User Reviews

Unforgiven is about as far from the fantasy mythos of A Fistful of Dollars as Clint Eastwood could get. No pin-point accuracy with 19th century technology, no desire to 'play fair' and face the enemy on even terms. If you can shoot him in the back...then do it.

Eastwood puts in an astonishing performance as the retired killer Muny, saved from his life of thievery and murder by his late wife. Now, desperately trying to support his children with no income, he is tempted back to his killing ways by the bounty offered by the women of a brothel, one of whom's number has been savagely beaten and disfigured by a drunken ranch-hand.

The film follows Eastwood as he wrestles with his desire to honour his wife's memory and his need to feed his children by returning to the killer that, he fears, is his true nature. Meanwhile word of the bounty has spread and the events spiral out of control as the sheriff (Gene Hackman) deals with the guns for hire that ride into town.

While all the supporting cast are excellent Gene Hackman's Oscar winning performance even manages to eclipse Eastwoods as the brutal Sheriff. He beats one of the bounty hunters, English Bob (Richard Harris) almost to death and then explains to a journalist, in one of the film's stand out scenes, how men like he and Muny are so successful at killing. The mood moves from light banter to life threatening seriousness...and back again, with just one move of his head.

One of the greatest Westerns ever made? Certainly. Although the fact it's a western is really secondary. In truth it's a tale of the nature of evil and the nature of man. Eastwood uses the gap between the western myth and reality as an arena to play out his story and does so with consummate style.

There may never be another real western. Clint appears to be done with the genre and there really isn't anyone else I can think of that can do it Properly. Sergio Leone is gone. William Wellman is gone. Sam Peckinpah is gone. John Huston is gone. John Ford is gone. Howard Hawks is gone.

Kevin Costner tries hard but he just doesn't get it. Dances With Wolves wasn't really a western. It wasn't even an anti-western. It was more like a political indictment of the actions of the Americans of the time. For all that I did enjoy it.

Most of the others since Unforgiven are movies where somebody decides to put the characters on a horse, but the story is just generic pap. Nobody has the balls to make something with a meaning.

I will grant that Deadwood is a truly excellent series but it isn't a movie.

That's why I believe that Unforgiven is a fitting end to the western genre. I won't get all rhapsodic and spout a bunch of crap about how Clint made this movie as a symbol of the end of the western. Cuz that's a load of crap. The script had been around since the early 70s when things were still going strong. What it is, is a movie that shows us that there is no black and white in any time. There are only shades of grey.

It is also just as dirty and violent as things actually were for most people in that era. Life was comparatively cheap and most people didn't have much hope of justice. The middle class was very small and the upper class was tiny. The vast majority belonged to the under-classes.

Good guys didn't wear white hats and not every sheriff was a good guy. Some were violent and corrupt braggarts and bullies. Little Bill mocks English Bob's self-promotion, but at the same time he knocks Bob down he builds himself up. He doesn't bother with courts or judges and he is his own executioner. He isn't motivated by any innate sense of justice when he deals with any criminal elements. It's more that he takes it as an insult to his own power.

William Munny is a killer, plain and simple. He has human feelings but basically he is unrepentant. He changed for his wife, but like many changes it wasn't permanent. He won't sleep with a whore but when he needs money he is willing to kill for it. At the same time he treats the whore with kindness and is loyal to his friend. And somehow he managed to get a good woman to love him. A classic anti-hero.

Rather than being about the end of the Western genre I believe that it is actually an ode to what came before it. Sergio Leone would have been proud.

William Munny (Clint Eastwood taking the lead and directing the piece) is an old and retired gunman whose past misdemeanours would make the devil himself seem tame. Widowed and struggling to raise his two children on a paltry farm, he's tempted out of retirement for one last pay dirt job, the consequence of which provides violence - both physically and of the soul.

Clint Eastwood signed off from the Western genre with this magnificent 1992 picture, the appropriation and irony of which is in itself a majestic point of reference. After the script had been knocking around for nigh on twenty years (written by Blade Runner scribe David Webb Peoples), Eastwood seized the opportunity to play William Munney and lay bare the mythologies of the Wild West.

It's striking that the makers here have lured us in to being firmly on Munney's side, we are, incredibly, influenced by Eastwood's part in the history of the Western. In spite of Munney's obvious murky past (despicable crimes they be), we wait (and hope) for Munney to make a quip and way lay the bad guys - in fact salivating at the prospect is probably closer to the truth. So it's with enormous credit that Eastwood, and his magnificent cast and crew, manage to fuddle all our respective perceptions of the West and the characters we ourselves have aged with.

