Easily the worst western ever made. It seems that Kennedy's sole purpose of making this film was to annoy and irritate viewers - and to see how many western movie clichés he can cram into 100 minutes.
The film opens with twenty minutes of pure imbecility: the "bad man"/drunkard kills, rapes, loots, and then burns the "town" down, and about a dozen inhabitants of this town don't do a thing to stop him. Except the boy; it seems that we are supposed to be lead to believe that only a young boy would have the courage.
The "bad man" (as the Irish woman refers to him) is stone drunk and yet he manages to hit every target, and no one dares to shoot at him! These first twenty minutes can be analyzed scene by scene, but there wouldn't be an iota of credibility or intelligence in it. But a lot of awful clichés. I never lived in the Old West, but I cannot imagine that the people living in it would have sat around and just watched while one man was going around totally berserk; the early inhabitants of the frontier were tough people (unlike modern-day pansies) who would have had this "bad man" chopped up in little pieces, cooked, and then eaten.
The film has no realism what-so-ever; when the father of the raped girl goes to save her he goes WITHOUT A GUN (he's carrying a piece of wood)! He naturally then gets shot by the "bad man" and walks out of the saloon like a zombie and then drops to the floor - a very dumb scene indeed. When the undertaker decides to get his horse back from the "bad man" he turns his back to him and gets shot! Wouldn't he shoot at the "bad man" first? Or at least not turn his back to him? Who does Kennedy think I am to believe this crap? After the "bad man" leaves, the cowardly, philosophizing Fonda starts rebuilding the town; what follows from here onwards is over an hour of pure tedium, with Fonda moralizing endlessly and giving preachy, corny PACIFISTIC speeches every time he can get someone to listen.
At the end of the movie the "bad man" comes back, very predictably, and he starts doing the EXACT SAME thing he did a year earlier - this being one of Kennedy's numerous attempts to inject symbolism into this dreary mess of a movie. What follows from here has to be SEEN TO BE BELIEVED: Oates, the town's sheriff, tells the "bad man" to step out of the saloon, but the saloon owner steps out instead and gets shot by Oates! Then the "bad man" comes out and shoots Oates. (That Oates would be killed was predictable as early as an hour before.) This is Kennedy's attempt to make a point about how proper Fonda's ANNOYING PACIFISM is.
Another one of Kennedy's "symbolic" attacks on our nerves comes shortly after Fonda (finally) kills the "bad man": Fonda brings the body to the Irish woman who was bent on violent revenge all along. He asks her "Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted?" LIKE A TRUE DUMB Hollywood PACIFIST. And now comes the mother of all dumb "highlights": the Irish woman stares at the dead "bad man" when - suddenly - he opens his eyes (he wasn't dead - the name is Jason Michael Myers) and grabs her hand violently. The boy wants to shoot at him to protect the woman but kills her instead! Oh How I laughed... If this scene doesn't make you at least giggle, nothing ever will.
So what is Kennedy's message? Without a doubt, it's this: If someone goes around killing your family and friends, and burns and steals all that you have fought hard for all your life, then don't get mad - and most importantly DON'T GET EVEN. Just calm down, count to ten, wait for the misunderstood anti-social "bad man" (or men) to leave, and then rebuild your town and your existence. Until he shows up again... And when he shows up again don't get mad and - for chrissakes - DON'T go for the gun because, honestly, it won't solve anything, it won't bring back the dead, and it won't eradicate all the other "bad men" roaming around in this tough world.
Sounds a lot like an American liberal's argument against the death penalty, doesn't it? Yes; Kennedy is another one of those DELUDED LEFT-WING Hollywood KNUCKLEHEADS, with a view and philosophy of life that will make any self-respecting Clint Eastwood fan wince (I'm of course referring to the MAN WITH NO NAME, not The 90s WUSS WITH NO GOOD MOVIES).
It seems to me that Kennedy read a lot about Gandhi and actually took that iconic charlatan's "teachings" far too seriously. (Look up my review of another cinematic piece of crap, "Gandhi".) This film was made at the height of popularity of Eastwood's spaghetti westerns, so my guess is that it was a major flop, since most people can't identify with the sort of arrogant quasi-hippy gobbledygook that movies like this espouse. And labeling the town "Hard Times" is worse than pretentious; it's downright pathetic.
