Siskel & Ebert Review Unforgiven (1992) Clint Eastwood

[@themastersword1621]

To Roger's credit, he did reassess and gave this movie four stars (his wife said they were planning their wedding and he was distracted during his first viewing). But yeah they completely missed the mark on what this movie was about. It wasn't supposed to be as bombastic as Eastwood's other westerns because the point of Unforgiven is to deconstruct the romanticism and mythology of the old west. And English Bob is a very important character to the movie because not only does he serve to further drive home Little Bill's brutality and sadism, but to introduce the biographer. The jail cell scenes with the biographer, Bob, and Little Bill are essential to the aforementioned demystifying of the old west and also serve as foreshadowing to the final scene. Quite possibly the greatest western ever.

[@JohnSmith-yd5wq]

Yeah. This has to be the worst review siskel and Ebert has ever done. They totally didn't get this movie.

[@stevenbeall9637]

Reassessed probably after it won all the awards and the embarrassment hit.

[@stevenbeall9637]

​​@@JohnSmith-yd5wqThey don't get a lot of movies. Most of their reviews on a lot of now classic films like this are fails. Glad they are gone. Trash critics.

[@jimcryns5525]

Both were wrong on this one. One of the finest films of all time. Never thought there were too many characters and English Bob was critical to the film.

[@JasonBagherian]

A terrible review for what I believe to be Clint Eastwood's finest film. Roger glosses over the scene where Eastwood starts drinking. Eastwood's character is a changed man, a ruthless outlaw and killer now turned farmer and family man who vows to his departed wife to never to drink again! This is the turning point in the film and that scene always brings tears to my eyes as Eastwood breaks his promise. Unforgiven may not have Eastwood being as charismatic as in the Dirty Harry films, but Unforgiven is a far more mature film about a bad man trying to change and be good. Superb cast too, you have four legends in one film. Like I said, I believe the Unforgiven to be Eastwood's finest film and one of the greatest westerns ever made.

[@reneedennis2011]

I haven't seen this movie, so I can't form an opinion about it. Thank you for your review.

[@patrickshields5251]

Roger later changed his mind about the film and admitted that he was distracted by his first months of marriage.

[@michaelperkowski641]

@@reneedennis2011 A must see. Even if you don't like westerns.

[@reneedennis2011]

@@michaelperkowski641 Thanks!

[@JasonBagherian]

@@patrickshields5251 A terrible excuse for someone who is so cine-literate and is such a fan of Eastwood.

[@michaelwainscott2633]

This was not one of Siskel and Ebert's shining moments. Not necessarily because they didn't like the movie, but the reasoning was lame and it seemed like they went in to review the movie with a preconceived critique, and didn't move off of it. It was like a canned review for a western, and the movie was atypical, in a good way! The reason Ebert changed his rating is because he could see it was gaining momentum for the year's best picture, and he didn't want to look non-credible by not having it in his Top 10.

[@TheFightanvidya]

It's really rare for ebert to change his mind on a movie, and he's gone against the general consensus of critics more than a few times. I seriously doubt his reason for changing his mind had to do with looking good to other critics.

[@michaelwainscott2633]

@@TheFightanvidya it was also really rare for Ebert to be that far off of a critique of a picture that turned out to be a very serious Best Picture Award candidate.

[@ssssssstssssssss]

@@michaelwainscott2633 He never changed his mind on Gladiator so far as I know, which won best picture. But Gladiator actually was an overrated movie (though I still liked it).

[@nikosvault]

Ah yes, the classic "he changed his mind not to look bad" argument. Makes the common man hard in his pants when the intellectual/critic buckles under pressure from the crowd. Too bad he is one of the most consistent critics NOT to change his mind because of mainstream success or public pressure. Gladiator, A Clockwork Orange, The Usual Suspects, Brazil, The Untouchables, The Professional, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dogville and on and on. He changed his mind less than any major critic. Including Siskel.

[@eddiewinehosen6665]

@@ssssssstssssssss I agree there. It's a good movie and I enjoyed it but it's not the masterpiece that some hails it to be.

[@linkbiff1054]

Roger regrets giving the film a thumbs down, so much so that his initial written negative review no longer exists.

