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.
111 Reviews
Not a great Western, but certainly a decent one.
Hey_Sweden1 May 2014
Perhaps it's expectations regarding the talent assembled here that make one feel somewhat underwhelmed: the screenplay is by Elmore Leonard, the direction by John Sturges, and genre veteran Clint Eastwood is the star. Ultimately, the story never really catches fire, and there's not much in the film that's memorable - save for one amusing bit of business with a train. Overall, "Joe Kidd" lacks distinction, which is too bad. Eastwood is a typically low key and efficient hero, and he's backed up by a strong supporting cast. The film has the look of quality, with lovely scenery, sets & photography. Fans of the genre will find that this kills an hour and a half fairly easily.
Clint plays the title role, a former bounty hunter who's sprung from jail by a ruthless land baron, Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall). Harlan wants a man eliminated: Mexican revolutionary Luis Chama (John Saxon), who wants to dispute land ownership. Joe reluctantly saddles up with Harlans' associates, only to have a change of heart when he sees how cold blooded they are. He and Chama reach an understanding and begin to do battle with Harlan and company.
Duvall is a worthy antagonist, and he does a nice job of underplaying his role. Saxon has a commanding presence, and Stella Garcia is delightful as the feisty Helen Sanchez. Don Stroud, James Wainwright, and Paul Koslo are all great fun as Harlans' goons, especially Stroud as he gets increasingly flustered. It's also nice to see other familiar faces such as Gregory Walcott as the sheriff, Dick Van Patten as the hotel manager, Joaquin Martinez as Manolo, and Ron Soble as Ramon.
Bruce Surtees's cinematography is noteworthy, and Lalo Schifrin contributes an excellent score.
While this doesn't measure up to classic Clint Westerns, it's still reasonably engaging.
Seven out of 10.
Clint plays the title role, a former bounty hunter who's sprung from jail by a ruthless land baron, Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall). Harlan wants a man eliminated: Mexican revolutionary Luis Chama (John Saxon), who wants to dispute land ownership. Joe reluctantly saddles up with Harlans' associates, only to have a change of heart when he sees how cold blooded they are. He and Chama reach an understanding and begin to do battle with Harlan and company.
Duvall is a worthy antagonist, and he does a nice job of underplaying his role. Saxon has a commanding presence, and Stella Garcia is delightful as the feisty Helen Sanchez. Don Stroud, James Wainwright, and Paul Koslo are all great fun as Harlans' goons, especially Stroud as he gets increasingly flustered. It's also nice to see other familiar faces such as Gregory Walcott as the sheriff, Dick Van Patten as the hotel manager, Joaquin Martinez as Manolo, and Ron Soble as Ramon.
Bruce Surtees's cinematography is noteworthy, and Lalo Schifrin contributes an excellent score.
While this doesn't measure up to classic Clint Westerns, it's still reasonably engaging.
Seven out of 10.
Another Great Performance of Clint Eastwood, In an Above Average Western Movie
claudio_carvalho14 January 2004
Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) is a former gunman and bounty hunter, hired by the landlord Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) to chase Luis Chama (John Saxon), a Mexican-American fighting for land reform. Along the hunting, Joe realizes that Frank's men are cold blood killers, and decides to help Luis Chama. He convinces him to fight for his rights in the court of justice. In the way back to the city, Frank's men try to kill Luis Chama. Clint Eastwood has another great performance, having a great duel with Robert Duvall. The story has some flaws, but anyway, maybe the greatest problem is the expectation generated by the name of John Sturges: we always expect another masterpiece from him, and maybe this is the reason why there are some underrated comments about this above average Western movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): Joe Kidd
Title (Brazil): Joe Kidd
Lesser seen, but packs a punch
Leofwine_draca3 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Another fun Eastwood western, lesser known than many of his classics but with plenty of merit to see it through. The weak point is John Saxon as the Mexican character, who promises a lot at the outset and who is mentioned throughout the film, but who actually plays a small and weak part in the proceedings. Still, Eastwood is a delight as another amoral character who can't be bothered with much until he's literally forced into getting involved, and Robert Duvall plays against type as the villain and makes a great stab of it. There's strong action, great scenery, fun interplay between the characters and an unpredictable storyline, all of which work in this film's favour.
Not one of Clint's best western but it's still decent
KineticSeoul14 October 2011
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
6.4/10
Excellent and certainly underrated western.
MOscarbradley20 February 2021
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.
Fighting for what you believe in doesn't always come easy.
lost-in-limbo25 June 2006
Joe Kidd is discreditable ex-bounty hunter who's facing a couple days in jail, but a well-known big flier landowner Frank Harlan pays his fine hoping that he would join his group of hunters in tracking down the revolution leader Louis Chama. Who's upset about the treatment his people have received in the land reform policies and he goes into town to show he and his group mean business. But Kidd has nothing against him so he declines, but that all changes when he finds out Chama and his outlaws stole his horses and touched up his carers. So after that, Kidd decides to join in the hunt, only to discover that maybe he's on the wrong side.
How many times have we seen it, don't mess with Clint! After the highly significant cop thriller "Dirty Harry", he returned to the western foray with not-so forcible results. "Joe Kidd" is what you can call, one of Eastwood's lesser westerns, but I actually enjoyed it. Maybe that's because I knew very little about it and I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary, but I found this little slam-bang western to be an earnest vehicle for Eastwood, which has a capable supporting cast in Robert Duvall, Don Stroud and John Saxon and in the director's chair is John Sturges. With those names involved it could have been much more, but it's not all a waste.
I thought that it started off unusually and far from your typical Eastwood western. It's quite unpredictable and it's laced with a lot quick-witted humour, but when it gets into its groove with the journey part of the story. Then it falls into a systematic pattern. There's nothing overly dynamic about it, but since it's quite a short flick it goes by quick enough without any meandering sequences. We get an even amount of humorous wisecracks, sturdy action set pieces and a steam-rolling climax for the undemanding. The performances are extremely good as the main characters are very egotistical. Eastwood provides his causal persona in the lead role, although this character seems to have a little more spruce and morality in his actions than that cynical edge we come to love. Duvall is influentially striking as the snaky villain Frank Harlan. Saxon is a superb character actor and that translates into his minor performance of Louis Chama. Don Stroud, Paul Koslo and Stella Garcia were more than decent too.
The consciousness story by Elmore Leonard is rather weakly drawn-up with very little in the way development and little to pushy in it's unjustifiable moral high ground. Although I loved the ironic judge, jury and executioner symbolism that fate has in-stored for the main villain. Sturges' direction won't blow you away, but it was a competent display and he manages to incorporate the sublime backdrop of the High Sierras with on spot, open location photography. There are many well-placed angle shots and leeway in its execution. Another facet that was surprising was Lalo Schifrin's distinctively, pulsating score that's never over-powering, but it was always there.
