adrian-43767 It is a pity to see talent like Eastwood and Duval going to waste in a rambling movie where Eastwood seems to be a ghost who switches loyalties as he pleases but in the end stands on the side of the least bad. Direction is aimless and even wayward. Photography is basic. The acting is best forgotten. The action scenes might convince a 10-year-old in the 1970s, but not a 10-year-old today.And the script... well, I saw no evidence of its existence. I felt like the movie was shot as circumstances permitted, as the wind blew, almost.A curiosity footnote is that Duval's acting is so trite and contrived in JOE KIDD and yet at about this time he was putting in the best performances of his career in two of the greatest movies ever made: GODFATHER and GODFATHER II. What a far cry...

rparham There was a time when Clint Eastwood was almost exclusively known as a Western star. From his first major success, the TV series Rawhide, to the Sergio Leone directed Man With No Name trilogy of films, the Western genre was Eastwood's bread and butter into the 1970s. With his marquee name, well respected director John Sturges at the helm, and novelist Elmore Leonard scripting, the 1972 release Joe Kidd would seem likely to be another feather in Eastwood's Western cap. However, even with the best cooks in the kitchen, sometimes you can't quite make a top caliber meal, and that sums up Joe Kidd well, falling short of being a great, or frankly, even good Western.As Joe Kidd opens, the titular hero (Eastwood), is sleeping off a drunk and disorderly arrest in the town jail. When he is hauled in front of the Judge to have sentence passed the proceedings are interrupted by the arrival of Luis Chalma (John Saxon), a Mexican landowner who is fed up with the U.S. government failing to recognize his and his compatriots land claims from when the Spanish ruled the land. Chalma attempts to kidnapped the Judge but Joe foils the plot. Soon, land baron Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) arrives and offers Kidd a deal: he will pay him $500 to help him hunt down and kill Chalma to stop him from raising questions about the land. At first Joe declines, but when he returns home to find friends assaulted by Chalma as he left the area, Joe changes his find and joins the hunt for Chalma with Harlan and his henchmen, but Joe soon realizes that may have been a mistake.Joe Kidd is the Western genre largely on autopilot. Many elements from countless other westerns are there with little deviation from the norm: a small, one street town, a gruff hero with little penchant for words and a ruthless, money grubbing villain interested in keeping the small man down. As the film unfolds, there is little about the proceedings that stretch the genre much at all. Leonard tries to introduce a small variation by suggesting the possibility that Chalma, who more or less fills the standard role of the heavy early on, is actually in the right with his desire to have his land claims observed, but Joe Kidd does little to flesh this out, it merely serves as a plot device when the script requires one. Joe Kidd doesn't push any boundaries or stretch any horizons, staying very firmly on well tread territory.Eastwood portrays his rather typical role as Joe Kidd, a man of few words. Eastwood could essay this role in his sleep by this point in his career, and there is little in Joe Kidd that would cause him to move beyond his comfort zone. Robert Duvall plays a at times slimy villain, but there is really little about Harlan that makes him stand out from the normal pack of Western villains. He's greedy, mean and nasty, but that is about all we learn about him. John Saxon takes on a similar type of role that other actors such as Eli Wallach had realized before: a white American actor cast in the role of a Hispanic Mexican. He gives a capable performance as Chalma, but nothing exemplary. Like the other leads, Saxon is held back by the thin script, there isn't a lot of meat on the bones of Chalma for him to sink his teeth into.Standardized genre films can sometimes provide reasonably entertaining vehicles, but Joe Kidd is so lackluster and rote, and also lacking much in the way of suspense or action, that it can't really manage to summon up enough entertainment value to help transcend it's boilerplate plotting and characters to make it stand out. It is unfortunate with such a roster of talent behind and in front of the camera that something better couldn't have been created, but alas Joe Kidd is a much lesser entry in Eastwood's Western canon.

jussi-hakala It's almost never good to be critical of Clint, but seriously, this must be one of his most unmemorable movies, except you will remember it precisely because it was so unmemorable.A movie with class actors like Eastwood and Duvall and a rating of 6+ normally promises at least an interesting or amusing plot, if not always a modicum of reality and a decent script - Clint is THE man of few words, after all, and his presence does the talking. But this movie lacks even the basics, because the storyline is just too weak.Gun enthusiasts will note the German magazine-fed pistol, and rifles with telescopic sights. Regrettably, these will probably be the highlights for you. There are no highlights for anyone else

jwilliams5 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.