[@gibberconfirm166]

I recall seeing it in the theaters as a kid and being disappointed. I know we wanted "Good the Bad and the Ugly 2", maybe even Roger and Gene had that expectation.

[@adamzanzie]

Ebert never gave Unforgiven a thumbs-down. Watch the whole episode, it concludes with them saying they had "a split decision on Unforgiven", with Ebert's thumb up and Siskel's thumb down.

[@linkbiff1054]

@@adamzanzie Yes, the full episode has finally resurfaced. But he was still too hard on it. That is why nobody can find his first review of it.

[@fairlessdave1834]

@@gibberconfirm166 How young were you? I can see you being disappointed if you were a teenager. It had rather mature themes and wasn't like some of Clint's other westerns. It was rated R.

[@KingOfHockeyNow]

Yeah, S&E really choked on this one. The film is a masterpiece. Every line in that scene under the tree where the Schofield Kid is starting to realize what he has done is incredible. Morgan Freeman losing his nerve to shoot. The climactic scene at the end. And a bunch of other greats also.

[@4seeableTV]

Well said. It's scenes like that and others that make the movie feel real and not like your typical Hollywood shootem up Western.

[@dandrson7903]

Wow i thought at least one of em would give it a thumbs up. I liked it when I first saw it and I could tell everyone in the theater did too

[@Adino1]

This movie is an undeniable masterpiece Sometimes critics can't get out of their own way or their own expectations to see the bigger picture This movie permanently changed a classic American genre forever

[@alphabetaxenonzzzcat]

Roger later recanted and included "Unforgiven" on his Great Movies list book. It was the best film of 1992, and also in my opinion it's the best film of the 1990s. It's also the finest film that Eastwood ever made, great script by David Webb Peoples, superb performances by Morgan Freeman, Clint Eastwood, Richard Harris, Jamie Woolvett and Gene Hackman(he really steals the show). A chilling tale of how violence dehumanises people.

[@blinkzone1]

Roger Ebert later called "Unforgiving" a great film. Also added to Ebert's Great Movies section. Same with Blade Runner The Final Cut

[@tekharthazenyatta2310]

Has Ebert ever changed his mind after giving a positive review to a garbage film, or a negative review to what was actually a good film that didn't embarrass him by winning Academy Awards?

[@ericslee1980]

They missed again big time here. Everyone acknowledges now that it's one of the greatest westerns ever made.

[@errolbourgeois8230]

He directed three masterpieces Unforgiving, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby.

[@PeakDennisReynolds]

Play Misty For Me was a masterpiece aswell imo. Jessica Walters, what a performance.

[@tekharthazenyatta2310]

Outlaw Josey Wales and High Plains Drifter are just as good as Unforgiven, I think, except in one aspect. Unforgiven took on the not insignificant task of crafting a conclusion for all of these characters, essentially, and did a brilliant job of it.

[@mbalash3755]

Also Grand Torino

[@michaelperkowski641]

Outstanding film directed by Clint Eastwood. One of my favorite Eastwood movies. Eastwood gives a terrific performance as William Munny. Gene Hackman performance is fantastic as the sheriff. Morgan Freeman is spectacular as Ned. William friend. Great film editing by long time Eastwood's collaborator Joel Cox. Glorious looking movie by director of photographer Jack N. Green. The story is very good here about Legends and fables of the old west and about a redemption of a man who does not want to turn back to violence again. To me, This is the best motion picture of 1992. I don't care what Siskel and Ebert says they were wrong the film won the Oscar for 1992's Best Picture. And Eastwood first Oscar win as Best Director. My favorite film of 92. And one the best hollywood western ever made.

[@ploppill34]

Even the great ones get it wrong once in a while

[@philbrown1474]

They missed it on this one. Unforgiven is one of the great movies ever made.

[@ditchbroady6873]

Absolute phenomenon of a western. Even better then tombstone imo. They seem to have completly missed the point. Will is supposed to seem small. The audience effectily is made wonder, as do the supporting cast, if he really is that guy everyone talks about and if he was, could he ever be again. Makes it that much more thrilling when he finally goes nuclear. Even the hackman possy is unconcerned about him as they plot where he might be hiding having no idea death is at there doorstep

[@MarkARebuck]

Ebert revised his opinion later, for the Best Of episode for that year (he put it on his 10 best). I remember being shocked at his initial review, and was very impressed when he changed his mind later. Not just because I agreed with, but because he had the ability to keep an open critical mind, and publicly admit when his opinion changed.

