Joe Kidd

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".

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 was already a veteran of many westerns by the time he made "Joe Kidd" and, though many don't find it among his best, it shows Clint as the Joe of the title doing what he does best.

As a ne'er-do-well who ends up siding with Luis Chama (Saxon), a wanted Mexican bandito, Kidd does battle with a group of bounty hunters (led by a suitably villainous Duvall) out for Chama's blood.

"Joe Kidd" is leisurely but not uninteresting; after all, any film written by Elmore Leonard has interesting points (just look at his later work). And when I saw Clint eye that train, I knew something was going to happen (you'll have to see that one yourself).

Overall, "Joe Kidd" may not be as big as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" or as profound as "Unforgiven", but it's a good film nonetheless and bears watching. If just for that classic Eastwood squint.

Eight stars. And for future reference, never upset a man holding a pot of stew.

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.

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.