Unforgiven, 1992

Unforgiven is a prefect example of how a movie can be technically and thematically flawless, but still not be enjoyable. Clint Eastwood?s story of hookers and hitmen in the lawless west is a great movie in many respects, but I ultimately don?t enjoy watching it. Sure, it has wonderfully complex characters played by a few of the best actors in the business, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, and Eastman himself. Unforgiven?s story has many layers and is open to interpretation, qualities of good writing and building blocks of excellent screenplays. But in the end, who cares? The story and characters are so depressing that Unforgiven is hard to watch. The pace is slow and the climax is really the only exciting part of the film. Granted, the final showdown is a great example of Eastwood?s talent, but the rest of the movie is a good example of how even talented filmmakers can fail occasionally. If you can make it through the slow, depressing middle, the ending at least makes an effort to redeem the film. I can see why Unforgiven one the awards and critical acclaim it did. First off, the entire Academy is full of Eastwood fans; that much is obvious. Second, the skill here is obvious. The direction is almost great, the story is wonderful, and the acting is great. But somehow, the sum of the parts is much less than it should be. So, the awards I can understand, but how Unforgiven makes it on so many ?Top 100″ or ?Top 250? lists is beyond me. There are many, many better westerns. So unless you?re a huge Eastwood fan, if you want to see a great western, grab something else.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse