This is a funny film that parodies westerns . Most, if not all of the cast are probably still in their teens and still in school. Even though it is low budget, it looks very professional. More professional than a lot of other low budget British films. The writing is very funny, a lot of monty python, Airplane, and Naked Gun kind of humour. It feels a bit slow at times, but is still a very enjoyable film. It's a bit more over the top and surreal than Blazing Saddles. One of the funniest western parody I've ever seen.
11 Reviews
A Fistful of Fingers (1995)
MartinTeller4 January 2012
Before spoofing zombie movies and action flicks, Edgar Wright took a stab at the spaghetti western. It's an understandably amateurish production with zero budget and baby-faced actors. Rather than the character-driven homage format of his later films, here Wright takes more of a rapid-fire gag approach, with echoes of Mel Brooks, Looney Tunes, Monty Python and Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker. It's a style that demands to be judged on the quality of its jokes. And there are some pretty good ones... I especially liked the final showdown that starts with a debate about the end of BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. However, a lot more gags fail than succeed. I'd say roughly 1 in 4 find their mark. It's not a very impressive ratio, but it could be a whole lot worse. If it's not exactly a comic masterpiece, at least it's generally watchable and supplies a few good laughs.
"The greatest western ever made...in Somerset"
Bored_Dragon12 May 2020
"The greatest western ever made...in Somerset"
Edgar Wright's official directorial debut, because for some mysterious reason his high school "Dead Right" doesn't count, is a parody of the spaghetti westerns, with an obvious emphasis on Leone, Eastwood, and even Morricone's music. The film is low(no)budget and the actors are amateur kids, as is the author himself, but you can already see all the elements that characterize his future masterpieces. From his trademark parody stories, through completely wacky characters and silly dialogues, to specific directing and editing, and refined sense of rhythm and detail. The humor is very reminiscent of Monty Python and, although it has some good and original jokes, it is mostly worn out and forced, but when you take into account the age, (in)experience and budget of the author, this film is astonishingly good.
7/10
Edgar Wright's official directorial debut, because for some mysterious reason his high school "Dead Right" doesn't count, is a parody of the spaghetti westerns, with an obvious emphasis on Leone, Eastwood, and even Morricone's music. The film is low(no)budget and the actors are amateur kids, as is the author himself, but you can already see all the elements that characterize his future masterpieces. From his trademark parody stories, through completely wacky characters and silly dialogues, to specific directing and editing, and refined sense of rhythm and detail. The humor is very reminiscent of Monty Python and, although it has some good and original jokes, it is mostly worn out and forced, but when you take into account the age, (in)experience and budget of the author, this film is astonishingly good.
7/10
Only For Edgar Wright Completists
CinemaClown21 August 2021
Edgar Wright's directorial debut is a no-budget western comedy that's crafted purely out of passion by the then-new filmmaker and makes for a decent parody of spaghetti westerns. A Fistful of Fingers is goofy, dorky & untidy, and is too amateurish an effort to be considered a proper debut feature.
Also written by Wright, this 78 mins story with zero production values & irreverent humour is devoid of all the charm, wit or energy that are now best associated with his works and lacks even an attempt from him to carve out his original style & trademarks. Instead, the film feels more like a hobby pursued in spare time.
While there are amusing bits & clever comedic touches every now n then, much of it is a tad too silly & campy to be enjoyed wholeheartedly. Wright spoofs the genre with nothing held back but has no idea when n where to pull the brakes & gets carried away too often, thus leading to several good scenes getting undone by being overdone.
Overall, A Fistful of Fingers has all the qualities of a student film shot on a shoestring budget and absolutely none of the stylistic flourishes that now defines an Edgar Wright presentation. It is funny in small doses and its over-the-top ridiculousness also works but it lacks restraint. Fans of the filmmaker may find it enjoyable to an extent but one isn't missing out much if they skip it.
Also written by Wright, this 78 mins story with zero production values & irreverent humour is devoid of all the charm, wit or energy that are now best associated with his works and lacks even an attempt from him to carve out his original style & trademarks. Instead, the film feels more like a hobby pursued in spare time.
While there are amusing bits & clever comedic touches every now n then, much of it is a tad too silly & campy to be enjoyed wholeheartedly. Wright spoofs the genre with nothing held back but has no idea when n where to pull the brakes & gets carried away too often, thus leading to several good scenes getting undone by being overdone.
Overall, A Fistful of Fingers has all the qualities of a student film shot on a shoestring budget and absolutely none of the stylistic flourishes that now defines an Edgar Wright presentation. It is funny in small doses and its over-the-top ridiculousness also works but it lacks restraint. Fans of the filmmaker may find it enjoyable to an extent but one isn't missing out much if they skip it.