You might forget all about this western after a day or two, but with these class people involved in this production, just expect some captivating, light entertainment. I found it satisfying enough, but Eastwood would go onto better things a year later with the cruel, spell-binding "High Plains Drifter".
How many times have we seen it, don't mess with Clint! After the highly significant cop thriller "Dirty Harry", he returned to the western foray with not-so forcible results. "Joe Kidd" is what you can call, one of Eastwood's lesser westerns, but I actually enjoyed it. Maybe that's because I knew very little about it and I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary, but I found this little slam-bang western to be an earnest vehicle for Eastwood, which has a capable supporting cast in Robert Duvall, Don Stroud and John Saxon and in the director's chair is John Sturges. With those names involved it could have been much more, but it's not all a waste.
I thought that it started off unusually and far from your typical Eastwood western. It's quite unpredictable and it's laced with a lot quick-witted humour, but when it gets into its groove with the journey part of the story. Then it falls into a systematic pattern. There's nothing overly dynamic about it, but since it's quite a short flick it goes by quick enough without any meandering sequences. We get an even amount of humorous wisecracks, sturdy action set pieces and a steam-rolling climax for the undemanding. The performances are extremely good as the main characters are very egotistical. Eastwood provides his causal persona in the lead role, although this character seems to have a little more spruce and morality in his actions than that cynical edge we come to love. Duvall is influentially striking as the snaky villain Frank Harlan. Saxon is a superb character actor and that translates into his minor performance of Louis Chama. Don Stroud, Paul Koslo and Stella Garcia were more than decent too.
The consciousness story by Elmore Leonard is rather weakly drawn-up with very little in the way development and little to pushy in it's unjustifiable moral high ground. Although I loved the ironic judge, jury and executioner symbolism that fate has in-stored for the main villain. Sturges' direction won't blow you away, but it was a competent display and he manages to incorporate the sublime backdrop of the High Sierras with on spot, open location photography. There are many well-placed angle shots and leeway in its execution. Another facet that was surprising was Lalo Schifrin's distinctively, pulsating score that's never over-powering, but it was always there.
You might forget all about this western after a day or two, but with these class people involved in this production, just expect some captivating, light entertainment. I found it satisfying enough, but Eastwood would go onto better things a year later with the cruel, spell-binding "High Plains Drifter".
The hunter becomes the hunted in this simple American Western
Robert_duder1 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Anyone who reads my reviews regularly will know I am the most biased Eastwood reviewer on the planet because I idolize the man. He is nothing short of a directing/acting god in my books and the coolest, toughest, macho male specimen on the planet. However, admittedly this doesn't always translate to great film. I read several reviews of Joe Kidd that said this was 'the best of his American westerns' and that simply isn't true whatsoever. Joe Kidd is not bad by any means, it has some serious fall-backs including a very slow first near hour before the climax where it really amps up. The story is brutally simple and straight forward and doesn't even touch the scale of epic proportions in Leone's Eastwood westerns or even Eastwood's own (Unforgiven, High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider.) This is the type of Western that would be equivalent to a film being Hollywood-ized nowadays. Fortunately they eventually let Eastwood do what he does best...mop the floor with the bad guys, get his vengeance and overcome evil. Also perhaps surprisingly Joe Kidd isn't chock full of the usual Western ingredients. Yes they are there...horseback, gun fights, saloon, train station, hotel, jail house but it isn't slap you in the face everywhere. All these ingredients are in the background and the characters are in the forefront.
Clint Eastwood leaves behind any dark cowboy persona to play Joe Kidd. An ex-bounty hunter, drunk and trouble maker in his small town. Joe Kidd has an almost light, sarcasm to his character although Eastwood's steely grin and face is well in tact. Kidd is likable as a hero and it is made quickly obvious he is for the underdog. Legendary actor Robert Duvall plays rich land owner and brutal killer Frank Harlan. Harlan and Kidd work together briefly but eventually Duvall ends up on the vengeful end of Eastwood. Duvall gives a solid performance as the western villain. However, I think that he could have offered the role so much more. But given the simplicity of the story and the short run time, characters don't get much depth and Duvall ends up not being even a fraction of what could have been. John Saxon gives a good, but very brief performance as the man who is the cause of all the excitement, Luis Chama. His role is so small that he also doesn't get what he could have given to the role. Duvall's gang of baddies is very well played by Don Stroud, James Wainwright, and Paul Koslo. And essentially the only significant female role is played by Stella Garcia. She isn't the love interest for Eastwood, in fact there isn't one, but she makes for a strong female in the film.
I was a little surprised when I saw the director for Joe Kidd was John Sturges who had done some epic films like The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven. Again not because Joe Kidd was bad but because it really just so simple and face value. There isn't anything that truly keeps you thinking about it when the credits roll. There are some truly great lines in the film delivered by Eastwood, and at the climax of the film there is a truly terrific moment where Eastwood drives nothing short of a steam engine right into the Hotel and guns down his enemies, definitely the highlight of the film. Basically the film becomes quite good with twenty five minutes left and that's unfortunate. It just isn't truly the western that you can sink in to and talk about and be a big fan of. It is simply put one of the shortest and thinnest American westerns I have ever seen. But Eastwood is still Eastwood and him and Duvall have enough star power to at the very least keep the film rolling and the last twenty five minute battle is worth the build up so don't avoid it but don't expect it to be anywhere near your favourite in the genre. 7/10
Clint Eastwood leaves behind any dark cowboy persona to play Joe Kidd. An ex-bounty hunter, drunk and trouble maker in his small town. Joe Kidd has an almost light, sarcasm to his character although Eastwood's steely grin and face is well in tact. Kidd is likable as a hero and it is made quickly obvious he is for the underdog. Legendary actor Robert Duvall plays rich land owner and brutal killer Frank Harlan. Harlan and Kidd work together briefly but eventually Duvall ends up on the vengeful end of Eastwood. Duvall gives a solid performance as the western villain. However, I think that he could have offered the role so much more. But given the simplicity of the story and the short run time, characters don't get much depth and Duvall ends up not being even a fraction of what could have been. John Saxon gives a good, but very brief performance as the man who is the cause of all the excitement, Luis Chama. His role is so small that he also doesn't get what he could have given to the role. Duvall's gang of baddies is very well played by Don Stroud, James Wainwright, and Paul Koslo. And essentially the only significant female role is played by Stella Garcia. She isn't the love interest for Eastwood, in fact there isn't one, but she makes for a strong female in the film.
