Joe Kidd

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.

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.

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

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.