[@spencer10182]

Like several other critics I did not appreciate this masterpiece on my first viewing and even felt the Oscars should have given the Best Picture to A Few Good Men instead. On my second viewing my whole opinion changed. The Academy made the right choice after all giving this Best Picture. Beautiful scenery, some of the best cinematography I have ever seen and a story to keep you involved. It took me a couple viewings but this is a masterpiece and now in one of my top five Westerns. It definitely deserved all the Oscars it got.

[@vjr4763]

I am glad that Siskel and Ebert gave this review. This movie, while good, is definitely overrated. Eastwood got his Oscar because he was still a money-making machine both in front and behind the camera, yet, despite being arguably the biggest living A-lister at the time, he was unrewarded in terms of industry accolades and he was hinting at retirement if his latest movie, "Unforgiven", didn't get some kind of Academy Award. Money talks, thus Academy voters voted to give Eastwood his Oscars for "Unforgiven". But, really, it isn't that great of a movie. I can't say or not if it was the best movie of 1992, but I suspect it wasn't.... as did Siskel and Ebert who are spot-on in their reviews.

[@docx951]

I could have sworn to remembering a four star review by Ebert for this film in 1992. I can't find it but I did find a 2002 review under Ebert's Great Movies category (all his Great Movies have four star ratings automatically...even if the film wasn't rated four stars the first time). Anyway, it is certainly Eastwood's best western and both Siskel and Ebert were way off on their criticisms. A suggestion...how about a video for Eastwood's A Perfect World? Just a thought...

[@patrickshields5251]

His original review can be found in his Video Companion books. Maybe that's where you read it.

[@JasonBagherian]

I'll add A Perfect World to the list. Cheers

[@xander66644]

You are right. He changed his mind from a Luke warm recommendation to a top 10 film of the year due to being distracted by his upcoming wedding.

[@LeoWhalen1933]

I think I will have to see this again as well. I didnt like it when I watched it about 11 years before. I agree with Siskel about Richard Harris' character too. I was disappointed when his character was exiled in the middle of the movie and couldnt even remember the importance of the plot.

[@fairlessdave1834]

I think it was a vehicle to bring the writer W.W. Beauchamp into the movie which proved to be an integral character.

[@j.dragon651]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. We all got it coming.

[@tekharthazenyatta2310]

Siskel and Ebert completely missed Eastwood's intent here to provide a natural conclusion to just about every western he's ever made featuring a variant of the man with no name (nearly all of them). William Money is clearly an amalgamation of these characters, now over the hill and facing a moral reckoning with his bloody past. Having discovered that it's impossible for him to avoid this reckoning as a simple farmer, he attempts to redeem his past by taking out equally murderous, rotten characters who are standing in the way of justice for a brutally wronged woman. By the end of the film Money has re-embraced exactly what he knows himself to be, perhaps with an added dash of hope for his afterlife judgment. All of this was completely missed in this review. Siskel and Ebert seemed to be treating this as yet another "Pale Rider" type film, which it most certainly wasn't. I wonder what their reaction was after "Unforgiven" won best picture and Eastwood best director.

[@hmicky-mickey]

It doesn't matter if a movie wins "BEST PICTURE" at the academy awards or not. That show is nothing more than a show. The best movies don't necessarily win anything. The best movies aren't even often nominated! The ACADEMY AWARDS is just an awards show where industry people can get dressed up, kiss each other's asses, pat each other's back, and validate themselves that they are the most important people on the planet. You sound like this is high school, and you're excited about who will get nominated for homecoming king and queen. America is the most celebrity-obsessed, youth-obsessed country in the world.

[@tekharthazenyatta2310]

@@hmicky-mickey You sound like someone who missed the entire point of my post and fixated only on the last question I posed, which in no way implies I think the Academy Awards are an accurate barometer of worthy vs. unworthy films. I'm reasonably certain your motivation is something beyond your control, as it is with the usual douchebags.

[@cjwright79]

William Munny by the way.