It's not for nothing that W.W. Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek) is one of the critical characters on show, this even though we didn't expect that to be the case. Beauchamp is a writer of penny pulpy novels that tell of derring-do heroics, gunslingers with a glint in their eye who deal death as some sort of heroic encore. This gives Unforgiven an excellent sleight of hand, for this West is grim and a destroyer of all illusions and it's not controversial to say that this is indeed a good thing.

Eastwood is greatly served by the actors around him, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman (winning the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for a script he turned down many years before!), Rubinek, Frances Fisher, Anna Thomson, Jaimz Woolvett and an incredible cameo from Richard Harris. Along with Hackman's win for his brutally tough portrayal of Sheriff "Little Bill" Daggett, Unforgiven also won Oscars for Eastwood for his clinically tight direction, Best Picture, Best Editing and it was nominated in another five categories. One of those nominations was for Jack Green's cinematography, which now, in this age of High Definition enhanced cinema, can be seen in all its wonderful glory. The Alberta location is magically transformed into the Western frontier, with the orange and brown hues a real treat for the eyes.

Ultimately though, Unforgiven is a lesson in adroit film making, where across the board it works so well. Why? Well because the man at the helm knows this genre inside out, he was after all the sole flag bearer for practically 25 years. He learnt from his peers, and thus Eastwood has crafted a thematically complex piece that for all its violence, debunking and melancholy pulse beats, is a film that is as beautiful as it is most assuredly stark. An incredible and true highlight of modern day cinema, regardless of being a genre fan or not. 10/10

This film was a revelation, a western that DOESN'T LIE. The whole theme stripping away the mythology our culture has built around the west, scraping it away like the finish on a mirror and reveling the ugliness AND the humanity beneath. I was utterly convinced, both by the portrayal of the period and the reality of the characters. A large focus was its treatment of the subject of killing. The movie SHOWS US what it is like to kill a man, a stark stark contrast to the casual attitude taken by so many other westerns. We see what we already know, wild west or no, that killing is something that most people just aren't capable of. And yet the character of William Munny shows us that in spite of the mundanity he embodies in his later life, true evil still existed then as now, and every now and then, true heroism.

Ford, Hawks, Leone, Peckinpah, all of them big names who have defined the Western genre in one way or another across the history of cinema, transforming what started as low-budget action films into an art itself where the American Old West served as setting for tales of mythical heroism, classic tragedies, and legendary adventures. Actor and Director Clint Eastwood is probably one of the most knowledgeable artists about the Western genre, as his acting career began as the legendary "Man With No Name" in the Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns of the 60s. As a director, he somewhat continued this legacy through movies like "High Plains Drifter" and "Pale Rider", but finally in 1992, Eastwood released what many consider his final ode to the Western, and his ultimate masterpiece of the genre: "Unforgiven", an epic saga about the deconstruction of the Western myths.

Clint Eastwood himself plays William Munny, a former gunslinger who is now living a peaceful life as a farmer with his two children. However, life is very difficult for Munny's family, as since the death of his wife the family has been facing financial problems. One day a young man calling himself "The Schofield Kid" (Jaimz Woolvett) appears looking for Munny. The Kid tells Munny about a bounty offered in the town of Big Whisky, and offers him the chance to join him as hired gun and split the reward between them. While Munny's days as a murderer are in the past, he decides to join him after thinking about the farm's problems, but not without calling his old friend Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) to join them. However, Munny's past as a notorious thief and murderer will return to haunt him in this last mission, as the Kid shows a true and honest admiration for Munny's fame as a gunslinger, even when Munny himself considers his past as villainous.

While better known for his work in science fiction, David Webb Peoples' screenplay proves to be a very accurate description of life in the American west, particularly concerning the aspects of the uses and abuses of violence in that era. It is in fact the use of violence what comes as the main theme of the story, as Munny is escaping from his past's violence while the Kid is eagerly awaiting the next chance to prove his masculinity by the use of violence. The duality between man and myth is explored not only via the relationship between the Kid and Munny, but also in the shape of a character who writes novels about the wild west, and sees the figure of the gunslinger as an idolized modern hero. Peoples' screenplay is remarkably well written, as the many characters and their relationships are exhaustively explored, resulting in a character driven revisionism of the western, that in many ways criticizes the genre's origins as violent "Shoot 'em up" films.

