**_Eastwood’s “lost” Western with Duvall and Saxon_** In the Southwest in 1902 a land-grabbing tycoon (Robert Duvall) hires an ex-bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) in order to track down a Mexican leader who objects to injustice (John Saxon) and is hiding out in the high country with his people. Don Stroud is on hand as one of the pompous gringo’s heavies. "Joe Kidd" (1972) is generally viewed as one of Eastwood’s lesser Westerns when it’s more entertaining than Sergio Leone’s overrated trilogy from 1964-1966, at least in my opinion. It has a notable cast, a superb score and great locations, not to mention being directed by John Sturges, known for great (or near-great) films like “The Law and Jake Wade” (1958), “Chino” (1973) and “The Eagle Has Landed” (1977). True, Sturges was reportedly struggling with alcoholism during shooting and the story starts to meander in the high country during the second act, but the flick works as a whole and everything ties-together for the climax. Originally, Saxon’s ‘bandit,’ Chama, was supposed to be more heroic, but this was changed when Clint was hired on and Joe Kidd became the amusingly fearless hero, the intermediary between two opposing forces. Very little is predictable, from the interesting costumes & weaponry to the bizarre plot twists to the amusing ways the protagonist gets himself into and out of trouble, like the ladder/trapdoor sequence, the swinging water jug scene, the sniper vs. sniper sequence and the whacky train ride. Stella Garcia (Helen) and Lynne Marta (Elma) are featured in the feminine department. Anyone who favors Eastwood’s other Westerns will find a lot to like here. The film runs 1 hour, 28 minutes, and was shot at Old Tucson & Sonoran Desert, Arizona, and Alabama Hills & Inyo National Forest, California. GRADE: B+

<em>'Joe Kidd'</em> is solid. It's not Clint Eastwood's best work but it's still a role that sufficiently entertains. You also have an important role for one Robert Duvall, who did <em>'The Godfather'</em> in the same year interestingly. No-one else really stands out; not even the miscast John Saxon. The plot is a simple one, which thankfully doesn't drag thanks to a short run time of around 90 minutes. There's also an amusing scene involving a choo-choo, so there is also that. Overall, it does enough for me.

Well the deer didn't know where he was, and I wasn't sure either. There's a certain school of thought with Eastwood purists that Joe Kidd is far more meaningful than its reputation would suggest. In fact, that it most certainly is not in the lower tier of Eastwood Westerns that ratings across internet forums say otherwise. Truth is, is that with Eastwood starring, Robert Duval and John Saxon supporting, John Sturges directing and Elmore Leonard writing, well this really should have turned out far better than it did. In short order it has Eastwood as gunslinger/bounty hunter Joe Kidd who somehow finds himself helping a wealthy landowner and his henchmen to track down a Mexican revolutionary leader - it's a land issue we think.... But once on the trail as part of the posse, Kidd comes to find a conflict of interest and soon enough taking sides is just one of the issues to hand. Sadly I myself can't join with the band of loyal fans who put forward this as a misunderstood piece of work. It plods along as it works its way through a muddled screenplay, which really is very thin from a narrative standpoint, and ultimately it doesn't pay off for character crescendo value come the finale. Add in that Duval's character is poorly under written and Saxon is miscast and you got a few problems to be annoyed about. However, the script does have some nifty dialogue, Bruce Surtees' location photography is outstanding, while Eastwood is yet again a magnetic presence that draws you in to stay the course. Action is well enough handled, including a brilliant finale involving a train as a weapon of mass destruction, and there's some weapons of interest to be interested in!. But you feel that there should have been a bit more complexity on show here, and that the running time of just an hour and twenty minutes does suggest, there's half an hour of film that really should have been added here. 6/10