[@theiceman6941]

@@hmicky-mickeyRIGHT ON! You got it! Society is completely celebrity-obsessed, and the Academy Awards mean nothing. It's self-congratulatory BS.

[@Christobanistan]

"It had a few too many characters"

[@deckofcards87]

Have to remind myself that these two watched a new movie every day for years and they'd grown tired of seeing so much originality that it might've spoiled their overall first impression of seeing UNFORGIVEN...I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their minds about the film's strengths years afterwards, which both of them often did. In fact I vaguely recall S&E praising it in their review of Eastwood's A PERFECT WORLD a year later.

[@jacobadams5924]

Ebert went on to put Unforgiven as one of his Great Movies--so he obviously changed his initial luke-warm opinion. I have to say, the movie is remarkable and rewards multiple viewings.

[@xander66644]

And to expand on that the reason why his initial review was a like warm recommendation only was that he was distracted by his upcoming wedding.

[@JunebugPresents]

Nice. I usually like to watch Siskel and Ebert talk but this is done well. High quality with the right aspect ratio.

[@TTM9691]

Missed the boat again, Siskel and Ebert. Love those guys, miss those guys, but I never took their word for a single film, ever. It was a good place to see what was being released (I think it was even called for a while "Sneak Previews").

[@newwavepop]

in my opinion this film was so good it basically killed the Western for a good few years because how do you compete with it. it has the ruthless outlaw who is also the old retired shootist that just wants peace, it has the deadly hot shot gun fighter, it has the young wannabe gun fighter, it has the stricy lawman, it even has the old west pulp nobalist which was a real thing and i am not sure has ever actually been portrayed before. it has vengeance and regret and remorse, it has honor and viciousness, it has a great simple and beautiful score.

[@ploppill34]

FYI Siskel and Ebert are still two of the greatest movie critics of all time in their reputation only improves compared to what passes for a movie critic today

[@filmbuff2777]

I have to admit I was disappointed when I first saw it as I heard great things about it, but I felt it was pretty slow. Keep in mind I was obsessed with The Good The Bad & The Ugly & I was too used to the Leone style as I was just getting into Eastwood's work. Its upon subsequent viewings I gained appreciation for it noticing the complexities of the story & characters, & I think it certainly is one of Eastwood's finest achievements.

[@anothermonday5664]

One of a handful of films where one of them (or both) realized every critic on the planet was heaping praise on a film which sent them back to re-review it, only to suddenly change their mind that it was brilliance. Hilarity. (Silence of the Lambs was another one for Siskel).

[@FaradayBananacage]

It's a mistake to think of this movie as a standard western. Sure, it's set in the American west, but the themes are different, and the character development is different. The movie doesn't even have an identifiable hero. Clint Eastwood's character is arguably a villain, and is accurately called an "assassin". It's an ambiguous movie about ambiguous characters, which is what makes it so interesting to watch.

[@alanhigh8125]

I would reply to S&E that, "Those who can, act, direct and produce. Those who can't... give reviews." Eastwood will be acknowledged for his accomplishments long after S&E have been forgotten. In fact, I've already forgotten them.

[@kdohertygizbur]

Not so forgotten that you looked them up on KZbin to post on this review as have many others

[@canaantx210]

Saw this for the first time yesterday. I felt just like they did.

[@robaquarian]

richard harris character was needed

[@southwest5388]

I believe the best western ever made.

[@ThePheonixon]

Completely agree with them. This movie felt far too drawn out and out dull. Gene Hackman and Richard Harris were the only performances worthwhile in it. The plot and dialogue just dragged

[@jasonbowser5754]

One of the biggest misses of their careers. How they misjudged this so much, I’ll never know. They totally missed the point, which is why they didn’t understand all the characters.

[@kibagami74]

I know I'm against the tide in the comments here, but I thought they judged Unforgiven very well. There are many good scenes, even a few intense ones and some good lines. But I never felt it had a strong narrative. The Richard Harris character is like a whole other movie, it's a meandering plot. I don't find any of the characters likable or sympathetic, I mean, Clint's character is a killer of women and children and unarmed men, yikes. I much prefer his Spaghetti Westerns. A good Western has some element of justice, well Clint's character is essentially a psychopath/serial killer that is never caught. So no justice there as he rides away in the end. Gene Hackman's character is an S.O.B too, yet he's an angel compared to Clint's character, so there's nobody to latch on to. All great actors, well made film, I just can't enjoy the story though.

