do you think? :)

From what I remember the new bits were dubbed more recently when the actors are old. So the voices sound different, which is jarring. But it's an interesting watch if you like the film enough. I wouldn't say it makes the film better.

You're right about the dubbing by Eastwood & Wallach but the Lee Van Cleef impersonator was pretty good.

@Gus Gorman said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@rapunzel666 said:

What it says on the tin. Would you say it is worth it? Does it add anything extra, does it become too long or what do you think? :)

From what I remember the new bits were dubbed more recently when the actors are old. So the voices sound different, which is jarring. But it's an interesting watch if you like the film enough. I wouldn't say it makes the film better.

You're right about the dubbing by Eastwood & Wallach but the Lee Van Cleef impersonator was pretty good.

Yeah, I didn't notice a problem with Van Cleef. It was mainly Wallach that sounded different.

the nitpicking about sound remastering and re releases need to come to a halt, jackal

I just watched the remastered version this past weekend. I really liked it. Eastwood REALLY sounds different when he and Angel Eyes are 'camping' and the 6 guys Angel Eyes has tailing them get called out by Blondie. It just happens. Clint sounds really different in the 2000's than the 1960's. The guy who imitated Van Cleef did the best he could.
Overall, I really liked the new version. They are both good and worth seeing. You can stream the remastered version on STARZ right now. Not sure I'd buy it unless it came with a really good 'remaking' of documentary .
I heard there was a 2 minute scene of Angel Eyes torturing Tuco that they wanted to include - but the footage was just too damaged to restore. That's too bad.

Just watched the entire Dollars Trilogy. My favorite, by a HAIR, is FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE. The protagonists are just more relatable. IMO. And the Civil War scenes in GBU seem kinda phony. Now - that's just a hair splitting way to pick a favorite. They are BOTH supremely awesome films.

I just watched the trilogy as well, and my favourite is also "For a Few Dollars More" for the reason you mentioned. I think "The Good"... is a bit too long but it still has a lot of redeeming qualities. A great trilogy. :)

While the new scenes are worth seeing, it is obvious why they got cut. A movie that is essentially too long drags on even longer.

@mechajutaro said:

@DonGable said:

What it says on the tin. Would you say it is worth it? Does it add anything extra, does it become too long or what do you think? :)

Yeah. The extended edition features scenes of Leone trying to turn Eastwood into an expressive actor. He was wise to give up on this particular project after about a day of effort, and instead work with what he had

The original was overly-long already and had long pointless sequences I would have cut out entirely, like the whole army battle thing. Watching an extended version, for me, is going in the wrong direction. It’s a good enough film in the original version.