Joe Kidd

I've seen "Joe Kidd" quite a few times but not as many times as I should. This movie gets better every time I see it. For some reason it is probably my least seen Clint Eastwood western. I can't explain it. Last night as I watched it I enjoyed almost everything about it. The dialogue was smart and often very funny. The cast was very strong, especially Robert Duvall. Duvall gives an excellent performance. I have many books on movie westerns. None of them give "Joe Kidd" its due. It took me many years to get up to speed with this movie. "Joe Kidd" is another solid entry in Clint Eastwood's Hall of Fame resume.

This may not be one of the best western to feature Clint Eastwood, but it's still a decent western. Yeah, the plot maybe a bit standard but still the movie does have it's moments few times. The triumphant soundtrack is also a plus. on the negative side the story is pretty standard and the movie just isn't all that character driven either. It just lacked certain elements that made some of Clint's other western films great. The part that I liked was how it's difficult to choose a side for a while. Sometimes the movie seemed to try a bit too hard to show how short tempered and badass the main protagonist is while also having some moral ethics. Although it can sometimes be cool to see the effects of his short temper. Some aspects of this film just seemed a bit forced and although it's a decent western not much really stood out. In fact it seemed more like a western TV show episode than a actual movie. Besides the fact that this movie has two great actors, Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall.

6.4/10

This is a pretty good though very simple Western and I am sure that the somewhat low ratings are due, in part, to the movie not being exactly what Clint Eastwood fans expected. In this film, he plays Joe Kidd--a decent sort of guy but not exactly as super-human as "the man with no name" in his Spaghetti Westerns. He's a lot like Eastwood in UNFORGIVEN because he seems not so super-human, except that he is a fundamentally decent person in JOE KIDD, whereas in UNFORGIVEN he's almost like a multiple personality (one nice and the other evil). The character Joe Kidd shows off his abilities here and there, but he isn't the amazing man with a 6-shooter as you'd expect from Eastwood either--though he sure does pretty well with a rifle or train (you'll have to see what I mean by seeing the picture). So overall, this film is very good but a bit subdued and more realistic than most of Eastwood's Westerns--plus at under 90 minutes, it's pretty short as well. One way I knew this was a pretty good flick was that my wife sat and watched the film with me--and she hates Westerns.

Excellent and certainly underrated Clint Eastwood western, this time directed by John Sturges and designed very much to cash in on the Spaghetti Westerns Eastwood made with Sergio Leone; you only have to look at the credits to see the wealth of talent involved including a screenplay by none other than Elmore Leonard. Clint is the titular "Joe Kidd" who finds himself in the middle of a war between cold-blooded landowner Robert Duvall and a group of Mexicans lead by John Saxon. There's nothing very original about the plot but it gallops through its less than niney minutes running time and makes for a very entertaining Saturday Afternoon Matinee movie. It's also well cast throughout and boasts some beautiful location photography by the great Bruce Surtees.

Everything about "Joe Kidd" suggests quality of the highest order. Here you've got Clint Eastwood co-starring with Robert Duvall (in one of his first post-"Godfather" roles), to say nothing of an excellent supporting cast that includes John Saxon, in a western directed by John Sturges whose name I will always utter with reverence because he gave us "The Great Escape." And it's based on an Elmore Leonard novel. Prepare to be impressed.

"Joe Kidd" opens well with Clint Eastwood all duded up in the most splendid threads he ever wore in a movie. In no time at all, though, it all goes rapidly downhill, becoming as memorable as a Hopalong Cassidy B-flick. Everyone involved acknowledged it was a disappointment, but why? Patrick McGilligan's recent bio of Eastwood (which is close to a hatchet job) suggests Sturges had succumbed to alcohol by then and simply wasn't up to the job, but star and co-producer Eastwood, humble in the presence of a man who directed so many fine films, was reluctant to usurp the reins. The movie's inferior reputation may now be in its favor. Having read so many bad reviews of the film, Eastwood fans who haven't seen it yet may have such low expectations that it may seem better than it is. If so, enjoy.