ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Lee Eisenberg Martin Ritt had already directed Paul Newman in "The Long, Hot Summer", "Paris Blues" and "Hud" when he made "The Outrage". A worthy effort but it doesn't quite compare to its source material (Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon"). To us nowadays it's going to be jarring to see Newman playing a Mexican, especially since there were plenty of Latino actors who could've played the role.As for the movie overall, I thought that the most interesting scenes were of the three men (William Shatner, Edward G. Robinson, Howard DaSilva) going over the different versions of the story. It's worth seeing, but it's far from Ritt's best movie. I recommend the original version over this one, due to Kurosawa's clever way of filming some of the scenes.

mark.waltz In casting the very American Paul Newman as a drunken Mexican rapist, director Martin Ritt risked controversy, protest and career suicide. But this portrayal of an ugly soul performing a vile act comes off as art, almost an Ingmar Bergman film in its theme, gripping and emotional, as it dramatizes the different versions of Newman's inhumane violation. Laurence Harvey and Claire Bloom are his victims, Harvey tied to a tree and forced to watch wife Bloom being subjugated to the worst offense a woman can be victim of. Three storytellers, preacher William Shatner, lawman Howard da Silva and bum Edward G. Robinson, give accounts how Newman ended up tried for Harvey's murder, all completely different and all equally compelling.A super cast delivers the goods in this drama of human degradation, the insight into what remains of a supposedly evil man's soul, and the question of what is the truth when something like this is brought to court for justice. Newman gets no sympathy in any of the many versions of what happened, but if there is a shred of decency in him, it's up to the individual viewer to decide. He is amazing, showing the many facets of a type of character often assumed to be scum even without proof. Bloom allows her character's inner death to be exposed, especially when she looks on Harvey glaring at her in disgust after her rape. Harvey pretty much can only act with his eyes, and he does so convincingly. As the three storytellers with their own recollections of what happened, Shatner, Robinson and da Silva give mesmerizing portrayals. Certain scenes remind me of Bergman's masterpiece, "The Seventh Seal", especially the scene with a native American chanting and Bloom's imagined desire for suicide over a huge cliff with rushing water below.

bkoganbing Having never seen Rashomon I'm at bit of a disadvantage in writing about The Outrage. Nevertheless it's an attempt at something a little more unusual than the average western. As even the beating of Rodney King caught on videotape was successfully challenged in a court of law, what does that say about eye witness testimony? The Outrage is the story of an incident on a western trail that left a traveler dead and his wife ravaged by a bandit on the run.Rashomon the film is only the grandfather of The Outrage. It was first adapted as a Broadway play with Rod Steiger and Noel Willman playing the roles that Paul Newman and Laurence Harvey have on screen. It ran for 159 performances in the 1959 season and Claire Bloom who was Mrs. Rod Steiger at the time was the only one to repeat her role. Rod Steiger would have been a far better choice to repeat for the screen and he certainly has the screen name recognition. Newman was better box office, but Steiger was far better at playing all kinds of ethnic types.Added to the screen are the characters of Edward G. Robinson and William Shatner playing a conman and a disillusioned minister whose conversations with prospector Howard DaSilva provide a kind of narrative framework for the proceedings. DaSilva provides one of four versions of the events. All we know for certain is that Claire Bloom got violated by Paul Newman and Laurence Harvey wound up dead. At Newman's trial, he and Bloom provide differing accounts of what happened. An old Indian medicine man played by Paul Fix came upon a dying Laurence Harvey and Fix repeats it for the court. And then DaSilva tells Shatner and Robinson yet another version of the same events.Bloom is a southern belle, not quite of the upper crust, she married well and she does her best to imitate the behavior of one of the upper crust, no doubt taking Scarlett O'Hara as her model. Laurence Harvey is Ashley Wilkes had he married a road show version of Scarlett instead of Melanie Hamilton. Repeating her performance from Broadway, I'd say Claire was the best one in this film.The conclusion was most unsatisfactory in my humble opinion, the focus could have and should have stayed on the three protagonists not on the witnesses. Still The Outrage is definitely a most adult western.

Spikeopath Directed by Martin Ritt, The Outrage is a remake of the 1950 Akira Kurosawa film Rashomon, that in turn is based on stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, but Ritt has reformulated it in a Western setting. It stars Edward G. Robinson, Paul Newman, Laurence Harvey, Claire Bloom, Howard Da Silva & William Shatner. The story remains the same as four people give contradictory accounts of a rape and murder during the trial of Mexican bandit Juan Carrasco (Newman). The story is told within a flashback framework of three men waiting for a train at a rain soaked Southwestern station-a prospector (Da Silva), a con man (Robinson) and a preacher now struggling with his faith in humanity (Shatner). As each story is told the validity of each account comes under scrutiny, could it be there was a gross miscarriage of justice at the trial?Perhaps unsurprisingly, this remake of a well regarded classic was a commercial flop, with many front line critics particularly savage in their reviews. Which while acknowledging it's a long way away from style and tone of Kurosawa's movie, it's hardly the devil's spawn either. Solidly constructed by Ritt and potently shot in black & white by James Wong Howe (vistas however are in short supply), the story is strong enough to make for an interesting social conscious Oater. There's some misplaced humour in the final third, and a charge of overacting from the talented cast is fair enough (especially Bloom); but maybe, just maybe, Ritt and his team deserve a little leeway for trying a different approach? I mean at least it's not a shot for shot remake eh?Certainly Newman could never be accused of not being bold or daring with his role selections, one only has to look at his Western film's to see that. Especially the three he did with Ritt: Hud (1963), The Outrage (1964) & Hombre (1967), three very different roles, and each of a different ethnicity too. Throw in his intense turn as Billy The Kid in Arthur Penn's The Left Handed Gun, and it makes a mockery of those people who pop up from time to time proclaiming Newman had limited range! Is he miscast as Bandido Carrasco in The Outrage? No not really, he throws himself into the role and without prior knowledge of whose under the hat, it's not overtly evident it's the great blue eyed man performing. Sure a Mexican actor would have been better for the role, and definitely Rashomon wasn't in need of a remake. But for Western fans, and especially for fans of Newman, The Outrage still has enough to warrant spending a pie and a pint of beer with. Not particularly great, but not exactly bad either. 6.5/10