|
Directed by: Clint Eastwood Starring: Clint Eastwood Gene Hackman Morgan Freeman Pretty good movie, but a little too slow moving for my tastes. However, it was extremely well made. Gene Hackman gives a stellar performance, as always. The script is tight and full of interesting characters (especially English Bob, who has one of the coolest names and personas ever). Compared to other Eastwood westerns, I prefer The Outlaw Josie Wales, but if you are in the mood for an unorthodox Western, rent this.
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
This movie's really more of a Drama that just happens to be set in the West. Obviously, because it prides itself on a more realistic approach to Old West gunplay, comradery and plot, it's not going to be as romantic as any westerns made by John Ford or Sergio Leone. The setting is bleak, the color tones washed out in a muddy gray, and in an interesting twist, the heroes are ruthless mercenaries and former outlaws, while the villains are sheriffs and ordinary townspeople. Personally, I thought this brought a breath of fresh air into a broken-down genre, without the use of MTV-style editing, teen hearththrobs or rock soundtracks. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2004 06:45
|
|
|
"You just shot an unarmed man!" "He should've armed himself." I loving love this movie. One of my favorite westerns, and that's saying a lot. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2004 22:16
|
|
|
I am a big fan of the "man with no name" Eastwood movies. This movie was almost like that character looking back and saying "holy poo poo...I did WHAT?" A good bookend to the MWNN series. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2004 14:23
|
|
|
This movie is still the only serious western I've ever seen, and I was really amazed at the depth of it. I always had this image of westerns as something not so far above a Loony Tunes imitation of the genre. How wrong I was. My favorite part was probably the hot-headed kid Eastwood and Freeman bring along who breaks down and cries after he kills a man for the first time. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2004 23:49
|
|
|
The best thing about this movie was its ability to seem like one of the classic Westerns Eastwood used to star in, while pretty much decrying them. Instead of glory from all the violence, it really only brings despair, and in the end, no one won. Also, as has been mentioned, if you wanted to, you can almost imagine this is the man with no name years later. Certainly, if you look at it outside of how enjoyable all the spaghetti westerns were, it seems that this is really where the man with no name had to be headed, and probably what he deserved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2004 10:30
|
|
|
This movie simply kicks all sorts of rear end. The climax built towards the end of the movie, combined with the realistic display of gunfights and how unpredictable and unreliable an inexperienced fighter can be were amazing. One of Clint Eastwood's greatest roles and and beautifully played by Morgan Freeman. I loving HATED Gene Hackman's character, which was exactly what I was supposed to. Excellent writing and directing. 4.5 out of 5 manbabies
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2004 21:14
|
|
|
drat good movie. Practically flawless, I'd say. Weighty and powerful while still being entertaining. Only thing I didn't care for was Saul Rubinek's performance, but it was a fairly minor part anyway. Rating: 5
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2005 00:05
|
|
|
I've watched a string of westerns for film class these past couple weeks and I'd thought I'd finally freed myself from the stereotyped idea of westerns I'd had. However, UNFORGIVEN managed to bring it back. This isn't to say I disliked the movie, it's just there was some intangible thing that made me hesitant to connect with this film. I think I might enjoy the Westerns that focus more on the southwest rather than the plains states. Digressing, the acting in this was most definately top-notch and Clint Eastwood again is a total badass. It was interesting how the heros of the film were the ones generally portrayed in a villainous light (the outlaws and assassins) while the villains were usually the law abiding and good guys (sheriff and regular townsfolk). Morgan Freeman did a good job and seeing his characters complete 180 was excellent. Eastwood's character was also very dynamic; he was a badass yet for some reason you knew he wasn't happy. The film moves a little slowly in the beginning, but once the hunt begins, the pacing is much better. The ending was pretty awesome and I liked how text bookended the film. It seemed a little morally heavy-handed at times, but it was bearable. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2005 06:22
|
|
|
I just watched this for the first time last night. I think it's an incredible film. It manages to be a great western while turning many western conventions on their head. Eastwood's transformation from a feeble old man to a menacing killer is great, as is the failure at the end that in most other westerns would be seen as a rousing victory. Death and the reasons for killing are not taken lightly here. The supporting cast is also excellent with Gene Hackman, Richard Harris, and Morgan Freeman. The only character who felt out of place was Saul Rubinek's W.W. Beauchamp; I thought he was a little bit too goofy for a film like this. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2005 07:52
|
|
|
It's amazing how I went without seeing this film until last year. As the previous reviewers have said, this isn't much of a shoot em action western, but a serious drama set in the old west. Gene Hackman has been in many movies I do not care for, but he did very well in this movie. It was interesting to want to sympathize with him, but he was just to big of an rear end in a top hat. I don't think the concept of "retired killer comes back to be a killer" is particularly original, but Eastwood does a good job reinventing the concept. This movie deserved the Oscar it got, but then again "Deserve has nothing to do with it". Watch this movie if you:
Your wife wants to watch a chick flick, but you want to see some hard rear end man action. Enjoy the setting of the old west. Need to knock something out of your endevour to finish the AFI's top 100. DO NOT WATCH IF:
Expect action and gunfights every 5 minutes. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2005 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
I just finished rewatching this film for the first time in several years and drat, had I forgotten just how incredibly good it is. The most important contributing factor to the films high quality are definitely the acting performances, which are absolutely top notch all around. I wouldn't call it a realistic movie at all, however. Realism's got nothing to do with what it's about. Or, to be more precise, while it does carry a weighty load in its main subject matter that could very well be called "realistic," I want to be very clear about the fact that the movie does not set out to display a more realistic picture of what life was really like in the Old West than any other western. It is, in fact, steeped in the same clichés and anachronisms that have become common tropes and staples within the genre. The difference is that it uses those same clichés and tropes to great effect to develop an overarching theme, using them as a shared vocabulary in order to tell its story, with the movie's real subject, of course, being violence, and more importantly, the glorification thereof. And in that sense it could be called a deconstruction of the genre in much the same way as "Watchmen" is for the genre of superhero comic books. Notably, the one area in which the movie does very strongly diverge from the standard formula for westerns of this type is in that violence is never once displayed as something exciting and glorious. And so, while it is a very violent movie, all the violence we are shown is depicted as being base and ugly. This is the area which I was talking about earlier where this film can be considered realistic, and by thus showing the real human cost of violence, incongruosly, across this common-place backdrop of classic western clichés, the emotional effect is all the stronger for it. Following the movie all the way through we realize only as we reach its conclusion that the character of the naive kid with the grandiose fantasies of himself as a gunfighter and outlaw, who had been set up from the beginning for the audience to look down upon, invitig the viewer into sharing in the wise and world-weary view of the more experienced characters, that it is really him that we are most like in our outlook as we engage in excitedly watching this spectacle of violence unfold in front of us only to in the end be confronted by the sobering reality. I rate this film a 5/5.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 03:18
|
|
