If I didn't see the director's name, I'd think this is another Sergio Leone movie, but after having starred in quite a few of them, no wonder C. Eastwood's first directing project is heavily influenced by his master's style. I write this review after seeing this movie maybe the fourth or fifth time. Not that I like it a lot but I stumble upon it on tv channels and not having anything better to do I sit and ask myself what the heck this is about every time. The movie opens with a stranger riding into a sleepy western town. After the usual scuffle with the local troublemakers, he kills three of them with indemnity and rapes a woman who harasses him on the street for no apparent reason. Then, the story drags on in a similar irrational fashion.One thing is clear that the movie is all about hate and vengeance. There's not a single likable character including the would-be protagonist. Indeed there's no real character at all but all caricatures of evil. The plot is ludicrously unrealistic. Almost everything goes against the logic and nothing makes sense. The raped women hug the aggressor with lust after a few seconds (apparently, Eastwood thinks he has an irresistible charm even as a raper); the whole town shakes in terror against three men, etc. The whole project looks more like Eastwood tried to parody the previous spaghetti westerns but without humor. Indeed, there are some attempts for humor, like the midget's appointment as a sheriff, the three villains being fed with their horses in prison, etc. but they are all bland. To top it all, the pace is crawling and the whole story is plain boring.Perhaps, the worst comes at the end, when the anti-hero explains why he acted so obnoxiously throughout the story. Apparently, he thinks his reasoning is enough to vindicate his rape and murders; and expects a belated blessing for his actions. What a puerile finale...

The most controversial scene in this movie concerns the taking by Clint Eastwood of a "lady" and now referred to by many posters as a rape. These people should first of all consider the context, i.e. the "wild west" in the 19th century. This was not an epoch or location noted for gentility and good manners. Indeed, such attributes would have been ridiculed in a rough mining town such as this. Anyone being raised here would be influenced from a young age by ongoing situations and the general mores of the town. Let's not mince words here, this girl was a slut. Her initial approach to Clint was notable for its lack of finesse, but this girl knew no other way to approach a man. She had learnt from observation that this was the way to achieve her ends. This same approach, in a more modified form can even be seen today in some quarters. Rape? I don't think so. Her dubious character was accurately drawn. There is a strong and ironic comedic overtone to this movie and is very welcome considering some of the violence depicted. Never have so many craven cowards been assembled in one place. Of course, the movie is dated, but now takes its place as a classic of the genre. A great watch if you are in the mood for a simple plot which is brimming over with malice and satisfying revenge themes. Thank goodness Clint didn't ride off into the sunset followed by the departing unsatisfied wife who had simultaneously loaded up her buggy as Clint left town. That would have been unforgivably corny. On another note I thought the buildings in the outdoor set were unconvincing in some respects. The timber was too smooth and modern looking. Also the windows were obviously plate glass (not invented) and too sparklingly. clean considering the dusty street. And modern building materials could be seen, especially round the backs of the set.

Following the success of Sergio Leone's masterful 'Dollars' trilogy was surely a daunting prospect. This makes the fact that Clint Eastwood not only starred in, but directed a western with apparent gratitude to Leone and his distinctive style all the more exciting. I consider the 'Dollars' trilogy to be not only among the best westerns and trilogies of all time, but of the best films of all time, particularly the second and third instalments. It was because of this admiration that I approached High Plains Drifter with a certain ambivalence. I am well aware of Eastwood's supreme talent as a director; Play Misty for Me, however humorously dated, is still stunning, and Unforgiven was a uniquely understated yet grimly powerful film, and there are numerous other examples of his greatness, too many to state here. Yet I was surprised that I believed that, upon reflection, Eastwood did not only follow those succession of films admirably, and crucially, originally, but with one that I consider to be better than A Fistful of Dollars.High Plains Drifter carries a pervasive mystical tone, that is at first strangely disorientating, but gradually, settles into a near-perfect explanation, or excuse, for a revenge western. Throughout the film there is much typical Man with No Name-style bloodletting, the barber's scene being the most obvious example, but it is not this that interests me. It is instead the great risks Eastwood takes, not only in the film's characters and narrative, but with his own image and reputation. Due to his roles in television westerns such as Rawhide, Eastwood was in reality, a minor star. The 'Dollars' trilogy secured his lasting reputation in westerns as a strong, quiet, yet brutal and funny loner. High Plains Drifter dispenses with nearly all humour from Eastwood's character who, not coincidentally, has no name. Instead the idiosyncratic townsfolk of Lago provide much of the humour, including the almost fantastical character of the dwarf Mordecai. Also, perhaps most significantly, is the almost unbearable callousness of Eastwood's character; throughout High Plains Drifter Eastwood rapes two women, and casually dismisses them, with the second falling for him unrealistically. This is the most surprising aspect of the film; that an actor this handsome, would decide to mould himself into an image so despicable as a director. I find this impressive, because it shows Eastwood's resilience as an actor, and that he is unafraid to muddy his image.Also the film is notably more experimental in tone than the spaghetti westerns and traditional American westerns that came before; there is a dream sequence and instead of the Ennio Morricone-esque scores that were inevitably going to be imitated, High Plains Drifter utilises an innovative score comprising ghostly choirs to illustrate the main crux of the film's plot.Eastwood's character is, essentially, a wraith, who has come back to avenge the murder of federal marshal Jim Duncan, who was whipped to death by outlaws. He also resembles the marshal. His character is an angel of death figure, and much hellish imagery is used to heighten this; for instance when he is whipping the outlaws at the climax of the film, he stands illuminated by the fire surrounding him, almost resembling Satan, punishing the outlaws for their actions. In fact the entire climax of the film, despite narrative discrepancies, (where could that amount of red paint be sourced from, if timber was so hard to come by that they had to tear apart barns that were already standing to build tables?) is incredibly visceral in this regard. While the ending leaves little open for interpretation, it is the perfect conclusion to a very unique film.

I'd give this movie some marks for being one of the most unique westerns I've ever seen. Clint Eastwood acts well in the movie and the action scenes are done well in my opinion.The main issue is that the main hero character rapes one woman and borderline forces another women to have sex with him. These scenes in and of itself wouldn't stop me watching a movie. It's quite different though when a movie sets up the rapist as the hero of the movie!You'll read a bunch of reviews about how this rapist goes to this town to dispense justice to cowardly townspeople who covered up a murder in relation to their mine. I'm sorry but that does not excuse rape. Clint Eastwood's character is meant to be an anti hero but he's not really. Ultimately his portrayal is far closer to a conventional hero than to say a Walter White.For a point of reference, I'm a man in my thirties. The 70s were definitely different in terms of attitudes to movies!