the audience applauded

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

It is a pity to see talent like Eastwood and Duval going to waste in a rambling movie where Eastwood seems to be a ghost who switches loyalties as he pleases but in the end stands on the side of the least bad. Direction is aimless and even wayward. Photography is basic. The acting is best forgotten. The action scenes might convince a 10-year-old in the 1970s, but not a 10-year-old today.And the script... well, I saw no evidence of its existence. I felt like the movie was shot as circumstances permitted, as the wind blew, almost.A curiosity footnote is that Duval's acting is so trite and contrived in JOE KIDD and yet at about this time he was putting in the best performances of his career in two of the greatest movies ever made: GODFATHER and GODFATHER II. What a far cry...

An ex-bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) reluctantly helps a wealthy landowner (Robert Duvall) and his henchmen track down a Mexican revolutionary leader (John Saxon).John Sturges is a capable director and had directed acclaimed westerns such as "The Magnificent Seven" (1960). He was a great choice to bring this story to life. We might question why Saxon was cast as a Mexican, but I have to admit he pulls it off fairly well.The New York Post praised the actors' performances while criticizing the film, calling the actors "diamonds set in dung". This is more than a little harsh and probably uncalled for, but it does have a pebble of truth -- the three core actors are more powerful than the story they were given to tell.

Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) is an ex-bounty hunter and a malcontent. There is a land dispute between small Mexican landowners and the powerful Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall). When the court denies the Mexicans, their leader Luis Chama (John Saxon) and his group take to arms. Joe Kidd kills one of his men. Initially Joe Kidd has nothing against the outlaws and refuses to join the hunt for Luis Chama. But when Chama attacked Joe's friends, Joe Kidd joins the cruel Frank Harlan.This is a slow moving movie at times punctuated by lots of shooting. The editing needs to be much tighter. The worst thing is the muddy morality of Joe Kidd. Frank Harlan is undoubtedly evil and yet he helps him. The blood feud with Luis Chama is more a misunderstanding started by Joe Kidd himself. After all, Joe drew the first blood. But Chama isn't an angel either. The whole thing is a mess that you'd rather walk away from.

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.