Log in to see which of your friends have seen this movie
Actually, I saw little new here. Eastwoodis all knowing and all powerful, almost like a Wizard of Oz in Western form. Can he never miss when he shoots? Is there a woman he doesn't get? The film opens with I like some Westerns but not these kind of macho illusions.
Although I liked this film, I have too agree with @ClassicLady when the topic is women. The way they're portrayed in this film is very unrealistic, everytime there was a woman on a scene I couldn't stop shaking my head. Outside that, it's a very good film, creating quite the atmosfere until the climax which was pretty satisfaying. All in all, it's worth the watch.
A surprisingly different and interesting Eastwood Western. I feel incredibly stupid for not realizing the symbolism about 20 minutes earlier than I did, but I enjoyed it a lot afterwards.
So, you've got a movie about a mysterious man who wanders into a little country town, and "saves" them from a trio of miscreants seeking revenge for something not immediately clear to the audience. I really enjoyed the way this movie flips your expectations. You go in expecting a less-good Fistful of Dollars, and get something totally unique and stylish in its own way, even if said style occasionally comes off as cheesy. It's a hard movie to talk about without spoilers, so most of this will be under the spoiler tag ahead:
What strikes me as odd is the complaints here about the protagonist's treatment of women. Sure, it's not inherently moral at all, but neither is our protagonist. It's not glorifying his actions. They're just presented as-is. It's not about whether what he does is just, because on normal terms it isn't. But you have to consider the main character's intent, and the events depicted in the movie.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that topic. Putting aside any accusations of sexism (which you could make some case for in the actual portrayal of the female characters, specifically Sarah rather than Callie), it's certainly not like any other Western out there. I'd recommend it to the surrealist crowd, in particular. It's not a bonafide classic, but given the option, I'd sure as hell speak in its favour.
Second viewing, June 21, 2019:
Works better once you know what you're getting yourself into. The genre deconstructionalism comes across more strongly, and it's the same brand we see in Unforgiven (nobody's a hero in the wild west). The score is really immaculate, with its wail of a leitmotif. Most of the townspeople are admittedly not all that interesting (who'd let a barber with that hairdo touch them?), but the dynamic of the film doesn't rely on the people of Lago being three-dimensional.
Something I found very intriguing this time around is just exactly who Clint Eastwood's stranger is. There's no cut-and-dry explanation. The little hints laced throughout the film are ambiguous and conflict with one another. Even his intent is unclear; what exactly is he trying to to for, and to, Lago? This mystique only serves to enhance the film, and when you come down to it there needn't be a clear explanation. You can read into it whatever way suits you (or, if you're like me, ambiguity is the most satisfying interpretation).
The treatment of women is still arguably sexist but, again, you really have to follow your heart on the subject, because what it says about the women and what happens to them is not explicit. For me, it's really just a big, evil gumbo pot. It's a hive of scum and villainy rained upon by a dark, malicious cloud. Nobody's the better because it's all just muck.
Anyway, that's me. As of this moment I'd recommend the film to any fellow movie fans with open minds. If you're a western fan who'd take an episode of The Rifleman over The Searchers, maybe it's not for you, but if you love Westerns of all shapes and sizes (like me) I say give 'er a go!
6.5% of the viewers favorited this title, 0.6% disliked it
Currently in 4 official lists, but has been in 5