A Fistful of Fingers

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.

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.

I find this so much funnier than a lot of other people seem to give it credit for. If you want a Zucker/Abrahams-style comedy spoofing spaghetti westerns, but made with pretty much no money, that's exactly what Fistful of Fingers offers.

I've spent a few years lamenting how Edgar Wright has moved away from comedy, too, all the while ignoring what could well be his silliest movie. It's made on such a budget that some might not even consider it a proper movie, but I don't care. It's funny. It made me laugh more than I was expecting.

Wright's wheelhouse is comedy, so much so I'd say this might well be a better film (or at least a more satisfying watch) than either Baby Driver or Last Night in Soho. The last 10 years has been grim for anyone who likes this filmmaker's sense of humour. At least his Sparks documentary was pretty funny, but that was mostly because Sparks are a funny duo.

Edgar, just make comedies again. You're funny. You bring out the best in Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. The Cornetto trilogy movies are still ones I think about often. I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim from ages, but I reckon I'd still enjoy it if watched again today. The guy is helming a more serious/accurate adaptation of Stephen King's The Running Man next (purportedly more in line with the book than the Schwarzenegger film that very loosely adapted it), and I just have to ask... why. Why, why, why.

Wright ignoring the comedy genre would be like David Lean deciding to stop making epics, or David Lynch moving away from surrealism, or Scorsese suddenly making nothing but sci-fi/fantasy movies for no good reason. This filmmaker has moved so far out of his wheelhouse and I'm just baffled why he's apparently got no desire to go back.

Got off-topic there. I'll just reiterate: if you like Wright's other parodies, and you enjoy spaghetti westerns, and you don't mind films with low budgets, watch Fistful of Fingers.

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.

"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