Peoples' script is definitely the movie's backbone, but it is Eastwood's masterful direction what transforms this meditation of violence into a unique revision of the Western. With a gritty and realistic approach very in tone with the script, Eastwood portraits the Wild West without romanticism and leaving out the mythic aspects of the genre, taking the revisionism of the Western one step beyond. Using Peoples' script, Eastwood takes a critic view on the figure of the "hero" in Westerns, focusing on the image of the gunslinger and the use of violence to solve problems. Visually, Eastwood has crafted his most impressive movie since "Bird", with an extensive use of shadows and light in the excellent work of cinematography by Jack N. Green. Eastwood's style, originated by the influence of Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, and developed through many stages seems to finally have spawned its masterpiece in this film.

As William Munny, Clint Eastwood is simply perfect in what at first sight looks like an extension of his earlier "Man with no name" persona. William Munny has a name, and a past he wants to escape from, and Estwood captures the image of guilt and regret to the letter. This is easily one of his best roles to date. Morgan Freeman is also very good as Ned Logan, although like Jaimz Woolvett (who plays The Schofield Kid), gets easily overshadowed by Gene Hackman's powerful performance as Little Bill Daggett. Hackman completely owns every scene he is in, showcasing his enormous talent in a very dramatic role. The legendary Richard Harris has a small appearance as another aging gunslinger, English Bob, in very memorable scenes where he demonstrates why he is considered one of the best actors of his generation.

After starting his career playing a mythical hero in Leone's "Dollars" trilogy, it is actually fitting that is Eastwood who explores the figure of hero in his many movies. Ever since his first directed western, Eastwood showed an interest in the duality of the hero, taking a special interest in the archetype of hero portrayed in the classic 1953 Western, "Shane". Eastwood has explored this theme in many ways in the past: first as a true antihero ("High Plains Drifter"), then as a man becoming legend ("The Outlaw Josey Wales") and later as a true mythic hero ("Pale Rider"); all this culminates in "Unforgiven" as the ultimate demythologization of the concept, and his final ode to the Western genre. While the movie indeed feels a bit "preachy" at times, the story is devised in such a way that it never feels too heavy handed, as it unfolds nicely as a classic epic tale of the West.

Personally, I can't praise this movie enough, as it is easily one of the best Westerns done since Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch", and required viewing not only for fans of the genre. While some consider it an "anti-Western", I think that with this movie, Eastwood's name can proudly stand along those of Ford, Hawks, Leone and Peckinpah as a master of the Western. "Unforgiven" is definitely Clint's masterpiece. 10/10

This is the antithesis to the cocky characters of his career and yet it's the crowning achievement to a 35 year long (now it's been 65 years!) career as one of the all time great A-listers. Second only to John Wayne as the longest A-Lister to be on the A-list (although Tom Cruise just broke both of their records), Clint Eastwood was the man with no name. He didn't want to come to your town. You forced him to. He didn't want to be the hero. It was forced upon him. Same in this movie. He's got one last hurrah in his Western lore and if you're new to Clint Eastwood, watch how it's done in all its glory!

Saw this in the late nineties on a vhs n revisted umpteenth number of times. Own a dvd of it. Jus revisited few days back on a blu ray. Back in those days, my grandpop was excited to see both his fav film stars, Eastwood n Hackman in the same film. The cast is awesomely strong. Eastwood, Hackman n Freeman. This aint just a great Western. Its a great movie with awesome characters. Eastwood playing a tough guy who has killed women and children in the past but trying to lead a decent honest life with his kids on a farm. He has become more weaker with age. His farm is going thru a loss n he is pulled into his darker side once again. On the other side v have Hackman as a sheriff whos against people carrying guns in his town. He is a bit autocratic n sadist when meting out punishment. We have Freeman as Eastwood's old pal who during a shootout acknowledges that he aint no ruthless anymore. All the performances r top notch. Eastwood's direction is truly mesmerizing from opening shot n the editing top notch. The one liners are also memorable. Cinematography by Jack N Green is wonderful. The film begins and ends with a beautiful wide shot, Eastwood standing at the grave near a tree, with a sunset in the background. As a fan of Eastwood n western genre, i owed it myself to write a review of this film.

