Imagine a world where Quentin Tarantino, the mastermind behind Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained, had the chance to direct one of the most iconic Western villains of all time. It’s a cinematic 'what if' that still haunts film enthusiasts to this day. Tarantino, known for his love of B-movies and his knack for reviving careers, has often cast actors from the lowbrow films and TV shows he adored. Think John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, Pam Grier in Jackie Brown, and David Carradine in Kill Bill. He even brought Franco Nero, the original Django, back to the screen in Django Unchained. But there’s one legendary actor he deeply regrets never working with: Lee Van Cleef.
And this is the part most people miss: In 2014, during an appearance on The Director’s Chair with his friend Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino was asked who he considered the ultimate badass actor of all time. His answer? Lee Van Cleef. At the time, Tarantino was on a 'real Lee Van Cleef kick,' and it’s easy to see why. Van Cleef, with his sharp features and piercing gaze, became the quintessential 'black hat'—the villain you couldn’t help but admire. Sadly, Van Cleef passed away in 1989, just a few years before Tarantino’s directorial debut with Reservoir Dogs in 1992.
But here’s where it gets controversial: While Van Cleef is best remembered for his roles in Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns, like For a Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Tarantino specifically wished he could have worked with him during the late 1960s and early 1970s. This was the era when Van Cleef’s star was rising, and his portrayal of Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly cemented his status as the archetypal Western villain. Greedy, unscrupulous, and impossibly cool, Angel Eyes is the character most people picture when they think of a gunslinging bad guy. Yet, Van Cleef’s range extended beyond villainy—he played the hero in For a Few Dollars More as bounty hunter Douglas Mortimer, proving he could carry both sides of the moral spectrum.
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: Was Lee Van Cleef typecast as a villain because of his striking looks, or did his talent simply elevate every role he played? Johnny Carson once joked that if a movie needed a truly despicable character, the go-to choice was Van Cleef. But as Van Cleef himself noted, playing villains wasn’t just about being 'bad'—it was about finding depth and even sympathy in those dark characters. That’s a challenge few actors can master.
Van Cleef’s influence didn’t end with his death. His legacy lives on in characters like Cad Bane from Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Rattlesnake Jake from Rango, both of whom echo his menacing presence. Even John Carpenter, another fan of Van Cleef’s, cast him in Escape From New York as Police Commissioner Bob Hauk, a role that paired him with Kurt Russell’s Snake Plissken—a character heavily inspired by Clint Eastwood, Van Cleef’s on-screen rival.
While Carpenter got his chance to work with Van Cleef, Tarantino was left to imagine what could have been. What do you think? Could a Tarantino-Van Cleef collaboration have redefined the Western genre, or would it have been just another missed opportunity? Let us know in the comments—this is one cinematic 'what if' that’s sure to spark debate.
