I'm a huge fan of "early" Clint Eastwood (you can see by some of my other reviews) and have seen UNFORGIVEN (1992) several times, but I just can't completely get into this film and don't think it's a masterpiece, as with several of his other films that he has starred in and/or directed (A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, DIRTY HARRY, HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, and the criminally underrated elegiac A PERFECT WORLD). Also, there are several other "lesser" other Eastwood works that I'd pop into the DVD player before this one, ones that I find to be provocative, immensely entertaining, or re-watchable or all of the above (HANG EM HIGH, THE GAUNTLET, THE ENFORCER, SUDDEN IMPACT, TIGHTROPE).
With UNFORGIVEN, I think a recurring word I find when I watch it is "monotony". At the end of the day, I think everything is too one-dimensional. On repeated viewings, I find nothing really deep or provocative about this film. I don't pick up on anything. It's a well-made, professional film with decent-to-good acting, but that's about it. The only 2 characters that I find to be interesting are the ones played by Gene Hackman (Little Bill Daggett) and Richard Harris (English Bob). Everyone else just is kind of "there". Not to mention that virtually all the characters seem like the SAME person! There is no uniqueness about any of them.
Save for Daggett and Little Bill, they all have the same mannerisms, mood, and tone. I've seen many so-called "lesser" films with better developed, written, and performed characters that allowed me to latch onto the film the more and more I watched it. With UNFORGIVEN, these characters (and there are tons of them) fall way too flat. Examples: The scene where Munny, the Kid (played by Jamie Woolvett), and the (totally unnecessary!) Morgan Freeman character track down the first of the 2 men they are to kill is totally devoid of real emotion and resonance. I feel nothing when watching this scene. The acting by all involved is strangely similar (Freeman ironically being the weakest link in this scene). Eastwood did Freeman no favors by casting him in this film. Seems like stunt, friendship casting as far as I'm concerned.
Eastwood (as former vicious killer, but now reformed family man William Munny) strangely evokes very little as the lead. It is hard to buy that this man was once a vicious killer simply because Eastwood gives himself the same singular tone as most of the rest of the cast. Then all of a sudden at the end he is a badass again. I think the intent was right, but the execution (pardon the pun!) is rather unbelievable. This ending scene is in it's own right pretty spectacular as it demystifies the mythology of gunslinging that so many films before (ironiclly including many early Eastwood Westerns) had glamourized and I find it (and the Daggett-English Bob scenes) to be the only good ones.
At the end of the day, a great film ought to draw you in, not push you away. UNFORGIVEN, sadly, does the latter.
With UNFORGIVEN, I think a recurring word I find when I watch it is "monotony". At the end of the day, I think everything is too one-dimensional. On repeated viewings, I find nothing really deep or provocative about this film. I don't pick up on anything. It's a well-made, professional film with decent-to-good acting, but that's about it. The only 2 characters that I find to be interesting are the ones played by Gene Hackman (Little Bill Daggett) and Richard Harris (English Bob). Everyone else just is kind of "there". Not to mention that virtually all the characters seem like the SAME person! There is no uniqueness about any of them.
Save for Daggett and Little Bill, they all have the same mannerisms, mood, and tone. I've seen many so-called "lesser" films with better developed, written, and performed characters that allowed me to latch onto the film the more and more I watched it. With UNFORGIVEN, these characters (and there are tons of them) fall way too flat. Examples: The scene where Munny, the Kid (played by Jamie Woolvett), and the (totally unnecessary!) Morgan Freeman character track down the first of the 2 men they are to kill is totally devoid of real emotion and resonance. I feel nothing when watching this scene. The acting by all involved is strangely similar (Freeman ironically being the weakest link in this scene). Eastwood did Freeman no favors by casting him in this film. Seems like stunt, friendship casting as far as I'm concerned.
Eastwood (as former vicious killer, but now reformed family man William Munny) strangely evokes very little as the lead. It is hard to buy that this man was once a vicious killer simply because Eastwood gives himself the same singular tone as most of the rest of the cast. Then all of a sudden at the end he is a badass again. I think the intent was right, but the execution (pardon the pun!) is rather unbelievable. This ending scene is in it's own right pretty spectacular as it demystifies the mythology of gunslinging that so many films before (ironiclly including many early Eastwood Westerns) had glamourized and I find it (and the Daggett-English Bob scenes) to be the only good ones.
At the end of the day, a great film ought to draw you in, not push you away. UNFORGIVEN, sadly, does the latter.