I enjoy the transformation of Clint Eastwood's character throughout the movie. In the beginning he reluctantly becomes a gunfighter but as the movie progresses you see how he slides down the slippery slope of wickedness to become the cold-blooded killer needed for the task. Morgan Freeman's reaction to the transformation is well played also. Richard Harris' character is colorful as is his sidekick. Gene Hackman's sheriff is pleasantly atypical of the role. All these actors and their characters effectively leave the viewer with a myriad of directions from which the movie expertly entertains. If you are expecting anything like Clint's "spaghetti westerns" you will be disappointed. If you are looking for an excellent story with characters that all have varying degrees of wickedness, you will be satisfied when its all said and done.

Deglamorising the unfashionable Western genre by the culprit that had reanimated the cadaver some decades previous. Excepting the final shootout, this representation omits the unshootable, the character that could walk through the volley of a dozen Gatling guns and survive. Instead, we're almost treated to something that may be closer to reality but even then, there are leaps of faith and characters that we probably wouldn't recognise in ourselves or those we know, although Clint Eastwood plays himself - he always does, that's why we watch his films.

Ultimately it draws a line in the sand, where the heroes of the silver screen replace leather chaps and suede for Lycra and capes - I guess masks are a common theme. Were we sad to see them go? Sooner or later you run out of originality in the real world and, in order to perpetuate something new and engaging, the unreal world is the only place to go, especially when CGI can make it feel so real.

Maybe someone would be good enough to explain to me how this is one of the best movies of all time. It is pedantic, relentlessly slow, full of cliched dialogue, methodically acted, and completely one-note throughout. Better Eastwood westerns include: Good, Bad, and Ugly, For a Few Dollars More, Hang 'Em High, High Plains Drifter, etc., etc.

For me, it is the greatest Revisionist Western ever made. As per Westerns in general, this is my second most favorite Western of all times, the first one being (obviously) "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" (1966). Besides this, this movie is one of the most worthy "Best Picture" recipient as well as one of the most worthy "Best Director" recipient in the history of Academy Awards.

Good : As per Clint Eastwood's direction goes, it could've never been better. In fact, this is the best of Eastwood as a director and one of his bests as an actor, in particular, a Western role. Easily my most favorite Eastwood film. Clint is yet to make a bad Western. He knows how to make Westerns incredible. And in his (supposedly) final Western, both as a director and as an actor, he proves it. This movie has whatever a great Revisionist Western needs. You got some beautiful cinematography of the country side. Perhaps, the most beautiful views of the country side I have ever seen in a Western. All the main characters, William Munny, Ned Logan, Schofield Kid and Little Bill were very good. Little Bill was a very good villain and Will Munny was an incredible lead. Throughout the film, you can see people talking about Will's past time and again. They really helps you to get behind him. You can see the radical changes in him, after all that happened with him in the past 11 years. You can see his compassion and you'll definitely love the way he accepts that he's being evened for all the sins he's committed. And in the entire film, you get to see him feeling guilty for everything and his great transformation. Ned and Schofield Kid provide a very good support to the story, with unique characterizations of their own. Ned is in the same condition as Will is, but doesn't feel too guilty. The kid is just a moron who acts as if he is cool. I am not gonna say anything more about them, but these stuffs are played out very well in the film. Also, Little Bill isn't just your typical bad guy. What he does is pure evil, but he has got his own point of view. He isn't doing the stuff he does because a guy told him to! He did it because he hates assassins and murderers and all the "low lives". Also, he's a badass, and a whole plotline is there to show that. You hate him, but he's not all wrong either. Even we know about Skinny a lot from the first scene he is introduced. He is just a supporting character with a secondary role. Even he doesn't get overshadowed. Alice and Delilah also stand out, too. It wasn't too necessary to the story to point out how humble Delilah was, and the movie would've been completely good, as it didn't really contribute to the story. But that little touch in the character, gave the movie a slightly different and a better vibe. There are some clichéd plot points, but they can be easily given a pass because of the flow and pacing of the story. You get attached to every character in the scene, feel their emotions, feel sad if someone gets killed, horrified when someone is being tortured, and some tension building when Ned and Kid mess with each other. You feel what the characters are feeling, especially William Munny. There are some scenes that are mere plot devices and might have felt quite forced. But Eastwood directed it so cleverly that it doesn't even feel like happening. In the end, the transition to a particular plot device was really smooth and totally unforced. It feels more like a compulsion to the character. Also, notorious and sadistic, or not, the way that moment ends, does feel right. We get the badass Clint Eastwood we have loved from previous Westerns, and an epic line before he kills. Performances - incredible! Clint Eastwood embraces the character of William Munny and gives a powerful performance. Gene Hackman does a complete justice to the character of Little Bill. Jaimz Woolvett and Morgan Freeman give some of the most underrated and overlooked performances of all times. Hell, I can't even stop talking about this movie without praising the jobs of Frances Fisher, Anthony James and Anna Levine in the limited screen time they were given. You'd definitely know it's a great film, when you note that it was one of the inspirations for "Logan" (2017) - a superhero film. Not just a superhero film, but a completely different kind of a film in the X-Men franchise. And Logan itself was an incredible film for most of the part. This movie is one of the great "hero with a guilt" story. You get invested in every scene and every major characterization of the movie. Even the musical score is great and underappreciated. It is one of those rare films which deserves every Oscar it won.

