Joe Kidd (1972)Plot In A Paragraph: Joe Kidd (Eastwood) an ex-bounty hunter, reluctantly helps a wealthy landowner (the always brilliant Robert Duvall) and his henchmen track down a Mexican revolutionary leader (John Saxon).Written by Elmore Leonard (Yes that Elmore Leonard) this is a bit of a mismatch, as it has good performances Eastwood and Duvall. Although Saxon, his heavy make up and his Mexican accent are a distraction when he is on screen. Sadly it's light on plot, clear characters and motivation for their actions, and an ending that looks like it belongs in a different movie. As usual Leonard was very critical of the movie and its director. This is the last time someone else directed Eastwood in a western. Eastwood's next four westerns would all directed by Eastwood himself. In an interview given to French student Emmanuel Laborit in 1990, John Sturges told How he he had lot of problems directing Eastwood and regretted not resigning during the filming.Joe Kidd didn't make a dent at the box office, as it grossed only $5 million at the domestically.

Wealthy landowner (Robert Duvall) wants to hire cavalier former bounty Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) to guide a posse searching for a Mexican revolutionary (John Saxon). Kidd declines but after his ranch is raided by the Mexicans, he joins up for vengeance. Despite being directed by John Sturges, written by Elmore Leonard, and starring Clint Eastwood, this one's limp and boring. Clint brings some charm to the part but the script doesn't give him a lot to work with. John Saxon as a Mexican is pretty ridiculous but you can roll with it. Robert Duvall does alright with what he has.John Sturges had made some classic westerns years before this but something was obviously missing by this time. The biggest problem is that it's all just so predictable. You know before you watch one second of it what the characters will do. They are cardboard clichés with no standout personalities so I couldn't care less what happened to them.

Let's be honest we've never seen Clint Eastwood in a bad film have we? I'm not saying they are all 10 out of 10 Oscar winning films of the the year, but nevertheless good at the very least.Joe Kidd is fairly short in length, however this actually helps the film as it means it's straight to the point and that there are no long dull scenes without a lot of action. The plot, for me is definitely a strong point to the film. The film has Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) having to decide what side to be on as a bunch of Mexican bandits claim to own the land which a rich ruthless businessman owns. As the two battle it's is very hard to know what is gonna happen next.Although I did very much like the film I will admit that it didn't have that overall epic feel. Also it isn't perhaps as good as other westerns that Eastwood has been in such as the 'Dollars Trilogy'.However, despite these flaws it still made a very entertaining film, which I would recommend watching and thoroughly deserved its 7/10 that I give it.

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