[@theurbanloner8879]

I think that's why most of us enjoy this film so much . It's ambitious and doesn't tell you who's good or who's bad . It just stands on its own and the audience has to think for itself for a change.

[@ead630]

Ebert eventually included Unforgiven on his list of Great Movies.

[@theiceman6941]

Where he gives away the whole movie, basically.

[@barteroutpost]

Loved this movie- made you really sympathize with the bad guy at the end, even when he kills the good guy (or at least the guy who comes closest to being the good guy, Little Bill).

[@markcollins2704]

Siskel shit on Pale Rider seven years earlier and commented about how the western was never going to make a comeback, so of course he had to hate this movie, otherwise his prediction would've been wrong.

[@kdohertygizbur]

People here who are blasting Siskel and Ebert with personal attacks just because 1 or both of them gave a review he or she didn't agree with ?? It is a complete lack of maturity that you have all this ill will on 2 people who have been dead for a while, JUST because they didn't like a movie you did Grow Up !

[@progunliberal]

Wow, one of the biggest misses in s&e's entire career. I can't believe they didn't "get" this picture.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

A very good film but it isn't great, IMO. A few too many characters weigh it down.

[@fembotheather3785]

It seems to me that they are reviewing the movie they expected, rather than what the movie actually is. Eastwood's character is supposed to seem small- because he is.

[@ronwood1220]

Good example of critics being full of $h!t. Ubnforgiven is a masterpiece and still more popular that Siskell and Ebert 29 years later.

[@MegaTunamelt]

Sister and ebert dropped the ball on this one

[@auntiechercher4266]

This movie is depressing right from the start with the horrible scene of violence at the beginning and the prostitute being slashed like that. It was a real depressing time for woman who had to resort to that in order to live.

[@deckofcards87]

The best film of 1992 easily

[@kdohertygizbur]

Says you

[@blondesummer7980]

"let other people talking while Clint squints, drinks, and listens..." But he only drinks at the end of the film... like that's the whole point of the film... how did you miss that, jeez...

[@bobs2809]

They didn't understand the movie.

[@lenhudson8194]

Man, they got this one all wrong. Easily one of the greatest westerns ever made. My personal favourite.

[@eargasm1072]

Probably the last great Western made!

[@DixiePokerAce]

These guys don't like movies with dark storylines and violence.

[@JoeBuck207]

Unforgiven is overrated, boring , bleak and depressing movie.

[@rayhunter-o3w]

Eastwood even went so far as to change the tools of the gunfighter, with the plain double barrel shotgun and a Henry rifle. The main change from the norm though, is his using a Smoth & Wesson Schofield instead of a Colt Single Action Army. The revolver he had from his bad old days was an 1858 Starr cap 'n ball revolver. This couple of big brain wimps really screwed the pooch with this lousy review. Real men saw it for what it was, a celebration of toxic masculinity and they loved and cheered for it.

[@rubbernun66]

Dreadful review of a masterpiece. It's a brillant revisionist western, one the greatest ever made right up there with The Wild Bunch.

[@harrygilmana6126]

Just proves these critics know nothing about great film making. Zero. Nothing I doubt they even know where to rent cameras

[@kevinfinnerty8414]

Gene lost his credibility as a reviewer

[@Francis-ec8ci]

The Oscars disagreed with this review

[@crypastesomemore8348]

This review alone is the reason I have no respect for Siskel or Ebert.

[@kdohertygizbur]

That's a pretty petty comment, shows huge immaturity..what happens when a friend or family member disagrees with you...you cut them loose...stop talking to them

[@truthseeker2055]

Wow, terrible review...Siskel + Ebert = Hacks......

[@sasavulic1236]

This guys are too overrated

[@DixiePokerAce]

These guys don't like movies with dark storylines and violence.

[@kdohertygizbur]

By writing that, you show that you don't know Anything about Siskel and Ebert

[@JoeBuck207]

Unforgiven is overrated, boring , bleak and depressing movie.

[@JoeBuck207]

Unforgiven is overrated, boring , bleak and depressing movie.