Conclusion : It may not hold up with Sergio Leone's classic Westerns, but is an incredible film in its own right. We get Eastwood being humble and a badass in his final Western role in perhaps the greatest Revisionist Western of all times.

Rating.

Score : absolute 10/10

Grade : A+

This is The movie that convinced me that "Clint" is indeed from a higher ground. Thoug, I've always considered Clint as a good actor,I didn't know about his capabilities as a director, he really never proved him self to me. This movie does all of that and more. Grovin up whit western movies, I would have to say that unforgiven is about whole new genre among western movies. Unforgiven is really a true statement of man's brutality and what he "or" she is capable of. Religion,marriage,children, doesn't change ones true identity. After all, when the "society" comes on you hard, the steps you are willing to take in real life, are sometimes desperate. I hope that this movie could be a bridge for those who don't like western movies, but do appreciate a decent manuscript and some fine acting.

In 1992, Clint Eastwood created the last and greatest western; 'Unforgiven'. A tribute to the previous masters, Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, who died within a mere 3 years before this brutal masterpiece.

Eastwood stars as William Munny a retired gunslinger with a guilt-filled past. He lives alone with his two children and grave of his young wife outside. One day a young cowboy, The Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett), comes in need of his service to hunt down some men who cut up a whore. William reluctantly accepts and with the help of Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) they work together to track down the criminals. Meanwhile, the sheriff of the town, Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman) is also looking for them. This then leads to a bloody showdown climax, welcoming back a sort of 'Man With No Name' character to the genre.

William Munny is a cold-blooded killer. The Schofield Kid wants to be one. But, all the murders and sins Munny used to commit has affected him in an extraordinary way. He takes no hesitation in killing. In the climax he just walks past a man he shot who didn't die and shoots him dead. It may sound like nothing now, but he just took a life for no apparent reason. When the Kid kills his first man, of which deserved it, he hesitates. This is The Kid who is so eager to kill people as he thinks it will make him a man. But after the assassination, he breaks down. He realized what he had done. He had wiped another man of the earth. And Munny does it with ease. So does Little Bill. He is a violent and brutal cop who uses torture to get what he wants from the prisoners. Logan also finds it hard to take lives.

The film studies on how much a life is worth. Sometimes it is worthless (see Tarantino or Scorsese films) and sometimes it is a major feature. Usually a film only does one. Unforgiven does both. A life isn't worth the same amount to each person. When a life is taken, it is the killer who decides how much it is worth by how much it affects him. Whether he just lets it slide (Munny and Little Bill) or kills someone and calls it a day (Kid and Logan), because they can't bring themselves to forgetting it. This is the most thought-provoking thing for me personally, ever.

Unforgiven in my opinion is the greatest western. Actually, its the greatest film of all-time. It shows how violent it was back then, and the fact everybody was beaten. It is more realistic than any of Leone's 'Man With No Name' films (though I will admit they were set in a sort of fantasy land). But, Munny is not proud of his violent nature. He blames it on alcohol; which his wife persuaded him to quit to explain why he also gave up being a murderer. The film shows the cowboys as they really are, either cowards or killers. The choice of word 'coward' is to say that they should be killers, as that is apparently what a man is (an exaggeration) as most westerns glorify violence, but the men can't handle it.

Clint Eastwood did an amazing job as William Munny. He showed how he regretted his past very well by admitting to it in a shameful way; like when asked if he killed women and children he replied "I've killed just about anything that walked or crawled at one time or another, and I'm here to kill you…". He even admits that he will meet Little Bill in Hell. Gene Hackman delivers one of the greatest performances of the decade, the tension he makes is incredible. Woolvett and Freeman remain in solid above average performances throughout.

