Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

dougdoepke In 1909, an Indian youth and his girl flee a posse pursuing him for killing the girl's father. (Based loosely on a true story).In 1969, the movie was received as part of the broader counter-cultural movement then flourishing. Certainly several of the film's themes resonated with the social justice wing of the movement, and I'm sure that for leftist writer-director Polonsky the justice-for-the-Indian theme was no stretch. Seeing the film again after 40-years, I'm struck by how generally low-key it is, despite the highly charged potential. That's particularly the case with the lovers-on-the-run (Blake & Ross). Unlike such fugitive classics as You Only Live Once (1937) or They Live By Night (1947), this version refuses to sentimentalize the lovers. Despite standard expectations, Willie treats Lola pretty harshly and all but drags her along by the hair—a far cry from the usual pathos. Nor, for that matter, is the Coop (Redford)-Elizabeth (Clark) relationship romanticized, as she treats him with general disdain while he sexually humiliates her. (I doubt this film did anything for Redford's lover-boy image.)At the same time, none of the principals is particularly likable, certainly a departure from usual box-office appeal. Coop may sympathize somewhat with Willie Boy, but he's clearly no reformer let alone racial crusader. He is, after all, an elected sheriff with a race conscious constituency, so his reserve is at least understandable. And, for that matter, neither is Willie Boy very likable. He may be a victim in an extended sense, yet he encourages little sympathy in his headlong flight for survival. If he's meant to represent Indian plight generally, it's certainly not an emotionalized appeal. In fact, the social justice element occurs only sporadically and through biting references to Indians' lesser worth as Indians. So, by no means, is the movie's message "piled on". Note too, how Polonsky refuses to caricature the one vicious racist, Calvert (Sullivan), in the manner of many other anti-racist films. All in all, the movie comes across as something of an oddity since it follows no particular path other than its own. Clearly, Polonsky wants to avoid the more obvious pitfalls of movies with a message, and largely succeeds, at least in my estimation. However, the caution does come at something of a price. In short, so much of the material is low-keyed that I, for one, was never drawn emotionally into the dramatic events; instead I observed them at a distance, even Willie Boy's last stand, which should have been more of a grabber. Such detachment seems rather paradoxical for a film that should have strong impact given the themes and talent involved. My guess is that Polonsky used perhaps too much caution in dealing with what is admittedly tricky subject matter.Nonetheless, it remains an interesting film, well acted and beautifully photographed, making good use of the barren edge of California's Mojave desert. I guess my only real gripe is with whoever did Ross's Indian make-up. As another reviewer aptly observes—it looks like it was slathered on with a ladle. Then there's the long lacquered hair that threatens at times to reach around and strangle her. Those minor misfires aside, Polonsky's project remains a curious one-of-a-kind, still worth a look-see, even if it's no longer the rebellious 1960's.

jeremy3 I like movie set later than the cowboy/outlaw era (19th Century), and yet before the great progress (1920 -). An example of one of these films is Bruce Dern in Harry Tracy. This movie was set in 1909. It was at the time that Indians were most vulnerable. There was no certainty they would even survive as peoples. The racism was very clear. Opportunistic white whiskey merchants sell booze to the Indians, but contemptuously mutter racist things about the Indians.It is probably hard seeing an Italian-American (Blake) play an Indian, and Ross (Irish-American?) playing a half-breed. However, they both pull it off fairly well. Blake plays a character who shoots the white father of Ross's character, and ends up on the run. The ambiguity of everything is pretty good. It is self-defense, because the father sneaks up on him and is raising his gun. But, the impression one gets is one is not sure whether Blake's character is prone to violence or just on the defense. There is a better scene when the sheriff (Redford) finds Ross's character shot dead. But no one knows whether it was murder or a self-inflicted suicide.Redford's sheriff is ambiguous, too. You don't know whether to like him or not. Most importantly, though, one is aware that he is just barely in control. It is very clear that in a few months, the powers in the jurisdiction may change and make him useless as a sheriff. He is only through his bravery and action oriented personality that he keeps his underlings under control.The desert as a great hiding place is put to use. This was California, when large towns today were just spots in the desert. The rocks are great hiding places for a person on the run. I was even surprised to find wooded and watery areas, which you won't expect to find in the desert.I was a little confused by the ending. The sheriff shoots the runaway shooting suspect when he raises his gun. It was ambiguous. Yet, why does Redford's character say that 'he had no bullets'? Blake's character was shooting at him. Was this to mean that the runaway was expecting his death as a fate? I wasn't sure what to conclude.

connie419 I consider Robert Blake's performance in this movie to be one of his best, and this comes from someone who has always thought he was a fine actor. Robert Redford, too, shines here as the sheriff, and almost all the supporting cast keeps up with the two male leads.Blake's character is a Paiute Indian who is the object of a manhunt which is sensationalized by the press because of its concurrence with a visit by President Taft. The sheriff is pressured into hunting down the Indian and the girl he loves but whose father has forbidden the match.It's a good solid early-1900s Western with much better-than-average acting. But it's not so much an action film as it is a character study -- of Blake's character and, to a lesser degree, Redford's. It brings to life the racism and exploitation that white Europeans brought with them to America.

shepardjessica This under-rated gem of an anti-Western deserved much better than it got. Abrahom Polonsky's return to film-making was swept under the carpet, as are so many heartfelt, thoughtful films (even in 1969). Robert Blake, with the exception of In Cold Blood and Electra Glide in Blue was never more determined or intense as Willie. Redford gives a subtle and layered performance. Katharine Ross is gorgeous but doesn't look like a Native American (her eyes are bluer than Paul Newman's).An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Robert Blake with able support from Barry Sullivan, Susan Clark, and Charles McGraw. I'm sure this flick must have it's own cult following by now. If not, it should.