Watch Joe Kidd For Free

the audience applauded

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

There didn't seem to be too much in the content of this Clint Eastwood vehicle to differentiate it from TV western dramas of the time, apart that is from Eastwood himself. He gives the eponymous title character some life, even if Joe Kidd is really just another taciturn, laconic anti-hero aptly suited to his minimalist acting style. The locations and cinematography are fine too while Robert Duvall is okay as the baddie, enlisting maverick Kidd to track down a Mexican bandit with whom he's at war, before he does that totally idiotic thing you don't do to Eastwood in one of his films, which is to double-cross him.The weaknesses of the film are firstly the narrative, as I struggled to believe that an amoral character as Kidd would get involved in a turf-war like this, secondly, the casting of the supporting parts, in particular John Saxon completely lacks menace, never mind the charisma to control his gang as the scurrilous but selfish rebel and thirdly, the score by Lalo Schifrin, which seems to belong better to some of the cops and robbers TV shows and films he was also scoring at the time.The plot is fairly predictable, enlivened by a "OK Corrall"-style shoot-out at the end, but for me the film never really takes off. I enjoyed the under-the-radar humorous references to Eastwood's recent success with "Dirty Harry" but there was little other humour to report which might have helpfully pepped up proceedings.Instead, Kidd's dour personality and Duvall's unrelenting thirst for revenge make for a stolid movie, directed adequately, no better, by John Sturges, who like Eastwood and Duvall, made better movies than this.It's no disaster mind you, just a bit predictable and run-of-the-mill. Fairly standard Clint- material for the time, fair-to-middling only, I'd say.

It must have been cold during the location shooting. Much of it was shot at Alabama Hills, known better as "Movie Flats," in the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. That's Mount Whitney in the background. It may be recognized as the location for "Gunga Din" in 1939 and for innumerable Randolph Scott Westerns of the 1950s.Here's the story. Clintwood is Joe Kidd, a man who knows his way around the New Mexico territory. A rebellious Mexican named Chama, John Saxon, offends Eastwood, so Eastwood hires out as a guide and gunman to Robert Duvall, who is anxious to go up into the mountains and murder Chama and his gang of rebels. Duvall is bothered by Saxon's claim to some property, the claim dating back to the original Spanish land grants.But this character, Duvall, is really a heartless bastard. When they reach Saxon's village in the hills, Saxon and his gang have taken refuge in the surrounding mountains and Duvall sends him a message that unless he gives himself up (ie., allows himself to be murdered), Duvall and his slimy gang of cutthroats will kill five villagers at certain intervals.Clintwood finally realizes which is the just side and switches over to support Saxon, but not before Duvall, having used Eastwood as a guide and no longer needing him, says brusquely, "Kidd, you're fired. Lock him up." On their side, Duvall and his goon gang have advanced weapons -- a long-range telescopic rifle and a Mauser automatic pistol. On their side, Saxon's proud sons of the earth have only justice. In this case, justice wins, confounding Napoleon.The plot is involving enough to keep your interest, as it often is in these recent Westerns? How can Eastwood possibly save himself and Saxon? And the locations are colorful enough. It was directed by John Sturges, whose work usually has a bit of style that's lacking here. Part of that is due to the acting. Eastwood is Eastwood, but there's a good deal of variation in the rest of the cast. Duvall is great as the cold-blooded killer. Saxon isn't bad. He certainly LOOKS Mexican, although he's Italian-American. His loyal "girl" is terrible. She sounds like she just graduated from Cal State Northridge. And most of Duvall's gang is stereotyped; they look as brutal as they act.Interesting inflections on the phonemes in Saxon's name. He pronounces it as it's pronounced in Spanish: "Tchama." Eastwood and "the girl" say "Shama," and Duvall throws it all away with "Shayma."

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.

Eastwood made one Western that will be a classic a hundred years from now, his masterpiece HANG EM HIGH. This runs a good second place, though.It's an action Western with rough and tumble guys shooting a lot.What makes this unique are the bad guys. There is an interesting array of antagonists, led by Robert Duvall. By far, the most interesting one is a specialist who excels in long range marksmanship. As Mingo, Wainwright just about steals the show, even from the great thespian, Duvall. As the lead bad guy, Duvall sees fit to have a real "team" of experts.Saxon's not so honorable rebel leader character is more three dimensional that we're used to seeing in the usual Eastwood western. Again, like HANG EM HIGH, we have characters who are not the one dimensional clichés of spaghetti westerns.Another great touch is that Joe Kidd isn't a bit apologetic about lusting after a gorgeous babe. He is a brute, but he also cares about people.This is a good Western.