1992 - Unforgiven

Lyndsay: Well, every ounce of me always wants to love Clint Eastwood because he is such an icon, but personally I just do not think he is a good actor. I think what others see as gruff manliness and stoicism is just a lack of personality because it is so flat and boring and never changes, no matter what the movie. On top of that, I also did not think Gene Hackman deserved the praise he received for this movie. Although yes, by the end I hated his character as much as I was supposed to, in no way do I see Western-badass in him. If the movie was set in modern day he would have acted it exactly the same- in addition his wardrobe was too modern and when the camera was on just him I forgot this was set in the 1890's. Aside from the acting, I thought the story line was interesting- definitely a new take on Western as it was all about the psychology of the time. At the end, I looked it up to see if it was based on a novel, because all signs pointed to a really fabulous book and a not so fabulous movie. Grade: C.


Jon: I have to whole-heartedly disagree with Lyndsay on this one. Unforgiven is a true psychological masterpiece and possibly the best western ever made. It might be one of the only movies that realistically portrays the mind of a contract killer. Most Hollywood ventures portray a serial killer as someone who functions like a robot, but that is not always the case as there is remorse and guilt among killers. As William Munny (Eastwood) and Ned Logan (Freeman) travel up to Wyoming, you watch Munny transform from an inadequate farmer and father to a cold killer who acts like he doesn't have a family at all. Whiskey certainly helped Munny, but his character transformation is so extreme that you wouldn't recognize him if you had a split-frame of his silhouette at the beginning and the end of the film. The western landscapes add the majestic cinematography that I enjoy, but I think the best part is the fundamental message that contract killers are not always the people you expect, they might be people with families who need the money and also need to be drunk to complete the job. The climax scene at the end of the movie between Eastwood and Hackman is pretty extreme and pretty awesome, with Hackman fulfilling his own prophecy by drawing his gun first. However, like any Eastwood movie, there are MAJOR problems with editing and attention to detail. His rain scenes look ridiculous - it is obvious that water is being blown on a set. His child actors, as always, are terrible (see Mystic River, Gran Torino, and every other movie he has made with child actors). Eastwood is not a good director, never has been, never will be, but he is an unbelievable storyteller. Even with these flaws, it's still a great movie. Grade: A-