High Plains Drifter is Eastwood's second effort in the director's chair which effectively is a cross between the Magnificent Seven and High Noon. Whilst it starts out well, it sadly doesn't keep this up throughout its running time...
Here are the many problems with this film;
EASTWOOD'S CHARACTER; he's the stranger with no name in this film and he was also known as the man with no name in Sergio Leone's A Fistful Of Dollars (which I'm sure isn't a coincidence). It's clear that at this point in his career that Eastwood had a fondness of Sergio Leone (and why wouldn't he as Leone clearly made Eastwood a huge star). Whilst this film has the feel of many a Sergio Leone western it certain doesn't have the enjoyment value of many of his Westerns. The truth here is that Eastwood has made his own character far too unlikeable and cruel for me to really care about him; he rapes women and then seemingly has them falling at his feet - Eastwood seems to turn this into some chauvinistic ego-trip; why would these women like him let alone want to sleep with him??? His cruelty to the townsfolk is potentially explained in the context of the story, but a lot of what we see here is quite extreme and doesn't make for a particularly pleasant viewing experience.
The issue here is that you want to cheer on Eastwood and the gang and hope that they overcome the returning villains but the problem here is that you can't; why would you want to root for a mean-spirited rapist??
THE STORY; OK; so the gunfighters that the townsfolk originally hired get killed by Eastwood's character so the townsfolk have to rely on Eastwood to protect their town. This bit I was OK with, but then things start to get ridiculous... The townsfolk offer Eastwood a free reign on the town on the assumption that he will defeat the 3 returning villains... although Eastwood's return possibly has supernatural connections to it I still found a lot of the plotting to be rather preposterous and far-fetched. What exactly was the significance of painting the town red? Maybe I missed something here...
The female characters are poorly used and seem to exist as little more than play things for Eastwood and pretty much all the acting from the male cast is horrible (with the exception of Eastwood whose tough talking performance through gritted teeth is just about enough to carry the picture)
Other than that this is a horrible film where Eastwood seems to use the narrative to set himself up as some kind of supernatural god (albeit of chauvinism and pig-headedness). It's an arrogant, smug and self-indulgent film that lacks much of the likability of many of Eastwood's other westerns.
Here are the many problems with this film;
EASTWOOD'S CHARACTER; he's the stranger with no name in this film and he was also known as the man with no name in Sergio Leone's A Fistful Of Dollars (which I'm sure isn't a coincidence). It's clear that at this point in his career that Eastwood had a fondness of Sergio Leone (and why wouldn't he as Leone clearly made Eastwood a huge star). Whilst this film has the feel of many a Sergio Leone western it certain doesn't have the enjoyment value of many of his Westerns. The truth here is that Eastwood has made his own character far too unlikeable and cruel for me to really care about him; he rapes women and then seemingly has them falling at his feet - Eastwood seems to turn this into some chauvinistic ego-trip; why would these women like him let alone want to sleep with him??? His cruelty to the townsfolk is potentially explained in the context of the story, but a lot of what we see here is quite extreme and doesn't make for a particularly pleasant viewing experience.
The issue here is that you want to cheer on Eastwood and the gang and hope that they overcome the returning villains but the problem here is that you can't; why would you want to root for a mean-spirited rapist??
THE STORY; OK; so the gunfighters that the townsfolk originally hired get killed by Eastwood's character so the townsfolk have to rely on Eastwood to protect their town. This bit I was OK with, but then things start to get ridiculous... The townsfolk offer Eastwood a free reign on the town on the assumption that he will defeat the 3 returning villains... although Eastwood's return possibly has supernatural connections to it I still found a lot of the plotting to be rather preposterous and far-fetched. What exactly was the significance of painting the town red? Maybe I missed something here...
The female characters are poorly used and seem to exist as little more than play things for Eastwood and pretty much all the acting from the male cast is horrible (with the exception of Eastwood whose tough talking performance through gritted teeth is just about enough to carry the picture)
Other than that this is a horrible film where Eastwood seems to use the narrative to set himself up as some kind of supernatural god (albeit of chauvinism and pig-headedness). It's an arrogant, smug and self-indulgent film that lacks much of the likability of many of Eastwood's other westerns.