Way better than it deserved to be
xXMetalrockeRXx1 July 2017
Im currently studying film, and am more than aware of how difficult it is to make a semblance of a good movie on your own. Its amazing what Edgar Wright managed to do with this film, and a clear sign that this man would do amazing things if he had the right resources. Even though some of the jokes in this film don't land, those that do are solid and creative. It gets way too silly in its second half and loses its way in the story and comedy just a little, but overall its a very impressive first effort by a masterful future director.
5.5/10
5.5/10
Decent, fun parody.
RatedVforVinny16 November 2018
This is very funny in parts and a send up of the great 'Spaghetti Westerns'.'Fingers' is high spirited, low budget production but i'm sure all involved, had a passion for the wonderful subject matter. You can't help but get sucked into some very silly situations and a film you can have a few beers before hand (no doubt).
Edgar Wright's film directing debut.
morrison-dylan-fan18 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
After watching Kelly Reichardt's superb debut River of Grass (1994-also reviewed) I decided to take a look at what other directing debuts from the early '90's I had, waiting to be played. Having caught his classic Cornetto trilogy countless times on TV,I was pleased to spot Edgar Wright's feature film debut, which led to me grabbing a fistful of fingers.
View on the film:
While the performances from the game cast leans on the amateur hour side of things, writer/ directing auteur Edgar Wright takes successful shots at what would later become major themes. Splashing pulpy animated credits on the screen for his shot in Wells, Somerset (and some in Poole) Spaghetti Western, Wright quick-draws with editor Giles Harding a early aim at what would become a signature editing style in his works, using the staples of Spaghetti Western for fluid whip-pan shoot-outs, which take parting shots on crash-zoom-ins towards outlaws mysteriously disappearing out of frame.
Although the friendship between cowboy Walter Marshall and the Indian Running Sore lacks the thoughtful, focused touch that would feature in later male friendships of his future works, the screenplay by Wright has a handmade, zany inventiveness, thanks to a scatter-gun approach of gags holding talking "horses" made up of paper mache heads on mops,with sped-up Sam peckinpah riffs and a argument over the Butch & Sundance ending,all for a fistful of fingers.
View on the film:
While the performances from the game cast leans on the amateur hour side of things, writer/ directing auteur Edgar Wright takes successful shots at what would later become major themes. Splashing pulpy animated credits on the screen for his shot in Wells, Somerset (and some in Poole) Spaghetti Western, Wright quick-draws with editor Giles Harding a early aim at what would become a signature editing style in his works, using the staples of Spaghetti Western for fluid whip-pan shoot-outs, which take parting shots on crash-zoom-ins towards outlaws mysteriously disappearing out of frame.
Although the friendship between cowboy Walter Marshall and the Indian Running Sore lacks the thoughtful, focused touch that would feature in later male friendships of his future works, the screenplay by Wright has a handmade, zany inventiveness, thanks to a scatter-gun approach of gags holding talking "horses" made up of paper mache heads on mops,with sped-up Sam peckinpah riffs and a argument over the Butch & Sundance ending,all for a fistful of fingers.
62%
thomastobutt12 April 2021
PROS:
CONS:
- It is a fun watch knowing that is the directorial debut of Edgar Wright.
- You could really see their was passion behind this and it is very self-aware. Overall it's a fun, low budget parody from Edgar Wright.
- I did find myself laughing at how over the top it was quite a bit.
- Given a minuscule budget the set, costume, etc. Look quite good.
CONS:
- Understandably it lacks much professionalism and the acting isn't fantastic as it pretty much is a student made film.
Early Edgar Wright
boblipton21 November 2021
Graham Low is the Man With No Name and Oli van der Vijver is the Lee Van Cleef character in Edgar Low's first feature film.
As you might guess from the title, it's a burlesque of the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns, with a sketch of a pot and a lot of actors of whom you've never heard doing a mediocre job. There are plenty of juvenile gags, and it gives the impression of a bunch of amateurs who really liked MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL and figured they could do the same for westerns.
I was disappointed, in part because, while the flow of gags never stopped, each one was offered as if it was hilarious. When you've got that rat-a-tat pacing, you need to offer a gag and then move on to the next.
As you might guess from the title, it's a burlesque of the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns, with a sketch of a pot and a lot of actors of whom you've never heard doing a mediocre job. There are plenty of juvenile gags, and it gives the impression of a bunch of amateurs who really liked MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL and figured they could do the same for westerns.