I was a little surprised when I saw the director for Joe Kidd was John Sturges who had done some epic films like The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven. Again not because Joe Kidd was bad but because it really just so simple and face value. There isn't anything that truly keeps you thinking about it when the credits roll. There are some truly great lines in the film delivered by Eastwood, and at the climax of the film there is a truly terrific moment where Eastwood drives nothing short of a steam engine right into the Hotel and guns down his enemies, definitely the highlight of the film. Basically the film becomes quite good with twenty five minutes left and that's unfortunate. It just isn't truly the western that you can sink in to and talk about and be a big fan of. It is simply put one of the shortest and thinnest American westerns I have ever seen. But Eastwood is still Eastwood and him and Duvall have enough star power to at the very least keep the film rolling and the last twenty five minute battle is worth the build up so don't avoid it but don't expect it to be anywhere near your favourite in the genre. 7/10
"If these people wanna fight me I'll blow 'em straight to hell".
classicsoncall17 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Looking very much like a Dirty Harry Western, Clint Eastwood portrays yet another laconic, no nonsense gunman playing both sides of a land dispute until he determines which side is more diabolical. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone could maintain Joe Kidd's (Eastwood) calm demeanor in virtually every situation, especially with a gun right in your face, but I guess that's why his characters were always so cool. Sure would like to remain that stoic in a pressure situation.
Say, talk about war on women, did you catch Luis Chama's (John Saxon) explanation to Helen Sanchez (Stella Garcia) on why he keeps her around? For cold nights and when there's nothing better to do, and not to hear her talk. Wow, can you just hear Gloria Steinem going ballistic with that one back in the day? Actually, the role of Chama's woman seemed to be oddly attracted to Joe Kidd whenever he was around as if to tease a relationship of sorts, so the viewer needs to make up their own mind on that score.
You know, it's interesting to see Robert Duvall as a villain, he's pretty much the ultimate bad guy here but never quite allowing his hands to get dirty unless push came to shove. Quite distinctly different from his Boss Spearman character in "Open Range" which I enjoyed a lot, and one of my favorite Westerns. I'd have to say he's one of my favorite modern day actors along with Eastwood, and between them they have over a century of staying power in film.
So it's not one of the best Westerns ever made, but fans of the principals should come away fairly satisfied with this one. Some of the situations defy credibility, like Joe knocking out a henchman with a swinging cauldron, but you have to admit it was pretty creative. As was driving a train smack through a saloon. I'm pretty sure the barkeep regretted opening his joint on a Sunday.
Say, talk about war on women, did you catch Luis Chama's (John Saxon) explanation to Helen Sanchez (Stella Garcia) on why he keeps her around? For cold nights and when there's nothing better to do, and not to hear her talk. Wow, can you just hear Gloria Steinem going ballistic with that one back in the day? Actually, the role of Chama's woman seemed to be oddly attracted to Joe Kidd whenever he was around as if to tease a relationship of sorts, so the viewer needs to make up their own mind on that score.
You know, it's interesting to see Robert Duvall as a villain, he's pretty much the ultimate bad guy here but never quite allowing his hands to get dirty unless push came to shove. Quite distinctly different from his Boss Spearman character in "Open Range" which I enjoyed a lot, and one of my favorite Westerns. I'd have to say he's one of my favorite modern day actors along with Eastwood, and between them they have over a century of staying power in film.
So it's not one of the best Westerns ever made, but fans of the principals should come away fairly satisfied with this one. Some of the situations defy credibility, like Joe knocking out a henchman with a swinging cauldron, but you have to admit it was pretty creative. As was driving a train smack through a saloon. I'm pretty sure the barkeep regretted opening his joint on a Sunday.
Just don't kid around with Joe Kidd, okay
RJBurke194223 April 2008
Just another vehicle for Dirty Harry in the west? Well, not quite. This time round, Clint plays the title role an individualist, of course, and one with a sense of justice not unlike Dirty Harry; where Joe Kidd differs is that he has no truck with the law and prefers the hunter's life on the range.
Which, in turn, causes him to wind up in jail because, in the opener, we find Joe in jail having been charged with hunting deer on reservation land. After being summarily fined $10 and deciding to work out the fine in jail instead, the court proceedings are interrupted by a large band of Mexicans desperately seeking justice about land claims in the area.
During the subsequent shooting melee when the Mexicans attempt to kidnap the county judge, Joe takes the initiative and gets the judge safely away, and out of harm. After the bandits run, Joe settles down to work off his jail term of ten days only to be hauled out of that predicament by Robert Duvall's nasty business tycoon, Frank Harlan, who wants to hunt down, with his own band of killers, the leader of the Mexican band, Luis Chama, as portrayed by John Saxon.
Thereafter follows an inventive narrative and denouement as written by one of America's best writers, Elmore Leonard, involving a hunt to the high sierras and a Mexican standoff and a Mexican standoff - between the Mexican bandits, the American bounty hunters and finally Joe who escapes the clutches of the bounty hunters to try to persuade Chama to plead his case in a court of law.
To say more would ruin the plot for you. Clint does his usual laconic, iron-fisted turn with revolver, rifle and now pistol an automatic German C96 Mauser, no less (the setting is in 1897 or so, and that pistol began production in 1896). Robert Duvall is suitably slimy and duplicitous, hell bent on killing whomever he wishes to get his way; perhaps a bit of a parody of bad guy, but what the hey! The real parody, however, is Don Stroud, as Lamarr, the gunman who just can't behave while Joe Kidd is around. While John Saxon's Mexican bandit, Luis Chama, is sympathetically done.
The setting is simply and starkly beautiful snow capped peaks in the sierra, the undulating plain, a frontier town, rocky outcrops, a small village with the inevitable church and bell tower which plays an important and somewhat comedic part in the battle between the competing bands. Director Sturges certainly took advantage of the natural splendor to make this film all that more enjoyable.
As always, though, my criticism with Hollywood Westerns made from the fifties to the seventies generally is that the characters are way too clean: these were rough conditions, dirty times, filthy streets. I know there were exceptions, but that just proved the rule. Eastwood's Unforgiven (1995), Jamurschs' Dead Man (1996) or Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1992) redressed that aspect very nicely, however.
For 84 minutes you'll enjoy a good story, well acted and with appropriate action. See it if you can. Recommended for all.
Which, in turn, causes him to wind up in jail because, in the opener, we find Joe in jail having been charged with hunting deer on reservation land. After being summarily fined $10 and deciding to work out the fine in jail instead, the court proceedings are interrupted by a large band of Mexicans desperately seeking justice about land claims in the area.
