I tried to do this last month, but failed miserably. Not due to time, but to the fact that i…
A Fistful of Fingers
The greatest western ever made...in Somerset
Follow the exploits of taciturn hero No Name and his stereotypical Indian side-kick Running Sore as they search for the nefarious villain The Squint.
Decades Project: 6/9 of the 90's
"Oh, a comedian, huh?"
A Fistful of Fingers is the feature debut of Edgar Wright, one of the few directors working today who actually know what they're doing when it comes to visual, cinematic comedy. This definitely feels more like a student film than the rest of his work (unpolished, rough around the edges), and it alternates between being at best a great genre parody in the vein of his Cornetto trilogy, and at worst something more along the lines of Scary Movie (or in this case, Cowboy Movie).
A Fistful of Fingers ruthlessly riffs on the tropes of Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood (Graham Low does a great Eastwood impression for a Brit),…
"You don't know? My ass!! - You are right Sir, I don't know your ass!"
A spoof taken to the limit, A Fistful of Fingers is raw and full of silly campy comedy, from clever to very stupid scenes, but in the end is enjoyable enough.
I appreciated the campiness of the stuffed horses and even the silly jokes, the problems is like I said before Edgar Wright didn't know when to stop and lose the pace of the film half way.
A Fistful of Fingers is not a classic and is the weakest link in Wright's filmography, but it showed potential and the parts that where good, where hilarious, is an easy watch and is even better if you enjoy westerns.
Edgar Wright's A Fistful of Fingers is not a student film, though it certainly looks like one and is essentially a remake of Wright's own film of the same name made when he was in school. Shot with a shoestring budget, the film is a parody of the western genre that shows Wright's love for goofball comedy pointed at cinematic genres as well as his very hit-and-miss writing abilities. The film is very funny at times, especially when it winks at the audience by showing off Wright's knowledge of the history of cinema, but it veers a bit too often into juvenile humor that is not always very effective. It is more of a series of scattered vignettes than a true coherent narrative, which makes the dearth of actually funny humor a bit more obvious. Certainly not Wright's best, A Fistful of Fingers might be enjoyed by serious fans of his other works, but this reviewer was hardly entertained.
I was expecting something really bad and student-y, but it was surprisingly very good. Wright's signature directing style and sense of humour shows already. I found it pretty funny too; although I've heard the joke a million times, I lost it at "Can't." "WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?".
I had always assumed Edgar Wright's A Fistful of Fingers was a crappy student film or an amateur effort, but turns out this is a fair dinkum film. When reading an article about the man last week, I found out this was actually funded by a proper production company and even received a cinema release. As such, I hunted down a copy pronto.
There is no doubt this was made on the cheap, it looks and sounds nasty. Wright stretches the budget thin and manages to make some impressive scenes work in spite of it. The film is a spoof, so the cheapness also works in its favour - a perfect example being the horse scenes which end up being…
this film might stumble but there are plenty of great ideas not-so-subtly hidden; it is a weird mix of traits and tricks by a clearly super fan of comedy and pop culture.
I had to sit in a theatre full of people laughing at this racist mess last night #blackface #banter
I don't know why Wright hasn't completely shunned this film and it makes me like him a lot less for it
It was like a Monty Python film mixed with a Mel Brookes film about a western actually set in Somerset and all while still having that trademark Edgar Wright style.
The love of my life, Edgar Wright, is born.
Not the best, not the worst. It's his first feature so Ed didn't really know any better. But atleast it's consistent with it's tone and knows how to spoof, to a degree. Plus it's got some very nice cinematography.
Wins the award for most subtle product placement in a film.
There are faint glimmers of later Edgar Wright.
The biggest compliment I can give to Edgar Wright's first film is that it's exactly the kind of thing that I would have made in my youth if I had his talent. It's clearly amateurish, but you can still see the promise that he would go on to more than deliver. What surprised me was just how many of the jokes were legitimately clever, even if they weren't necessarily executed perfectly. It doesn't offer a whole lot for anyone who isn't already a Wright fan, but if you are then it's some goofy fun.
I was lucky enough to see a new restored print of this at a special 20th anniversary screening of this at The Prince Charles Cinema presented by Director, Edgar Wright with a Q+A post movie with Wright and assembled cast and crew. While seeing the film in that setting may of very well made me kinder to the film than I would have been if I’d caught it on VHS years ago, I must say that this is a genuinely impressive directorial debut (made as it was for around 20 grand).
The film is basically the best Western Spoof the Zucker Brothers never made. ‘Fingers’ employs the style of ‘Airplane’ ‘The Naked Gun’ trilogy to great comic effect, the jokes…
Edgar Wright's debut film is joyously silly and a lot of fun. This is very much the beginning of Edgar Wright and it's raw yet wonderful.
Movies about movies.