Unforgiven could have been much better, but Clint Eastwood took some liberties that took away from what this film could have been.

First, he cast himself as the lead. His acting is so unemotional and dry when he's showing his emotional depth that it completely took me out of the movie. Honestly, I kept laughing every time he had an emotional scene. Everyone else was really great, but he was the lead, so it had a pretty big effect on the movie.

Second, his direction oozes cliches, not homages. His wide shots aren't beautiful, they are just wide. His choice is of lighting smacks you in the face with its evil vs evil theme. There's just no subtlety in any of his themes, which leads to my next point.

The pacing of the first two acts is way off. We all know the third act is going to happen exactly as we think it will. So when it does, it's cathartic, and fun to watch. However, the hints about the third act stretch on for way too long in the first 2 thirds of the movie.

The story is great, but Clint Eastwood's heavy-handed approach turns a great movie into a good one.

1 / 2 directing, technical aspect
2 / 2 story
1 / 1 acting
0 / 1 pacing
1 / 1 dialogue
1 / 1 living up to its genre
1 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think

-1 / 0 miscellaneous +/- point (for Clint's acting)

6 / 10

It's good!

I have to say I'm a little surprised to see just how highly regarded this is, given I had - somehow, evidently - never even heard of it until scheduling this Clint Eastwood watchathon of mine - all of the latter's other well received I had/have heard of, but not this. I don't check reviews etc. until after I view films and my jaw kinda dropped when I saw the 4.1 average rating, I won't lie.

That makes it sound like I think 'Unforgiven' is bad, which I absolutely, most definitely do not. I honestly just found it to be a solid but unspectacular western flick from 1992. I really enjoy Eastwood, Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman as actors and they are all good value in this. There is also some neat cinematography, while the production is well paced.

Happy for all involved that this did do bits with awards et al., even if it is a tad unexpected for me - what do I know!

This movie directed by Clint Eastward is one of my big three. Three westerns I am willing to watch multiple times when the opportunity arises. (The other two are Once Upon a a Time in the West and The Good the Bad and the Ugly.) All three of those movies are gritty, but not necessarily realistic. The Wild West didn’t see many Gun fights where a gunman outshoots four or five guys facing him. And yet, if we saw a movie gunfight where they are shooting pistols at each other and missing all over the place, that might seem unrealistic to us. Movie magic.

So Eastwood plays a former ruthless bad guy who we root for now, and Gene Hackman plays a good guy lawman who is cruel and easy to root against. The dialogue is excellent, such as what Bill Munny says after her shoots a bar owner. There is some humor, as usual for his movies, especially concerning the bragging Schofield. I could go on and on, but you may be one of those lucky ones who hasn’t seen it and still has it to look forward to.

_**“It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man”**_

In 1880-81, Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a prostitute’s face is cut up by an offended patron. When the big, tough sheriff (Gene Hackman) goes soft on the two cowboys responsible, the vengeful women collect their assets for a “whore’s gold” reward to attract a hit man. Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman play old pardners who are interested in teaming up with a young kid (Jaimz Woolvett) to earn the money. Saul Rubinek plays a maker of Western legends while Richard Harris is on hand as the deadly English Bob.

Directed by Eastwood, "Unforgiven" (1992) is a downbeat Western with a bit o’low-key humor. It’s marred by a pall of ugliness and darkness, but it has grim realism in its favor. It’s all about what it takes to kill/abuse people and the ramifications thereof. Munny (Eastwood) is haunted by it, the hardened Sheriff leads by it, Ned (Morgan) discovers he just can’t do it anymore, English Bob relishes it for celebrity status while the ‘Schofield Kid’ is just testing his mettle.

Frances Fisher and Anna Thomson lead the female cast with the latter playing the scarred prostitute. Liisa Repo-Martell stands out as the young blonde. There are a few more.

There are several iconic scenes, but two moving ones come to mind: When the 'Schofield Kid' experiences an unexpected breakdown. And when the scarred girl shows honor for Munny's faithfulness to his beloved wife (even though she finds out later the wife had passed away; nevertheless Munny was still faithful to her). It's almost as if she marvels at the nobility of a man who refuses to be a faithless adulterer. Munny was really rehabilitated by his beloved and it was only a certain person's death that brings back the cold killer, albeit this time an agent of fearsome vengeance.

The film runs 2 hours, 7 minutes, and was shot in Longview, Alberta, Canada (the town of Big Whiskey) and other areas of Alberta, as well as Red Hills Ranch, Sonora, California, for the train sequence.

GRADE: B+

Quite easily the finest western ever made and very close to the greatest film ever made. It won loads of Oscars and other film awards in 1993, but it still should have won more.
Talk about a man at his peak ? This has Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Richard Harris, Morgan Freeman and virtual rookie, Jaimz Woolvett as The Schofield Kid, all putting in magnificent, career defining performances. Not to mention the bit players who all add to this stunningly captivating film.

Weak points ? There are none. Every frame is a gem. It has plenty of dark humour. A few touching moments where you would think it wasn't possible. Sadistic and brutal fight scenes and then it has Clint Eastwood riding into town for the final terrifying, yet totally satisfying, showdown.

How Al Pacino (The Scent of a Woman) beat Clint to Best Actor in 1993 is a mystery of modern times. Right up there with how The Shawshank Redemption didn't win anything of note in '95 but is now regarded as possibly the greatest film of all time by many people.