During the subsequent shooting melee when the Mexicans attempt to kidnap the county judge, Joe takes the initiative and gets the judge safely away, and out of harm. After the bandits run, Joe settles down to work off his jail term of ten days only to be hauled out of that predicament by Robert Duvall's nasty business tycoon, Frank Harlan, who wants to hunt down, with his own band of killers, the leader of the Mexican band, Luis Chama, as portrayed by John Saxon.
Thereafter follows an inventive narrative and denouement as written by one of America's best writers, Elmore Leonard, involving a hunt to the high sierras and a Mexican standoff and a Mexican standoff - between the Mexican bandits, the American bounty hunters and finally Joe who escapes the clutches of the bounty hunters to try to persuade Chama to plead his case in a court of law.
To say more would ruin the plot for you. Clint does his usual laconic, iron-fisted turn with revolver, rifle and now pistol an automatic German C96 Mauser, no less (the setting is in 1897 or so, and that pistol began production in 1896). Robert Duvall is suitably slimy and duplicitous, hell bent on killing whomever he wishes to get his way; perhaps a bit of a parody of bad guy, but what the hey! The real parody, however, is Don Stroud, as Lamarr, the gunman who just can't behave while Joe Kidd is around. While John Saxon's Mexican bandit, Luis Chama, is sympathetically done.
The setting is simply and starkly beautiful snow capped peaks in the sierra, the undulating plain, a frontier town, rocky outcrops, a small village with the inevitable church and bell tower which plays an important and somewhat comedic part in the battle between the competing bands. Director Sturges certainly took advantage of the natural splendor to make this film all that more enjoyable.
As always, though, my criticism with Hollywood Westerns made from the fifties to the seventies generally is that the characters are way too clean: these were rough conditions, dirty times, filthy streets. I know there were exceptions, but that just proved the rule. Eastwood's Unforgiven (1995), Jamurschs' Dead Man (1996) or Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1992) redressed that aspect very nicely, however.
For 84 minutes you'll enjoy a good story, well acted and with appropriate action. See it if you can. Recommended for all.
Clunky and misdirected, "Joe Kidd" can't all rely on Eastwood bad-ass persona...
ElMaruecan8222 October 2021
"Joe Kidd" is another little Fievel born from a mountain of good promises... I say 'another' because I happen to have watched it back-to-back with Clint Eastwood's "Hang' Em High" (directed by Ted Post) and I was disappointed to witness the same narrative pattern: a terrific set-up spoiled by inconsistent characterization after the first twenty minutes and ultimately ruined by action sequences and romantic undertones so half-baked and formulaic they make the final result rather uneventful.
Take a director like Sam Peckinpah, he wasn't the most subtle storyteller but at least his movies had soul tying the package together, they had energy and a sort of twisted macho vision of the world that could confine to romanticism in the twilight of the frontier era. And "Joe Kidd" is set in the same timeline and place of others revisionist Westerns of the late 60s/early 70s, the Mexican frontier and in the early 1900s where subsisted a few remains of the Old West in some places that civilization kept on a suspended sentence John Sturges would magnificently depict such remaining spots in his masterpiece "Bad Day at Black Rock" but his offering here would freeze the whole Sierra Nevada, it is a 'ghost town' of a film where even the figure of Eastwood can't carry for too long.
And that it took Eastwood to resurrect the genre as a director doesn't surprise me when I see his streak of forgettable movies between the Leone era and his "High Plains Drifter", this is an actor who built such a personality of his own that he couldn't be directed except by the two men who made him: Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. "Joe Kidd" wasn't directed by a newcomer either, but the heart wasn't in it and booze didn't help, contributing to a bancal story where good, the bad and the ugly intertwine in a confusing and infuriating way that make you suspect no one cared for the film. Who'd blame them anyway? Eastwood was starting to direct his own films by the time "Joe Kidd" was made and Duvall who plays the villain, was giving one of his best performances ever in "The Godfather.
There were some good things about "Joe Kidd", a movie that allow the Mexican voice to be raised in form of a character like Luis Chama (John Saxon) who's a sort of desperado version of Emiliano Zapata and confronting him to a judge to the situation of peasants being thrown off their lands by the American government, can't be a bad film at all and would almost make you feel there's a pretension for depth and political commentary, this is the New Hollywood era after all. But then Elmore Leonard's script takes the film to a direction so contradictory that the whole thing feels like a cheat. It chooses to make Chama an enemy of Kidd... who's not a saint either.
At first, it had established Joe Kidd (Eastwood) as a drunken poacher, former bounty hunter, arrested for making a stew out of a deer he hunted on Indian land ... and a few other shenanigans, a man who thanked his cellmate for eating his breakfast by throwing the rest of the beans on his face. We get it, this is antiheroic Eastwood and his mimcs during his tribunal hearing had me started for good. But then the plot starts to show its total lack of inspiration when Joe saves the judge from a kidnapping with such contrived facility you start to question the determination of Chama... then it so happens that the man in the jail was Chama's men and that Joe kills in self-defense. Now, it's personal?!
Wait, there's more, the town's sheriff (Gregory Walcott) asks Joe to help him find Chama (he's good at hunting, don't forget). But Joe would rather stays home, then there's the rich landowner Frank Harlan (whose interests are severely undermined by Chama's revolutionary ideas), he makes the same offer but Joe still refuses. Only after he discovered that Chama raided his own ranch that Joe joins the gang. Now, it's personal. Or is it? Later in the film, Joe sees the way Harlan treats poor Mexican villagers and threatens to kill five hostages every day to convince Chama to surrender, and so he changes his mind.
The film could have been a new version of "A Fistful of Dollars" or "Yojimbo" but at least these films had a character motivated by greed and despising humanity with reasons solid enough to justify his cynicism... but Kidd is the kind of man who hasn't made up his mind until the final minutes of the film and so we keep floating on uncertainty throughout the film wondering which sides are the best. Naturally, it's Eastwood and that he gets the girl at the end, and Chama's love lady at that, shows that the whole purpose of a film like "Joe Kidd" is to be a vehicle for the star-wagon conducted by Eastwood. Sturges wasn't committed enough to his work to make Chama either a solid sidekick or a worthy opponent, it was Eastwood all alone.