I was disappointed, in part because, while the flow of gags never stopped, each one was offered as if it was hilarious. When you've got that rat-a-tat pacing, you need to offer a gag and then move on to the next.
Funny but Flawed
df42051 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
So, here we have a Cowboy/Western/Comedy. Being a comedy, judging it is very subjective. Not everyone likes the same style of comedy, nor does everyone agree on what is funny. But, I'll give it a go.
To me, this film is very: Mel Brooks if he had to work with a shoestring budget. Despite the fact that it's a Western-theme (Yes, I know Mel had Blazing Saddles), its very reminiscent of Spaceballs. There's some amusing wordplay humor similar to that of "Comb the desert!" where you see them taking it literally and using giant combs. There's also some zany antics that echo "You idiot! You've captured their stunt doubles!" The movie also echoes that of Monty Python in that it uses its pathetic budget to its advantage rather than being hobbled by it.
The general plot revolves around a cowboy/bounty hunter who elects to hunt down a nefarious outlaw only to discover they have a history with one another. Along the way he meets a helpful native and a buffoon. Well, our hero's horse gets killed by (itself! lol) the villain, so our cowboy is on a quest for revenge now.
The humor here is probably going to be divisive. It's not exactly situational humor like Seinfeld or anything similar. Nor is it high-brow humor like that of Fraiser. As I said, it's more of a hybridization of Brooks and Python in its application. But though it echoes Brooks, it doesn't quite fall into the niche of satire or parody either (It doesen't really scream "Star Wars" or "Frankenstein"). Having said that, there are even some moments were it wanders into Looney Tunes complete with our villains being foiled by the hero standing around holding a 'detour' sign.
The Good: Again, a divisive area, but I enjoyed the humor for the most part. I won't say it caused a roaring belly-laugh, but it did get more than one chuckle out of me. I credit them for taking what should have been a hindrance (the budget) and turning it into a strength. We've all seen low-budget films that fail to overcome this obstacle, so kudos to them for the achievement. Considering that most of the actors are complete amateurs; this could could be a lot worse. The main actor is our strongest contender here and manages to carry the weight of the film quite respectably. He's not Oscar material for sure, but he sells the character. The Native helper is a bit of a toss-up. He's not irredeemable in his acting, but his portrayal is a bit wooden (though I suspect this was intentional; IE: he was meant to be Vulcan-like). The rest of the gaggle are much the same way, they don't leap of the screen and into your heart, but they are serviceable.
The Not so Good: There are a lot of 'dead scenes' scattered throughout the film. Yes, I know that even in a comedy the humor doesn't need to be on-call 24/7. But here, there just seemed to be a lot of empty voids that could have been improved. Whenever the humor takes a break, it creates a lull that allows your amusement to languish. It's a lot like going mudding. When you're having fun, you're having fun; but when the car gets stuck you have time to realize that you're in trouble. It doesn't kill the movie, but it keeps the humor from continually rising. It's like watching Alien and seeing Ripley stop to work on her knitting after having just seen someone's head ripped off. You didn't undo the terror of watching a guy get his head ripped off, but you did kill the on-the-edge-of-your-seat tension. And for the more politically-correct crowd, there are some questionable decisions. As I mentioned, there is a Native-American sidekick. This of course leads to "We spekum funny" dialogue. While (to me) it's not quite up there with Nightbeasts treatment or PeterPan's 'What makes the redman red' level of racism, it does put its toe on the line sometimes.
Final Thoughts: Not too bad. If you enjoy the Mel Brooks/Monty Python brand of humor then I'd recommend giving it a watch (if you can find it). Like myself, it may not make you belly-laugh, but you might get a chuckle or two. It gets points for overcoming its budget, and for its honesty. It knows what it is and it doesn't try to be anything else. It embraces its genre wholeheartedly and you know the cast and crew were fans and were paying homage to it. But again, there are just a few spots that needed another coat of polish to keep the momentum of the humor going. The inclusion of the Native-American humor "can" be judged as a product of the time, but like the General Lee, it just doesn't hold up to modern-day sensitivities.
To me, this film is very: Mel Brooks if he had to work with a shoestring budget. Despite the fact that it's a Western-theme (Yes, I know Mel had Blazing Saddles), its very reminiscent of Spaceballs. There's some amusing wordplay humor similar to that of "Comb the desert!" where you see them taking it literally and using giant combs. There's also some zany antics that echo "You idiot! You've captured their stunt doubles!" The movie also echoes that of Monty Python in that it uses its pathetic budget to its advantage rather than being hobbled by it.
