Joe Kidd

source: Joe Kidd

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

I can not sleep through too many of Eastwood's films, but this is one of them. It has him in this 70's anti bad system Western, which has little story, and event less direction. This film has no tension, or acting; everyone took the money and ran with this film, John Saxon has to be one of the most forgettable b actors every. One can remember the face, but never the name. John does it again with this film. If Joe Kidd got killed early in this film it would have saved me the time of watching it. 3/10.

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.

Critics who point out the flaws in Joe Kidd are dead-on. Few A-budget Westerns are as muddled as this scripted mess. Just try to figure out the murky motivations that guide Eastwood's shifting loyalties as he bounces from Duvall to Saxon to the sheriff, or is it the other way around. By film's end, my head was spinning. And just why would Chicano insurgent Saxon entrust his fate to an Anglo judicial system he so clearly despises. Figure that one out too. While through it all Clint gives us his best humorless squint. One thing for sure--he's getting no help from director Sturges who appears to have gone on holiday. Throw in a gratuitous seduction scene that's nearly laughable, a swipe at social conscience replete with phony Mexican accents, an incredibly staged train crash, and the end result is Eastwood's weakest Western. I realize that for many fans, "Eastwood" and "bad Movie" are a contradiction in terms. Nonetheless, the real train wreck here is the movie itself.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty standard western fare features the usual combination of land disputes, posses, limited dialogue and lots of shooting, with little original in it to commend it to the viewer. If you've ever seen a western, you've basically seen this one, so why bother? The movie revolves around Clint Eastwood (who portrays the title character) and, unfortunately, in my opinion, this is one of Eastwood's poorer performances. He doesn't really seem to put much energy or enthusiasm into playing Joe Kidd. With no other actor really playing any role of significance, this obviously drags the movie down fast. Best I can give this is a 2/10.