There are action sequences, shootouts, there's a nice moment where Joe gets rid of the goons one by one but the result is rather forgettable, by the moment the film ends, all that matters is that Kidd killed the bad guy, punched the Sheriff and got the girl. Saxon would later apologize for having portrayed a coward character but the film is so forgettable it's actually harmless and even Mexican audiences admire Eastwood a little more, the same Eastwood who made a career out of that image and proved able to draw more nuanced portraits of antiheroes. One should watch this film as one of these last oddities before he would take the reins... and prove that he could keep on the same persona but with the right story, it worked.
In "Joe Kidd", it obviously didn't.
Take a director like Sam Peckinpah, he wasn't the most subtle storyteller but at least his movies had soul tying the package together, they had energy and a sort of twisted macho vision of the world that could confine to romanticism in the twilight of the frontier era. And "Joe Kidd" is set in the same timeline and place of others revisionist Westerns of the late 60s/early 70s, the Mexican frontier and in the early 1900s where subsisted a few remains of the Old West in some places that civilization kept on a suspended sentence John Sturges would magnificently depict such remaining spots in his masterpiece "Bad Day at Black Rock" but his offering here would freeze the whole Sierra Nevada, it is a 'ghost town' of a film where even the figure of Eastwood can't carry for too long.
And that it took Eastwood to resurrect the genre as a director doesn't surprise me when I see his streak of forgettable movies between the Leone era and his "High Plains Drifter", this is an actor who built such a personality of his own that he couldn't be directed except by the two men who made him: Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. "Joe Kidd" wasn't directed by a newcomer either, but the heart wasn't in it and booze didn't help, contributing to a bancal story where good, the bad and the ugly intertwine in a confusing and infuriating way that make you suspect no one cared for the film. Who'd blame them anyway? Eastwood was starting to direct his own films by the time "Joe Kidd" was made and Duvall who plays the villain, was giving one of his best performances ever in "The Godfather.
There were some good things about "Joe Kidd", a movie that allow the Mexican voice to be raised in form of a character like Luis Chama (John Saxon) who's a sort of desperado version of Emiliano Zapata and confronting him to a judge to the situation of peasants being thrown off their lands by the American government, can't be a bad film at all and would almost make you feel there's a pretension for depth and political commentary, this is the New Hollywood era after all. But then Elmore Leonard's script takes the film to a direction so contradictory that the whole thing feels like a cheat. It chooses to make Chama an enemy of Kidd... who's not a saint either.
At first, it had established Joe Kidd (Eastwood) as a drunken poacher, former bounty hunter, arrested for making a stew out of a deer he hunted on Indian land ... and a few other shenanigans, a man who thanked his cellmate for eating his breakfast by throwing the rest of the beans on his face. We get it, this is antiheroic Eastwood and his mimcs during his tribunal hearing had me started for good. But then the plot starts to show its total lack of inspiration when Joe saves the judge from a kidnapping with such contrived facility you start to question the determination of Chama... then it so happens that the man in the jail was Chama's men and that Joe kills in self-defense. Now, it's personal?!
Wait, there's more, the town's sheriff (Gregory Walcott) asks Joe to help him find Chama (he's good at hunting, don't forget). But Joe would rather stays home, then there's the rich landowner Frank Harlan (whose interests are severely undermined by Chama's revolutionary ideas), he makes the same offer but Joe still refuses. Only after he discovered that Chama raided his own ranch that Joe joins the gang. Now, it's personal. Or is it? Later in the film, Joe sees the way Harlan treats poor Mexican villagers and threatens to kill five hostages every day to convince Chama to surrender, and so he changes his mind.
The film could have been a new version of "A Fistful of Dollars" or "Yojimbo" but at least these films had a character motivated by greed and despising humanity with reasons solid enough to justify his cynicism... but Kidd is the kind of man who hasn't made up his mind until the final minutes of the film and so we keep floating on uncertainty throughout the film wondering which sides are the best. Naturally, it's Eastwood and that he gets the girl at the end, and Chama's love lady at that, shows that the whole purpose of a film like "Joe Kidd" is to be a vehicle for the star-wagon conducted by Eastwood. Sturges wasn't committed enough to his work to make Chama either a solid sidekick or a worthy opponent, it was Eastwood all alone.
There are action sequences, shootouts, there's a nice moment where Joe gets rid of the goons one by one but the result is rather forgettable, by the moment the film ends, all that matters is that Kidd killed the bad guy, punched the Sheriff and got the girl. Saxon would later apologize for having portrayed a coward character but the film is so forgettable it's actually harmless and even Mexican audiences admire Eastwood a little more, the same Eastwood who made a career out of that image and proved able to draw more nuanced portraits of antiheroes. One should watch this film as one of these last oddities before he would take the reins... and prove that he could keep on the same persona but with the right story, it worked.
In "Joe Kidd", it obviously didn't.
Underappreciated
pmtelefon30 March 2020
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.
Okay, But Nothing Special
jeremycrimsonfox25 August 2019
When a Mexican bandito starts a peasant revolt against the local landowners of the town of Sinola, one of the landowners, Frank Harlan, decides to fight back, and has paid the fine of former bounty hunter Joe Kidd, who was locked up for poaching, to help him. But Kidd soon has a change of heart when he sees the methods Frank and his men use,
This is an okay western, but nothing too special to write home about. Part of the Revisionist Western genre, the film makes us think the bandito is the villain, but pulls a twist halfway. The acting is okay, with Clint Eastwood doing a good job as the title character, the others are either hit or miss. The story is also okay, but it is filled with western clichés and can get too dark at some points. I recommend this for anyone who is a fan of Clint Eastwood or are into westerns like this.
This is an okay western, but nothing too special to write home about. Part of the Revisionist Western genre, the film makes us think the bandito is the villain, but pulls a twist halfway. The acting is okay, with Clint Eastwood doing a good job as the title character, the others are either hit or miss. The story is also okay, but it is filled with western clichés and can get too dark at some points. I recommend this for anyone who is a fan of Clint Eastwood or are into westerns like this.
Writing Could Be Better
gottogorunning13 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Clint's character is ridiculous at the beginning and the jail scene does not really do anything to set up the rest of the movie. He's a drunk that hit the sheriff but he turns down $500 to hunt down Chama? So he's a drunk with honor? I don't buy it. After 20 minutes of agony watching him waddle about in a goofy tie, collar and gentleman's hat, he suddenly changed in to classic Clint garb, with no explanation. Suddenly he feels compelled to go get Chama. The later changes his mind again. My head was spinning. His character got better as the movie went on, but the writing was substandard. Characters changed motivation for very little reason and the ending was too predictable, with the exception of the train going through the drug store. Why would there be a set of tracks that heads right into a building? This is a forgettable movie that I will not watch again.
As memorable as a Hopalong Cassidy B-flick
bwaynef6 December 2003
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.