The script, written by David Webb Peoples, buzzed around Hollywood for nearly 20 years, even being rejected by some of the cast, before Eastwood picked it up. Clint Eastwood deserved his Oscar for best direction. The plot flowed fluently with some surprises and memorable lines. An instant classic. The cinematography is much different that of 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly' or the others westerns Eastwood appeared in. It is a much cleaner and crisp view, yet also being extremely raw. The score, though not used often is very refreshing and moving.

'Unforgiven' is an unforgettable look on life, man and the real west. One of the most powerful films of the '90s. A true triumph exploring important morals. Do not miss it.

9/10

Clint Eastwood's storytelling gives the western genre one of its most sublime story's. Gone is the trademark mysterious hero and in its place is an ex gunman who made his peace when he met his wife. Eastwood has transcended traditional entertainment to storytelling craftsmanship. He delivers rich characters with deep rooted problems inextricably linked to the villains of the story. Refusing to wither and die away, style has been perfectly adapted with age thus ensuring his maturation into a true Hollywood legend.

Besides his now distinctive storytelling, there are numerous factors that make this a landmark Western. The ensemble cast could not have been stronger and there were no weak performances. The soundtrack accentuates the intended atmosphere of the director. A single detracting factor I could find only just qualifies as such. Munny's whimsical lines seemed a little contrived at times. They droned on like pale attempts to capture the Western era. But this is a consequence of the fact that they were more to do with the character of William Munny. He is after all a reformed killer with a now passive approach to people. Given this fact and also that it may have been distracting since it was so out of sync with what we are used to seeing from Eastwood, I still have to list it as a demerit on the account it slightly jerked me out of the story.

Hollywood producers have to satisfy audience preferences if investments are going to accrue profits. It is the nature of the beast. The action and more specifically the Western genre will stick to tried and tested formulas in order to guarantee audience acceptance. But every so often you get people who as a natural consequence of their unique character appeal are able to deliver a story that is outside these understandably restrictive boundaries. Eastwood is a cool individualist who normally plays characters who are not team players and do it their own way. His own way this time is to give the western genre a real story oozing characterization. A sort of ballad for the bad guy.

The ballads tune provides the story with a sad, introspective mood, within the opening and closing scenes. The opening scene depicts Munny in his new found life. He is cured of his wicked ways, helped by his dear, departed wife. But men are not willing to forgive or forget his monstrous deeds and in the final scenes he is who he has to be. Such is the sorrowful life of William Munny.

Westerns are typified by clearly defined goodies and baddies, but this is definitely not the case here. Eastwood and Freeman play reformed killers who find circumstances drawing them once again to their evil ways. But the older and wiser men now realize the value of life and come face to face with their troubled consciences. This is unlike their naïve, young partner who is attracted to the bravado image of the killer and relishes taking a man's life. This moral issue is virtually taboo for the classic western which glamorizes the lawlessness and the hero attraction of the gunslinger. This is also why in my view no-one besides Eastwood should have handled this movie.

Then we have the juiciest character of the movie superbly played by Gene Hackman worthy of the weight of every micro granule of his Oscar. He is the epitome of every hard-line lawman that ever was. The misguidance of the so called righteously empowered, swinging the hammer against evil for good. Hackman must have salivated when he read the script since there was obvious relish in his performance. All the better for the movie, and of course for Eastwood at the Oscars. By far the best performance and the others were good further underlining the talent of the man.

The antagonist of the movie is almost always the most complex and thus most interesting to analyze. His vain attempts at carpentry are his way of trying to appear to be a good man. There is purity in building ones own home and it is this wholesomeness that he wishes to capture. In that way his fellow citizens will see him as a simple man only wanting to lead a righteous life. But his inability as a carpenter is indicative of his depravity. He cannot be a good man. The source of his drive is anger and hatred. It is through this failing that we realize he cannot escape who he is.

Indeed it was not only the power of the script that gave the audience a spellbinding climax, but the talents of the actors. The actors' characterizations deliver the audience a spellbinding climax. It is only through Hackman's performance that we not only acknowledge his ending as inevitable, but also as deserving. We saw him as a man who virtually thought that he was righteously empowered to rid the earth of Munny and his kind What he thought was an honorable task was one rather of abuse and suppression. He became the baddie in the eyes of the audience and it is he who the audience wants to see justice served upon.

