Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

jc-osms 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.

Robert J. Maxwell 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."

AaronCapenBanner Clint Eastwood plays Joe Kidd, a former bounty hunter in the American Southwest who is approached by a wealthy landowner(Robert Duvall) to help him fight a band of Mexicans(led by John Saxon) who are irate that their land claims have been denied(destroyed in a courtroom fire apparently) and so have taken up arms. Duvall really wants the land for himself, and to Joe's dismay, will go to any lengths to get it...Ho-hum western with a good cast that can only do so much with such routine material, despite some good location photography and train crash finale, there is very little else to recommend this unmemorable western.

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