"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.
decent starring vehicle, a little more and some for sure less
Quinoa198418 January 2009
I find it interesting that Joe Kidd was written by Elmore Leonard. The stories of both Joe Kidd and 3:10 to Yuma have a distinct similarity, if not plural similarities, in that both are about an individual who needs to be brought in by a bunch of cowboys and in each story the group that's going after the man hires out another (reluctant) fellow who is doing it for money and/or for justice. In fact, watching the first half of Joe Kidd, I wondered if Leonard might be just ripping himself off for this one. Thankfully, this isn't entirely the case as Leonard wants to try and explore a story of a Mexican man (played by John Saxon, yes, he can play just about anything) who wants his proper land rights back and is up against a ruthless killer (Robert Duvall) with Clint playing the title character a the hired man who is conflicted on both sides. Should be bring in the Mexican or should he realize Duvall's bunch are mean and homicidal SOB's?
Some of these questions and ideas make Joe Kidd a little more than it might look to be to most people which is a fairly average star vehicle for Eastwood. If it suffers from anything really it's that the mid-section of the picture, when Duvall and Eastwood and their bunch are hunkered down in the tiny town in the mountain areas waiting out their culprit, it starts to lag (I actually tuned out for one or two minutes as the movie played on television). And in some respects Leonard's script, along with the usually excellent direction of John Sturges, doesn't always provide the best lines of dialog or anything straying from the uncomplicated. But luckily Duvall is really excellent in his part as this determined villain and Eastwood is sturdy as always as a man who knows how to shoot and knows his sense of justice well, which is actually kind of gray.
Minor characters, like Duvall's woman and Saxon's guy, are less developed, though they're supplemented by some good suspense scenes, a shoot-out over a very wide range of space between mountains, and that climactic train rolling into the bar. It's fairly predictable and not anyone's best work, but it's not as sub-par as you might have heard: Joe Kidd is like Elmore Leonard (and by proxy Clint Eastwood) almost lite.
Some of these questions and ideas make Joe Kidd a little more than it might look to be to most people which is a fairly average star vehicle for Eastwood. If it suffers from anything really it's that the mid-section of the picture, when Duvall and Eastwood and their bunch are hunkered down in the tiny town in the mountain areas waiting out their culprit, it starts to lag (I actually tuned out for one or two minutes as the movie played on television). And in some respects Leonard's script, along with the usually excellent direction of John Sturges, doesn't always provide the best lines of dialog or anything straying from the uncomplicated. But luckily Duvall is really excellent in his part as this determined villain and Eastwood is sturdy as always as a man who knows how to shoot and knows his sense of justice well, which is actually kind of gray.
Minor characters, like Duvall's woman and Saxon's guy, are less developed, though they're supplemented by some good suspense scenes, a shoot-out over a very wide range of space between mountains, and that climactic train rolling into the bar. It's fairly predictable and not anyone's best work, but it's not as sub-par as you might have heard: Joe Kidd is like Elmore Leonard (and by proxy Clint Eastwood) almost lite.
Eastwood's "lost" Western with Duvall and Saxon
Wuchakk21 August 2022
In the Southwest in 1902 a land-grabbing tycoon (Robert Duvall) hires an ex-bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) in order to track down a Mexican leader who objects to injustice (John Saxon) and is hiding out in the high country with his people. Don Stroud is on hand as one of the pompous gringo's heavies.
"Joe Kidd" (1972) is generally viewed as one of Eastwood's lesser Westerns when it's more entertaining than Sergio Leone's overrated trilogy from 1964-1966, at least in my opinion. It has a notable cast, a superb score and great locations, not to mention being directed by John Sturges, known for great (or near-great) films like "The Law and Jake Wade" (1958), "Chino" (1973) and "The Eagle Has Landed" (1977).
True, Sturges was reportedly struggling with alcoholism during shooting and the story starts to meander in the high country during the second act, but the flick works as a whole and everything ties-together for the climax. Originally, Saxon's 'bandit,' Chama, was supposed to be more heroic, but this was changed when Clint was hired on and Joe Kidd became the amusingly fearless hero, the intermediary between two opposing forces.
Very little is predictable, from the interesting costumes & weaponry to the bizarre plot twists to the amusing ways the protagonist gets himself into and out of trouble, like the ladder/trapdoor sequence, the swinging water jug scene, the sniper vs. Sniper sequence and the whacky train ride.
Stella Garcia (Helen) and Lynne Marta (Elma) are featured in the feminine department.
Anyone who favors Eastwood's other Westerns will find a lot to like here.
The film runs 1 hour, 28 minutes, and was shot at Old Tucson & Sonoran Desert, Arizona, and Alabama Hills & Inyo National Forest, California.
GRADE: B+
"Joe Kidd" (1972) is generally viewed as one of Eastwood's lesser Westerns when it's more entertaining than Sergio Leone's overrated trilogy from 1964-1966, at least in my opinion. It has a notable cast, a superb score and great locations, not to mention being directed by John Sturges, known for great (or near-great) films like "The Law and Jake Wade" (1958), "Chino" (1973) and "The Eagle Has Landed" (1977).
True, Sturges was reportedly struggling with alcoholism during shooting and the story starts to meander in the high country during the second act, but the flick works as a whole and everything ties-together for the climax. Originally, Saxon's 'bandit,' Chama, was supposed to be more heroic, but this was changed when Clint was hired on and Joe Kidd became the amusingly fearless hero, the intermediary between two opposing forces.
Very little is predictable, from the interesting costumes & weaponry to the bizarre plot twists to the amusing ways the protagonist gets himself into and out of trouble, like the ladder/trapdoor sequence, the swinging water jug scene, the sniper vs. Sniper sequence and the whacky train ride.
Stella Garcia (Helen) and Lynne Marta (Elma) are featured in the feminine department.
Anyone who favors Eastwood's other Westerns will find a lot to like here.
The film runs 1 hour, 28 minutes, and was shot at Old Tucson & Sonoran Desert, Arizona, and Alabama Hills & Inyo National Forest, California.
GRADE: B+
Decent.
Mrbigham1311 February 2021
Not a phenomenal western but fairly decent. The acting, characters, and setting are all passable. Clint is Clint, and Duvall is Duvall. Nothing real special or extraordinary. The story flows well and let's just say I'm glad it's only 90mins. It's no masterpiece like the Dollars Trilogy but it is decent entertainment. Come on and give the Kidd a chance, you might even enjoy it more than I did.