I guess it'll be quite a while until I come across a movie as bad as this rubbish. A comforting thought...
The film opens with twenty minutes of pure imbecility: the "bad man"/drunkard kills, rapes, loots, and then burns the "town" down, and about a dozen inhabitants of this town don't do a thing to stop him. Except the boy; it seems that we are supposed to be lead to believe that only a young boy would have the courage.
The "bad man" (as the Irish woman refers to him) is stone drunk and yet he manages to hit every target, and no one dares to shoot at him! These first twenty minutes can be analyzed scene by scene, but there wouldn't be an iota of credibility or intelligence in it. But a lot of awful clichés. I never lived in the Old West, but I cannot imagine that the people living in it would have sat around and just watched while one man was going around totally berserk; the early inhabitants of the frontier were tough people (unlike modern-day pansies) who would have had this "bad man" chopped up in little pieces, cooked, and then eaten.
The film has no realism what-so-ever; when the father of the raped girl goes to save her he goes WITHOUT A GUN (he's carrying a piece of wood)! He naturally then gets shot by the "bad man" and walks out of the saloon like a zombie and then drops to the floor - a very dumb scene indeed. When the undertaker decides to get his horse back from the "bad man" he turns his back to him and gets shot! Wouldn't he shoot at the "bad man" first? Or at least not turn his back to him? Who does Kennedy think I am to believe this crap? After the "bad man" leaves, the cowardly, philosophizing Fonda starts rebuilding the town; what follows from here onwards is over an hour of pure tedium, with Fonda moralizing endlessly and giving preachy, corny PACIFISTIC speeches every time he can get someone to listen.
At the end of the movie the "bad man" comes back, very predictably, and he starts doing the EXACT SAME thing he did a year earlier - this being one of Kennedy's numerous attempts to inject symbolism into this dreary mess of a movie. What follows from here has to be SEEN TO BE BELIEVED: Oates, the town's sheriff, tells the "bad man" to step out of the saloon, but the saloon owner steps out instead and gets shot by Oates! Then the "bad man" comes out and shoots Oates. (That Oates would be killed was predictable as early as an hour before.) This is Kennedy's attempt to make a point about how proper Fonda's ANNOYING PACIFISM is.
Another one of Kennedy's "symbolic" attacks on our nerves comes shortly after Fonda (finally) kills the "bad man": Fonda brings the body to the Irish woman who was bent on violent revenge all along. He asks her "Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted?" LIKE A TRUE DUMB Hollywood PACIFIST. And now comes the mother of all dumb "highlights": the Irish woman stares at the dead "bad man" when - suddenly - he opens his eyes (he wasn't dead - the name is Jason Michael Myers) and grabs her hand violently. The boy wants to shoot at him to protect the woman but kills her instead! Oh How I laughed... If this scene doesn't make you at least giggle, nothing ever will.
So what is Kennedy's message? Without a doubt, it's this: If someone goes around killing your family and friends, and burns and steals all that you have fought hard for all your life, then don't get mad - and most importantly DON'T GET EVEN. Just calm down, count to ten, wait for the misunderstood anti-social "bad man" (or men) to leave, and then rebuild your town and your existence. Until he shows up again... And when he shows up again don't get mad and - for chrissakes - DON'T go for the gun because, honestly, it won't solve anything, it won't bring back the dead, and it won't eradicate all the other "bad men" roaming around in this tough world.
Sounds a lot like an American liberal's argument against the death penalty, doesn't it? Yes; Kennedy is another one of those DELUDED LEFT-WING Hollywood KNUCKLEHEADS, with a view and philosophy of life that will make any self-respecting Clint Eastwood fan wince (I'm of course referring to the MAN WITH NO NAME, not The 90s WUSS WITH NO GOOD MOVIES).
It seems to me that Kennedy read a lot about Gandhi and actually took that iconic charlatan's "teachings" far too seriously. (Look up my review of another cinematic piece of crap, "Gandhi".) This film was made at the height of popularity of Eastwood's spaghetti westerns, so my guess is that it was a major flop, since most people can't identify with the sort of arrogant quasi-hippy gobbledygook that movies like this espouse. And labeling the town "Hard Times" is worse than pretentious; it's downright pathetic.
I guess it'll be quite a while until I come across a movie as bad as this rubbish. A comforting thought...