Spaghetti Westerns Blu-ray Collection (3 Disc Blu-ray Boxset) - now £14.99 delivered at Play - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
254Expired

Spaghetti Westerns Blu-ray Collection (3 Disc Blu-ray Boxset) - now £14.99 delivered at Play

£14.99 @ Play.Com
The next cheapest I see atm is £22.97 at Amazon. The Sergio Leone "Spaghetti Westerns" did not simply add a new chapter to the genre... they reinvented it. From his shockingly violent and stylize… Read More
millarcat Avatar
[mod] 6y, 3m agoFound 6 years, 3 months ago
The next cheapest I see atm is £22.97 at Amazon.

The Sergio Leone "Spaghetti Westerns" did not simply add a new chapter to the genre... they reinvented it. From his shockingly violent and stylized breakthrough, A Fistful Of Dollars, to the film Quentin Tarantino calls "the best directed movie of all time," The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, Leone's vision did for westerns what talkies did for all movies back in the 1920s: it elevated them to an entirely new art form. Fully restored, presented with their best-ever audio, and including audio commentaries, featurettes and more, these films are much more than just the definitive Leone collection... they are the most ambitious and influential westerns ever made.

Titles Comprise:

A Fistful Of Dollars: The first of the "spaghetti westerns", A Fistful Of Dollars became an instant cult hit. It also launched the film careers of Italian Writer-Director Sergio Leone, and a little known American television actor named Clint Eastwood. As the lean, cold-eye cobra-quick gunfighter - Clint became the first of the "anti-heroes". The cynical, enigmatic loner with a clouded past is the same character Eastwood fans have been savouring ever since. A Fistful Of Dollars is the western taken to the extreme - with unremitting violence, gritty realism and tongue-in-cheek humour. Leone's direction is taut and stylish, and the visuals are striking - from the breathtaking panoramas (in Spain) to the extreme close-ups of quivering lips and darting eyes before the shoot-out begins. And all are accented by renowned film composer Ennio Morricone's quirky, haunting score.

For A Few Dollars More: Clint Eastwood had proven so successful in his first foray into European Westerns with A Fistful Of Dollars that a follow up sequel was inevitable. Superbly scripted by Luciano Vincenzoni, featuring an unforgettable alliance between ruthless gun-slingers Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef. For A Few Dollars More tells the tale of a ruthless quest to track down the notorious bandit El Indio played by Gian Maria Volonte. The film is also noted for its array of weaponry, a veritable arsenal of rifles that became so operatic and Ennio Morricone's atmospheric score keeps the tension taut as the action moves from Jail breaks and hold-ups to spectacular gun battles.

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly: The third and last western in Clint Eastwood's spaghetti trilogy. Director Sergio Leone substitutes for the upright puritan Protestant ethos, so familiar in Hollywood westerns, a seedy cynical standpoint towards death and mortality, as a team of brutal bandits battle to unearth a fortune buried beneath an unmarked grave. Joining Clint, clearly "The Good", is the irredeemably "Bad" Lee and the resolutely "Ugly" Eli Wallach. The complete plot of bloodshed and betrayal winds its way through the American Civil War, filmed to resemble the French battlefields of World War One, to end in the climatic Dance Of Death. Arguably the quintessential Italian Western, this 1966 film boasts a fine Ennio Morricone score featuring a main theme that reached No. 1 in the world's pop charts.
More From Play.Com:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
millarcat Avatar
[mod] 6y, 3m agoFound 6 years, 3 months ago
Options

All Comments

(26) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Bought these for my Dad, he was chuffed to bits!
#2
all good films
#3
Must have for any Sergio Leone fan. Transfers are good, could be better. Heat added.
#4
Ordered, thx
Love the music on The good the bad the ugly
#5
Fantastic price. I got these when they were £17.99 and now even cheaper. A fiver each classic film you can't go wrong. Very good blurays given their age and a huge improvement over their sdDVD cousins. Hot Hot Hot
#6
Thanks, ordered ;)
#7
i paid this for the dvd version of the boxset, so fantastic for the blurays. i also had the previous releases on dvd, so i can't remember what was so special about the special editions in the boxset. maybe remastered. all the sergio leone stuff is great. duck you sucker is one of my faves along with once upon a time in america
#8
A Fistful Of Dollars is 47 years old this year. I can't believe that blu ray would do much to enhance these old films.
#9
RedOnRed
A Fistful Of Dollars is 47 years old this year. I can't believe that blu ray would do much to enhance these old films.

It never fails to sink my heart when people profess that because a film is older blu ray would somehow make less of a difference. Film stock is at a resolution far above 1080p so as long as the print hasn't been left in a damp warehouse for 50 years any film of this age will look great in HD, if transfered correctly.

Anyone whose seen the quaility of the DVD remasters from five or six years ago will testify to the condition of the print.

Edited By: Syferus on Jan 25, 2011 18:12: Typo
#10
RedOnRed
A Fistful Of Dollars is 47 years old this year. I can't believe that blu ray would do much to enhance these old films.


Think of it like enlarging a photo from a negative.
#11
Syferus
RedOnRed
A Fistful Of Dollars is 47 years old this year. I can't believe that blu ray would do much to enhance these old films.


It never fails to sink my heart when people profess that because a film is older blu ray would somehow make less of a difference. Film stock is at a resolution far above 1080p so as long as the print hasn't been left in a damp warehouse for 50 years any film of this age will look great in HD, if transfered correctly.

Anyone whose seen the quaility of the DVD remasters from five or six years ago will testify to the condition of the print.


Have you watched all three of these films recently? I have, and even though they were first class copies they all showed their age in terms of sound and scratchy picture quality.

Maybe they will transfer to blu ray very well but I would be interested to see the difference between standard DVD and blu ray.
#12
Perhaps for the Blue-Ray they would have to restore the originals with CGI improvements?
Because if they don't do that you'll always get a scratchy picture and lousy sound quality compared to modern films on blue ray. Until then you can't expect those films to have 2010 standards, no matter how good the transfer is. Have you seen any other unrestored movies from 1964 on blue ray? Are they any better?
#13
you want proof of excellance on br of old movies ... have a look at zulu

you cant go on sound tho .. as surround didn't exist back then

Edited By: TALON1973 on Jan 25, 2011 19:54
#14
TALON1973
you want proof of excellance on br of old movies ... have a look at zulu

you cant go on sound tho .. as surround didn't exist back then


If the picture can be remastered can't the sound too?
#15
RedOnRed
TALON1973
you cant go on sound tho .. as surround didn't exist back then
If the picture can be remastered can't the sound too?
You can't put back what was never there in the first place!
#16
toastie
Perhaps for the Blue-Ray they would have to restore the originals with CGI improvements?
Because if they don't do that you'll always get a scratchy picture and lousy sound quality compared to modern films on blue ray. Until then you can't expect those films to have 2010 standards, no matter how good the transfer is. Have you seen any other unrestored movies from 1964 on blue ray? Are they any better?


You should check out the 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-Ray, made in 1968 & one of the most stunning looking Blu-Rays you can get.
No CGI 'improvements' either. Just a stunning transfer. Don't just take my word for it, check out some reviews online.

35mm film stock is about 4x the resolution of your so called 1080p ' Full HD'

Edited By: hippo99 on Jan 26, 2011 04:19
#17
alasrati
RedOnRed
TALON1973
you cant go on sound tho .. as surround didn't exist back then
If the picture can be remastered can't the sound too?
You can't put back what was never there in the first place!


But if you do have the masters you can remaster sound whether it's an album or not.
#18
hippo99
toastie
Perhaps for the Blue-Ray they would have to restore the originals with CGI improvements?
Because if they don't do that you'll always get a scratchy picture and lousy sound quality compared to modern films on blue ray. Until then you can't expect those films to have 2010 standards, no matter how good the transfer is. Have you seen any other unrestored movies from 1964 on blue ray? Are they any better?