Enjoyable Eastwood Western
davyd-022371 January 2021
What isnt clear is what "Joe Kidd" does or did for an occupation, as hes in prison at the opening of the film, hired by Robert Duvall who turns out to be quite nasty-hes out to get Luis Chama (played by John Saxon). The general plot appears to be that mexicans have had their land taken by corrupt and dishonest folk and they have more funds than the mexicans. I found the film enjoyable-especially trying to work out how Joe Kidd was going to rescue a village of innocent mexicans from being murdered in cold blood by Duvall and his vile band. How he achieves his goal is well done and makes for an entertaining film but NOT suitable for younger viewers. My review is done just after the film finished via freeview - late afternoon!
Clint, Duvall, Saxon, Leonard, Schifrin and well, Sturges .....
PimpinAinttEasy10 January 2016
Dear John Sturges,
you had Elmore Leonard writing your movie. Lalo Schifrin scoring it. Clint, Duvall and Saxon facing off against each other. Yet you still managed to make an average film.
I don't know what went on behind the scenes. Leonard did come up with some great dialogs especially at the beginning. The film was off to a great start with Eastwood running circles around the judge, mouthing some tongue in cheek responses to his questions. And then Duvall and his gang make a great entry at the train station, decked up in suits. But it sort of fell apart after that. Some of the plot resolutions were quite uninteresting. The ending was nonsensical.
Lalo Schifrin's tense electronica tinged main theme was unlike anything composed for a Western. But its variations used over the rest of the film were quite tuneless. The title sequence was also quite unimaginative.
Clint had some great scenes but his character was quite badly etched. I mean, he is introduced as a hard drinking ruffian. But he soon turns into an upholder of the law. I guess you selected John Saxon to play the Mexican revolutionary after watching him in The Appaloosa. He was damn good in that one.
The film looks great on blu ray. And it does get over pretty soon. But so much more could have been done with it.
Best Regards, Pimpin.
(6/10)
you had Elmore Leonard writing your movie. Lalo Schifrin scoring it. Clint, Duvall and Saxon facing off against each other. Yet you still managed to make an average film.
I don't know what went on behind the scenes. Leonard did come up with some great dialogs especially at the beginning. The film was off to a great start with Eastwood running circles around the judge, mouthing some tongue in cheek responses to his questions. And then Duvall and his gang make a great entry at the train station, decked up in suits. But it sort of fell apart after that. Some of the plot resolutions were quite uninteresting. The ending was nonsensical.
Lalo Schifrin's tense electronica tinged main theme was unlike anything composed for a Western. But its variations used over the rest of the film were quite tuneless. The title sequence was also quite unimaginative.
Clint had some great scenes but his character was quite badly etched. I mean, he is introduced as a hard drinking ruffian. But he soon turns into an upholder of the law. I guess you selected John Saxon to play the Mexican revolutionary after watching him in The Appaloosa. He was damn good in that one.
The film looks great on blu ray. And it does get over pretty soon. But so much more could have been done with it.
Best Regards, Pimpin.
(6/10)
Despite an amazing first look, film falls short in Eastwood's line of films.
emperor_bender24 August 2009
I began watching this movie with the highest expectations. I saw the plot outline, and an amazing cast including such names as Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, John Saxon, Don Stroud, Paul Koslo, Gregory Walcott, and Dick Van Patten, and a direction by John Sturges. However, all these amazing things didn't make the movie itself amazing, but it was by no means bad.
The acting was really well done. Clint played a very good former bounty-hunter Joe Kidd, Robert Duvall was great as the wealthy landowner Frank Harlan, John Saxon was excellent as the hispanic revolutionary Louis Chama, Don Stroud was very well cast as the sadistic Lamarr Simms, James Wainwright was perfect as the sniper Olin Mingo, Paul Koslo was also well-cast as the goofy Roy Gannon, Gregory Walcott was wonderful as the outspoken sheriff Bob Mitchell, and Stella Garcia was good as Helen Sanchez.
The music was pretty well done, and there were some good scenes although nothing extraordinary. If you are looking for just entertainment, this is the movie for you. But don't expect another "Good, Bad, and the Ugly"/ 7/10
The acting was really well done. Clint played a very good former bounty-hunter Joe Kidd, Robert Duvall was great as the wealthy landowner Frank Harlan, John Saxon was excellent as the hispanic revolutionary Louis Chama, Don Stroud was very well cast as the sadistic Lamarr Simms, James Wainwright was perfect as the sniper Olin Mingo, Paul Koslo was also well-cast as the goofy Roy Gannon, Gregory Walcott was wonderful as the outspoken sheriff Bob Mitchell, and Stella Garcia was good as Helen Sanchez.
The music was pretty well done, and there were some good scenes although nothing extraordinary. If you are looking for just entertainment, this is the movie for you. But don't expect another "Good, Bad, and the Ugly"/ 7/10
Joe Kidd
jboothmillard15 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As far as I have seen, the star of Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby hasn't done a bad film, that is until I saw this highly disappointing romp, from director John Sturges (Bad Day at Black Rock, The Great Escape). Basically Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) is a former bounty hunter and tough guy in the American Southwest, and he is caught in between a battle for claims of the land. There are two sides in the argument, the Mexican side are led by charismatic Luis Chama (John Saxon), and the US side are led by wealthy landowner Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall). That's about all I can say that I understood in the plot, the rest was a combination of it being too confusing, and too boring. Also starring Don Stroud as Lamarr Simms, Stella Garcia as Helen Sanchez, James Wainwright as Olin Mingo, Paul Koslo as Roy Gannon and Gregory Walcott as Sinola County Sheriff Bob Mitchell. The only reasonably interesting moment was Clint driving a train of the end of the rail and crashing it through the saloon to knock some villains down, apart from that, I really don't think there's anything you will care about, it's a rubbish western. Pretty poor!
Clint Rides The Train
bkoganbing18 January 2009
Clint Eastwood plays the title role in Joe Kidd a former bounty hunter and tracker hired by big rancher Robert Duvall to bring in John Saxon. Saxon's a local hero among the Mexican population in this southwestern based film for standing up to the Anglo ranchers like Robert Duvall who've robbed them of their lands both gunfighters and with bought justice in the courts.
It doesn't take Clint long to decide he's made a big mistake as Duvall's hired bully boys intimidate the local Chicano population. The last straw is when Duvall and company ride into a pueblo, have the local priest Pepe Hern summon all the villagers, where he announces the next morning he'll shoot five people if they don't surrender Saxon or give him information where Saxon is. The sort of stuff the Nazis did in their occupied countries. Duvall anticipates Clint's change of mind by taking his gun and locking him up as well. But of course there's no way that's going to stop Clint Eastwood.