The general plot revolves around a cowboy/bounty hunter who elects to hunt down a nefarious outlaw only to discover they have a history with one another. Along the way he meets a helpful native and a buffoon. Well, our hero's horse gets killed by (itself! lol) the villain, so our cowboy is on a quest for revenge now.
The humor here is probably going to be divisive. It's not exactly situational humor like Seinfeld or anything similar. Nor is it high-brow humor like that of Fraiser. As I said, it's more of a hybridization of Brooks and Python in its application. But though it echoes Brooks, it doesn't quite fall into the niche of satire or parody either (It doesen't really scream "Star Wars" or "Frankenstein"). Having said that, there are even some moments were it wanders into Looney Tunes complete with our villains being foiled by the hero standing around holding a 'detour' sign.
The Good: Again, a divisive area, but I enjoyed the humor for the most part. I won't say it caused a roaring belly-laugh, but it did get more than one chuckle out of me. I credit them for taking what should have been a hindrance (the budget) and turning it into a strength. We've all seen low-budget films that fail to overcome this obstacle, so kudos to them for the achievement. Considering that most of the actors are complete amateurs; this could could be a lot worse. The main actor is our strongest contender here and manages to carry the weight of the film quite respectably. He's not Oscar material for sure, but he sells the character. The Native helper is a bit of a toss-up. He's not irredeemable in his acting, but his portrayal is a bit wooden (though I suspect this was intentional; IE: he was meant to be Vulcan-like). The rest of the gaggle are much the same way, they don't leap of the screen and into your heart, but they are serviceable.
The Not so Good: There are a lot of 'dead scenes' scattered throughout the film. Yes, I know that even in a comedy the humor doesn't need to be on-call 24/7. But here, there just seemed to be a lot of empty voids that could have been improved. Whenever the humor takes a break, it creates a lull that allows your amusement to languish. It's a lot like going mudding. When you're having fun, you're having fun; but when the car gets stuck you have time to realize that you're in trouble. It doesn't kill the movie, but it keeps the humor from continually rising. It's like watching Alien and seeing Ripley stop to work on her knitting after having just seen someone's head ripped off. You didn't undo the terror of watching a guy get his head ripped off, but you did kill the on-the-edge-of-your-seat tension. And for the more politically-correct crowd, there are some questionable decisions. As I mentioned, there is a Native-American sidekick. This of course leads to "We spekum funny" dialogue. While (to me) it's not quite up there with Nightbeasts treatment or PeterPan's 'What makes the redman red' level of racism, it does put its toe on the line sometimes.
Final Thoughts: Not too bad. If you enjoy the Mel Brooks/Monty Python brand of humor then I'd recommend giving it a watch (if you can find it). Like myself, it may not make you belly-laugh, but you might get a chuckle or two. It gets points for overcoming its budget, and for its honesty. It knows what it is and it doesn't try to be anything else. It embraces its genre wholeheartedly and you know the cast and crew were fans and were paying homage to it. But again, there are just a few spots that needed another coat of polish to keep the momentum of the humor going. The inclusion of the Native-American humor "can" be judged as a product of the time, but like the General Lee, it just doesn't hold up to modern-day sensitivities.
The best part of this film? The poster
r96sk29 August 2022
Edgar Wright's first film is... not good, pretty bad in fact.
'A Fistful of Fingers' does work in small doses, though all in all it's rather limp. The early stages, the opening 25 minutes or so, are solid if hit-and-miss, unfortunately the rest is heavy in the miss department. There are some mildly amusing bits, the Clint Eastwood/'A Fistful of Dollars' schtick is decent but quickly runs dry.
There isn't much to talk about regarding the cast, they give alright performances I guess - Graham Low sticks out most, as you'd expect. The film coulda done without the Native American stuff, which is not only lazy and rather unsavoury. The, unexpected, animated bit was cool though.
The best part of this film? The poster. Noice.
'A Fistful of Fingers' does work in small doses, though all in all it's rather limp. The early stages, the opening 25 minutes or so, are solid if hit-and-miss, unfortunately the rest is heavy in the miss department. There are some mildly amusing bits, the Clint Eastwood/'A Fistful of Dollars' schtick is decent but quickly runs dry.
There isn't much to talk about regarding the cast, they give alright performances I guess - Graham Low sticks out most, as you'd expect. The film coulda done without the Native American stuff, which is not only lazy and rather unsavoury. The, unexpected, animated bit was cool though.
The best part of this film? The poster. Noice.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