You should check out the 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-Ray, made in 1968 & one of the most stunning looking Blu-Rays you can get.
No CGI 'improvements' either. Just a stunning transfer. Don't just take my word for it, check out some reviews online.

35mm film stock is about 4x the resolution of your so called 1080p ' Full HD'


2001 wasn't made in 1964 on a low budget which shows.
#19
I know, I stated that it was made in 1968 so it is still an 'old' film

Toasties' main point was that he doubted that 'old' non 'HD' films could be made to look as good as 2010 films, 'no matter how good the transfer is'. I'm just pointing out that they can & 2001 is a stunning example of this ;)
1 Like #20
in the cinema they take the film and blow it up to about 40 foot high or something and it looks good, so blowing it up to about 3 foot high for your 60" plasma is nothing

the quality of blurays of some of the old films that have been treated and remastered well is amazing. they don't need CGI, but they do effectively photoshop frames to remove grit and scratches and touch them up. in some cases like wizard of oz they obtained original outfits to use as a basis for colour correction, because whilst the movie was in colour, they hadn't invented film stock back then. there were 3 seperate reels of film for red/blue/green that ran together to make colour. they could then tell more easily if a scratch or speck should be on the screen or not, as it would be in the same place on each film

2001 in HD looks pretty amazing btw
#21
Once they start Photoshopping and stuff to refine the images then for me i'l stick to the orginal production just as the director intended it. A bit of natural aging is part of the film's charm and character.

I have a Laurel and Hardy boxset and just about all of the films have been redone in colour. Personally I just can't watch them like that.
1 Like #22
RedOnRed
Once they start Photoshopping and stuff to refine the images then for me i'l stick to the orginal production just as the director intended it.


Well I don't think that the grit and scratches are what the director originally intended. The 'photoshopping' is to restore it to it's original state at release, ie the Directors intention when it was released.
Changing a film from how the Director originally intended is a big no-no, like you say.

Wizard of Oz remaster GOOD, Star Wars Special Editions BAD!
#23
hippo99
RedOnRed
Once they start Photoshopping and stuff to refine the images then for me i'l stick to the orginal production just as the director intended it.


Well I don't think that the grit and scratches are what the director originally intended. The 'photoshopping' is to restore it to it's original state at release, ie the Directors intention when it was released.
Changing a film from how the Director originally intended is a big no-no, like you say.

Wizard of Oz remaster GOOD, Star Wars Special Editions BAD!


exactly. the photoshopping and other work is to restore the movie to as close as it was intended to look when it first came out. it's not to add stuff that wasn't there or remove things in the image that wasn't meant to be there (like the glass reflection of the snake in indiana jones), it's to remove dirt and scratches and stuff that ended up on the print after it was developed

the restoration work on these movies means you can watch them at home and see them closer to the way the director intended than you had ever seen before, including reissues in the cinama. less artifacts and stuff than previous releases, more detail visible
#24
The first film, A Fistful Of Dollars, was made on a shoestring taking a gamble on a little known actor at the time. It's low budget and looks and feels like it. Unless the master has gone through some serious re-mastering project I would be interested to see how it transfers to blu-ray.
#25
RedOnRed
The first film, A Fistful Of Dollars, was made on a shoestring taking a gamble on a little known actor at the time. It's low budget and looks and feels like it. Unless the master has gone through some serious re-mastering project I would be interested to see how it transfers to blu-ray.


Little known movie actor. Eastwood had a few TV appearances by then.

BFN,

fp.
1 Like #26
fanpages
RedOnRed
The first film, A Fistful Of Dollars, was made on a shoestring taking a gamble on a little known actor at the time. It's low budget and looks and feels like it. Unless the master has gone through some serious re-mastering project I would be interested to see how it transfers to blu-ray.
Little known movie actor. Eastwood had a few TV appearances by then.BFN,fp.

That's right, he had been in some TV series but he wasn't yet an international leading actor in feature films. In that respect he was a gamble.

Eastwood was only offered the part after many others had turned it down including Henry Fonda, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Richard Harrison and Eric Fleming.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!