Not that Saxon is anything to write home about. He's a bit of a lout himself, especially in the way he treats his girl friend Stella Garcia. As he so eloquently puts it, all he wants her for is something to keep warm with on those cold nights on the prairie and he's not interested in her opinion. Talk about your alpha male on the prairie. Still he's one of the good guys for better or worse.
I don't think Joe Kidd measures up to Clint Eastwood westerns like The Unforgiven or Pale Rider or The Outlaw Josey Wales. But it's one of the most entertaining he ever did. I'm not bored by one second of it and I do love that climax where Eastwood makes use of that locomotive in a creative fashion. Joe Kidd is definitely an Eastwood film for the ages.
It doesn't take Clint long to decide he's made a big mistake as Duvall's hired bully boys intimidate the local Chicano population. The last straw is when Duvall and company ride into a pueblo, have the local priest Pepe Hern summon all the villagers, where he announces the next morning he'll shoot five people if they don't surrender Saxon or give him information where Saxon is. The sort of stuff the Nazis did in their occupied countries. Duvall anticipates Clint's change of mind by taking his gun and locking him up as well. But of course there's no way that's going to stop Clint Eastwood.
Not that Saxon is anything to write home about. He's a bit of a lout himself, especially in the way he treats his girl friend Stella Garcia. As he so eloquently puts it, all he wants her for is something to keep warm with on those cold nights on the prairie and he's not interested in her opinion. Talk about your alpha male on the prairie. Still he's one of the good guys for better or worse.
I don't think Joe Kidd measures up to Clint Eastwood westerns like The Unforgiven or Pale Rider or The Outlaw Josey Wales. But it's one of the most entertaining he ever did. I'm not bored by one second of it and I do love that climax where Eastwood makes use of that locomotive in a creative fashion. Joe Kidd is definitely an Eastwood film for the ages.
No surprises, but still good value.
natashabowiepinky5 January 2014
Yep, it's ANOTHER Clint Eastwood Western. Typecast? HIM? NEVER! In this one though, he actually has a name. And he has a lot to say for himself. Some things never change though... he likes a drink, he barely misses with his rifle and he gets all the girls, he gets all the girls (Calvin Harris reference there, music fans). Twisted loyalties abound too, who will he support... Some Mexican revolutionaries who have been cheated out of land, or a tycoon and his men who are willing to shoot innocent people to get their hands on them? Hmm... I don't think I'll need Ask The Audience for this one...
Clint's screen presence is as palpable as ever, even when the rest of the plot is just going through the motions. The highlight is the hi-jacking of a train which crashes through some suspiciously thin wood so Eastwood can get at some evil guys in a saloon; aside from that, it's all rather generic. That's not to say it's bad, but it's hardly going to join his pantheon of Western classics like The Good, The Bad And The Ugly or Unforgiven. Still, perfect for a Sunday afternoon. After a full roast, of course. 6/10
Clint's screen presence is as palpable as ever, even when the rest of the plot is just going through the motions. The highlight is the hi-jacking of a train which crashes through some suspiciously thin wood so Eastwood can get at some evil guys in a saloon; aside from that, it's all rather generic. That's not to say it's bad, but it's hardly going to join his pantheon of Western classics like The Good, The Bad And The Ugly or Unforgiven. Still, perfect for a Sunday afternoon. After a full roast, of course. 6/10
the hour of the yawn
rhinocerosfive-118 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Too bad John Sturges was so tired. Even his best work ("Bad Day at Black Rock", "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral"), it must be admitted, was rather pedestrian; the overrated "The Great Escape" could have been directed better, and with more economy, by John Irvin, the fine late-century B-movie hack. But Sturges was the epic action director of his day, the Richard Donner of the 50s and 60s. He occasionally injected some intensity in his vapid studio yawners ("Ice Station Zebra" is better than it oughtta be) but he exhibited very little discrimination in some of his scripts. "Joe Kidd" is in disappointing concurrence with this trend.
"Joe Kidd" is a dumb Elmore Leonard story with some excellent Elmore Leonard dialogue directed in in uninteresting shade of brown by an old man, and photographed by one of the few DPs who consistently makes Panavision look like television. Ugly, bland, repellent - these are the three types of picture that Bruce Surtees knew how to give us. Eastwood never made a less happy choice than when he let the son of Robert Surtees (who was more than competent and sometimes very good) shoot so many movies for Malpaso. This film looks just like "High Plains Drifter" and "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Dirty Harry" and "Escape From Alcatraz" - the aesthetic could be termed 1970s dirt brown. Even good, visually interesting directors, a company Eastwood did not join until much later in his career, have been able to do nothing with Bruce Surtees. Philip Kaufman's "The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid" looks like it was shot through a sewer. Don Siegel used Surtees so many times that one could get the impression Siegel doesn't like pretty pictures, or even pictures that tell a story - then look at "The Killers" and "Madigan" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara" and "Charley Varick" and realize that he did very competent visual work with a lot of guys he only collaborated with once.
"Joe Kidd" has a nice cast, but the action is not ingenious and the acting is hampered by unfortunate framing and bad editing. Eastwood does nothing with his face or body, wisely delegating the acting to John Saxon, Robert Duvall and Don Stroud, who says, "Keep laughin'. You'll be spittin' teeth all night."
"Joe Kidd" is a dumb Elmore Leonard story with some excellent Elmore Leonard dialogue directed in in uninteresting shade of brown by an old man, and photographed by one of the few DPs who consistently makes Panavision look like television. Ugly, bland, repellent - these are the three types of picture that Bruce Surtees knew how to give us. Eastwood never made a less happy choice than when he let the son of Robert Surtees (who was more than competent and sometimes very good) shoot so many movies for Malpaso. This film looks just like "High Plains Drifter" and "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Dirty Harry" and "Escape From Alcatraz" - the aesthetic could be termed 1970s dirt brown. Even good, visually interesting directors, a company Eastwood did not join until much later in his career, have been able to do nothing with Bruce Surtees. Philip Kaufman's "The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid" looks like it was shot through a sewer. Don Siegel used Surtees so many times that one could get the impression Siegel doesn't like pretty pictures, or even pictures that tell a story - then look at "The Killers" and "Madigan" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara" and "Charley Varick" and realize that he did very competent visual work with a lot of guys he only collaborated with once.
"Joe Kidd" has a nice cast, but the action is not ingenious and the acting is hampered by unfortunate framing and bad editing. Eastwood does nothing with his face or body, wisely delegating the acting to John Saxon, Robert Duvall and Don Stroud, who says, "Keep laughin'. You'll be spittin' teeth all night."
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
