Rating: 
Summary: My search is over!
Review: I finally found a awesome western movie! Tombstone was alright, but it was not great like this movie. The best film Eastwood has ever been in, and it was one of the best films I have ever seen, in my top ten now. I gave it10 out of 10! Two thumbs up! Way up!
Rating: 
Summary: I did enjoy getting inside the head of an old gun slinger...
Review: I gave this movie a 7 out of 10. I am really not much of a fan of westerns. But I did enjoy getting inside the head of an old gun slinger coming out of retirement... Background: I am a 24 year old male engineering and computer science student living in SC. I do have a large humanities background. Overview: I get the feeling that this movie may be a sequel to a movie I haven't seen yet. But I get that feeling with all of Clint Eastwood's western movies. He always seems to be the hero of the "Dog eat dog" and "Kill or be killed" western movies. The storyline is simple and sweet: an old gunslinger is trying to raise his kids now that his wife has passed on. He is having a hard time of it and is offered a job as an assassin to kill two men who hacked up a prostitute in a small almost lawless town. There are several good subplots. Ones between the Eastwood's character and his old partner and him and his new partner. Basically there is a good character interaction between all of the characters but I don't think the character individually are filled out enough not even the main character. I wanted a little more depth so I would be more involved. I really am not sure why this movie won the Best Picture Award for the 1992 Academy Awards. I can understand things like Star Wars, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic and so on but not Unforgiven. I think this movie is a good movie to watch with someone or a group. You will have a lot of comments that you will want to share with others, nothing too strong, but I think I would have liked it better with someone. You will have something to say about each character and about fate, and luck. Be sure to check out my other reviews. Thanks.
Rating:
Summary: The first true Western Masterpiece
Review: Some people might argue that Eastwood made this film for sheer convienance because he was getting old and needed to play an older charater. This is, however, unfounded because Eastwood had the idea for this film many years before but sat on it until he was old enough to represent the character Willian Muney. The performaces are outstanding every where you look in this film. Honors go to the supporting actor Gene Hackmen who, although his character is evil, is likable up until one point in this film in which he simply goes too far. This insights William Muney "Eastwood" to revert to his old murderous ways. This film shows shows you the consequences of what are usually represented in a western. In most westerns, we have a clear cut hero vs the villian. But in Unforgiven, everyone is a villian of sorts with great personal demons. In Unforgiven its shows the pain and mental angwish of what happens when you aspire to take a man's life. Usually when Dirty Harry or "the Man with No Name" kills someone, the last thing we think of is whether or not the deceased had families and people who cared about them. Unforgiven almost drove me to tears at times with the sheer emotion and honesty about human nature. This is a very important film.
Rating:
Summary: Great Western
Review: Unforgiven is surely one of the greatest westerns ever made, along with The Searchers, Stagecoach, The Wild Bunch, and Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid. A must see.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated and dull
Review: This is one of the most overrated movies in recent memory. So often Hollywood awards an actor late in his career, acknowledging past slights. So, you have John Wayne winning the Oscar for True Grit, when he should have won it years ago for other roles. And now you have Clint Eastwood winning awards for this movie...boring, dreary, and very dark. To see Clint at his best, check out The Outlaw Josey Wales, and save your money and time. Clint sold out to Hollywood a long time ago, and should retire gracefully (and soon!)
Rating:
Summary: Unforgiven
Review: From the opening credits, you sense that 'Unforgiven' is unique in the American cowboy genre. This film has no heroes, it doesn't follow any of the traditional paths and surprises every expectation. Clint Eastwood as William Munny is an unlikely hero, a retired killer back on the bounty trail, trying at once to find redemption and earn the reward bucks. Gene Hackman is excellent as the sheriff trying to stop him and Richard Harris is also good as self-made, though recently collapsing legend, The Duke "Duck" of Death'. Eastwood's film is finally not about destiny but about the absence of it and the random nature of 'good' and 'evil'. As Hackman's sheriff looks up at the gun before he dies and say "I don't deserve this", Eastwood's Munny says "Deservin's got nothin' to do with it." Bang. Here is our grain of truth about the Wild West. And come to think of it, life.
Rating:
Summary: Best of the genre
Review: I feel sorry for those who do not like this film. This is not a'shoot 'em up' western, nor is it a typical 'cowboy' film... it wasnever meant to be that. It is a movie about genuine morality and human emotion in relation to taking another human life under any circumstance. Please do not approach this film in expectation of a Sergio Leone-style Western. This movie was made as the antithesis of the films Eastwood has done in the past. Also, if you are not of this country,(the U.S.) this movie is the best possible realization of what the REAL West was like in its' time. Murder was not really a glorfied event, as the old-style Westerns might have you believe. People at the time still struggled with what is both right and wrong within human co-existance. Take this film, and its great performances, as-is and learn something from it.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: haven't seen the DVD...but the movie is one of the best commentaries on violence and forgiveness ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth all the praise.
Review: This is one of the most overrated movies ever. I love Clint, but not when he's directing. (I didn't like "Tightrope" or "Outlaw Josey Wales" either.) Some say it's slow, but it's really not. To hide its dragging, he uses the old trick; fast editing. I always found too rapid cross-cutting unnecessary, and irritatingly modern. Most movies look the same now, it doesn't matter if it's drama, comedy, action or in this case; western. I often wonder why actors accept this. Maybe all they care about is being busy, and making big money. -They may care about the script, but not the look of the film. -If they did, Hollywood movies wouldn't all look the same. -They'd be calling for variety and art, but they won't. Hollywood has the ability to make the best movies in the world, so why don't they ?. And Clint plays right along with it, instructing editor Joel Cox. The scheme seems to be; if it's fast it's good. And the critics fall for it. Well, what do they know. And so we're left with yet another dull movie.
Rating:
Summary: A different kind of "Western"
Review: This is a western where moralizing has no redemption, there are no clear winners, and the idea of "The Hero" comes to be questioned. This is a thinking person's western. Possibly the best villain role Gene Hackman has ever played with interesting roles for Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, and Clint Eastwood. Great supporting cast, excellent cinamatography, editing, and story line.
| 