Munny was so weak throughout the movie that the eruption of his evil ways captured the interest of the audience. He transformed into the Eastwood of old – the anti hero with a far more malevolent presence. Never could we have sensed this hatred and evil that we now see in William Munny. It is now that the frivolity of his mannerisms that I touched on in the beginning adds to the story as it helps to accentuate the turn in character. He is now only a killer, in it neither for money or fame as the writer nearly finds out to his tragic detriment.

Those who have only seen his Westerns of old or the 'Dirty Harry' movies may enter the cinema with expectations of such like will either be disappointed or pleasantly surprised. It is the atypical western and an unfamiliar portrayal by Eastwood. But I believe that most people will have the latter reaction. The differences are their strengths helped by the fact that it was a superbly crafted movie with a meaningful story and thought provoking lessons for our heroes and villains. Eastwood was directly suited to the roles that we identify him with, but it is exactly because of this suitability that he eases into the role of Munny. No mellowing with age, no identification with the mainstream, he has always done it his way, and he is so good that any way could be his way.

Much is made of this film, because it appears to be a western, and because Eastwood starred in some rather important 'Spaghetti Westerns.' Some call it the antiwestern as if it were conceived by Clint to be an intelligent escalation from the ideas of 'Good, Bad.' But Clint wasn't responsible for the intelligent conception of the Leone films. This film grows more out of science fiction than westerns, and the responsible party is the writer, not the director.

This isn't to take away from some fine photography and smart pacing. But one only has to look at other films from this director and cinematographer to see that they are not geniuses. No, the real novelty comes from Peoples. I assume he figured if 'Star Wars' could appropriate the old fashioned western, then he could appropriate old fashioned scifi values and toss them in western dress.

Check it out. This is the 'Blade Runner' and 'Twelve Monkeys Guy.'

Well, its hard to find any negative points in this movie. The acting is good, the story has potential and the hero is a cool guy. But while i was watching this one i always expected something to happen, but was always disappointed when nothing did. Maybe its because this was one of my first western movies and i was expecting more action, or maybe its because it was hard for me to feel sympathy for the main character, but i still feel like there was something missing in this movie. So besides the strong ending i took most interest in the character development of Clint Eastwood, who, i have to admit, plays his role quite convincingly.

I have heard much about this film, about how it is the greatest western ever made, etc, etc. Well what a load of codswallop!! Although a fine film and a well made western, it is by far and away not the best western ever made. There are far more deserving westerns made many years ago.

I think the reason that this film got this response was because many modern audiences havent seen older westerns, it was seen as Eastwood returning to westerns by critics and the revered nature at which many of the cast are held in provoke an emotional rather than independent response (Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman).

It's 1880 Big Whisky, Wyoming. A cowboy slices up a whore's face. Sheriff Little Bill (Gene Hackman) together with greedy saloon owner agree to a fine of a few horses with not even a whipping. Strawberry Alice (Frances Fisher) is outraged, and pool together a reward for killing the two cowboys. The bounty attracts every killer around including English Bob (Richard Harris). It also attracts The Schofield Kid. He contacts William Munny (Clint Eastwood) who reunites with Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman). Together the three men travel to collect the reward.

This is a movie only Clint Eastwood could make it legendary. It is decades in the making. Essentially, he is recalling the years of playing the man with no name. It is the perfect role for him, and he's perfect for the role. Clint is seeking to ask some morality questions. Bill Munny and his crew are a bunch of law breakers. Little Bill is the law, but he doesn't have the moral high ground either. It is possibly the last great western to be made. Certainly there will never be another Clint Eastwood. That era is gone forever.

Not only that but one of the best of the western genre. Unforgiven is simply brilliant. Clint Eastwood's direction is superb, and he is also exemplary in a suitably world-weary role. There is also some brilliant support playing, not only from Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris, but also especially from Gene Hackman.

Unforgiven is also beautifully shot. The cinematography is wonderfully dark and autumnal, and the scenery and production values are breathtaking. The story is ceaselessly compelling and while Eastwood clearly dedicated the film to the likes of Sergio Leone, he replaces brutality with a greater emphasis on character and cause and effect, and doing that Eastwood successfully redefines the genre.

There is also a wonderful script that does a fine job giving credibility to the characters. All in all, this film is brilliant. 10/10 Bethany Cox