Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

sharky_55 Eastwood may have been the one to popularise the man with no name, but before he made this gruff remake, and before he shot to fame as the mysterious gunslinger, there was Alan Ladd in the eponymous Shane, who although has his name emblazoned all over, is more or less the same figure. The 1953 western is altogether a dirtier, enclosed affair, despite the state of an ageing, mid 50s Eastwood's beard. When Ladd rides off into the sunset at the close of the tale, his arm hangs limp by his side and the little boy has been shocked that the invincible figure has had his blood spilled. Here is the most noticeable change - Joey Starrett, the puppy dog that dogged Shane's every step and brazenly compared his gunslinging against his own father, replaced by a girl on the verge of womanhood, pretty enough that she thinks she has to fight with her mother for Eastwood. Modelled masculinity is replaced by puppy love then, although the ideal is the same. Eastwood lifts the story from its grimy origins and adds a supernatural flair, serving mostly his own character. He is not just a lonely drifter who wanders into town, but is directly summoned from the heavens by Megan, who prays for a miracle to lift Lahood's reign of terror. The film cites a figure of mythical proportions from the bible itself: "And I saw, and behold, a pale horse, and its rider's name was death, and hell followed him." The archetype lends to this aura; we get no backstory, no name, no explanation, only that he wears the preacher's dress but may not be so godly after all. Hints are scattered: the gunshot scars on his back that no ordinary man could have survived, and the corrupt sheriff's remarks on his now deceased nemesis. The preacher's ability to walk into a cafe and disappear into thin air in the final shootout further lends evidence towards this theory. But in doing so Eastwood gets muddled up in myth and displaces tension. Leone was a master of this, matching movement with music in slow, deliberate strokes. The soundtrack isn't so integral in this instance, and because Eastwood stresses the immaterial, there is nothing thrilling about the actions on screen. One particular sequence, in which a deputy stalks the outhouse, and is rudely interrupted by an errant hand and gun emerging from the trough, elicits silliness and giggles instead. The film seems sandwiched between its origins and the eventuality of the genre. The plot is almost directly copied from Shane, yet Eastwood himself is a weathered old relic of the past, grizzled and scarred and long past his prime, where the clipped dialogue was at optimum coolness. More key signs: the railroad, the most iconic symbol for the impending death of the west, and the machines that Lahood seek to replace hand and tool, great big metal constructs that blast water and dig up the earth to excavate gold. The rest of the residents also seem to be stuck in the wrong timeline. See the friendly giant Club, made ripe from goofy sidekick material, and the ever-hateable Chris Penn as Josh Lahood, with a face built like a high school bully. After Blazing Saddles, could his appearance be anything but ridiculous? Eastwood would have to wait a little bit longer until he fully looked the part, and fashioned Unforgiven, his masterpiece, and fittingly, his last western.

dworldeater Pale Rider is the only western Clint made in the 80's and while there are slim pickings for westerns in that decade, Pale Rider is in my opinion the best western made in that era. Pale Rider is best described as a combination of Shane and High Plains Drifter. The storyline is almost identical to that of Shane, but has the brooding, supernatural tone of High Plains Drifter, with the unique bad ass presence of "The Man With No Name" as only Eastwood can bring. Clint is a stranger that comes into town known only as Preacher. He rights some wrongs for folks who are not strong enough to stand up for themselves, while settling his own scores and bringing retribution for events of the past. The film looks sharp, moves fast and has great dark ambiance with an excellent score. The support cast is solid and Clint is in top form in front and behind the camera. Pale Rider is a classic western that only Clint can make and a very enjoyable and well made one it is.

omkar1984 After the engrossing 'Unforgiven', I went to this movie. Maybe that is the reason I was not much impressed by it. I even believe that the movie is overrated.The script is stereotypical but somehow seems lame to the other Western ones ! Well, the Christian concept of 'Pale Rider' is intriguing(destroying an 'evil empire' by sword, pestilence, famine and wild beasts) but there was no need for the central character to wear a clerical collar, then people take him as a 'Preacher' and the audience is expected to connect him to the biblical 'Pale Rider'. It seems a trick unworthy of noticing but dilutes the intention. Megan reading the Psalm(or verses, I am naive at the term) would have been sufficient.Eastwood, as always, has given full justice to the character - the sangfroid when meeting the goons, LaHood and even while eliminating the deputies. The demon underneath seems to arise only twice in his eyes which Eastwood should be given a notable credit ! Except the 'Preacher', Hull Barret is the only character that leaves some impression - he is a common, vulnerable man but still does his best for the family and the folks. The Stockburn's character seems like a last-moment patch implemented in a software to save the script. Fails to impress even for a second as a villain. Better than him is LaHood who at least in some scenes appears to be a professional mining mafia/don.Frankly, I didn't even notice any background score - that itself speaks of it's lameness :P . Since the script revolves around the camp, the mine and the town, one is deprived of the typical Western panoramas, the horse riders amidst terrain and so on. The town too appears modern and synthesized, lacks the dull and the creaky yet appealing look of a troubled Western stereotypical town.To summarize, one should watch the movie only for a glimpse of the vintage 'Western Eastwood', any more expectations can result in disappointment. Yes, the movie has rekindled my old interest in 'Apocalypticism' :) .

glen-121 Enjoyable, would watch again, and again next time it comes on TV.Club is an interesting character - doesn't say much, looks mean and intimidating, yet I can't recall any scene where he actually threatens anyone, other than demonstrating his strength by splitting the boulder. This results in Hull later finding the nugget.Then when Megan is being assaulted by Josh, Club wades in looking like he intends to pull Josh away (and possibly beat the living you-know-what out of him). The Preacher arrives before he can protect Megan, but Club's intent is clear. Club is the evil-looking bad guy who really is not; I think the story is trying to show that the Preacher had an influence on him as well.