I wasn't expecting to like The Unforgiven. Don't get me wrong I don't mind westerns and I am a fan of both Audrey Hepburn and John Huston. However, prior to seeing this film I heard a lot of negativity on it. After seeing it for myself, I think it is very underrated. It is flawed, but I do admire this film.

It does begin in a lethargic manner and I personally thought the final scene could have been better thought out. Also, despite my love for her, I was not entirely convinced by Audrey Hepburn. She is graceful, charming and elegant and I applaud her for taking on a completely different role to any other she's played, but she was never quite believable in her role, to me her accent sometimes came and went and she felt somewhat out of place.

However, it looks gorgeous with the cinematography beautiful and the scenery magnificent. The music is very rich and wonderful, the dialogue is thought-provoking and the pace in the middle I had no problem with. I was pleasantly surprised at how ambitious the story was, the subject of racism could have easily been dealt with in a heavy-handed way like in Crash, but it doesn't thanks to the construction of the story which is quite impressive and it also helps that the characters are surprisingly credible. John Huston's direction is also terrific, and the acting ensemble is very good generally. Burt Lancaster is a charismatic presence, while Audie Murphy is a sheer delight in this movie.

In conclusion, it is a good movie despite the miscast(I do say this with a heavy heart) and one or two scenes that could have been better judged. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This film, The Unforgiven, as opposed to Clint Eastwood's classic is taken from a novel by Alan LeMay who also wrote The Searchers. Both stories are about the post Civil War Texas frontier. But in this one we have the Indians seeking out one of there's who's been taken by whites and raised as one of their own. The person in question is Audrey Hepburn who's been raised by Lillian Gish as her own daughter and sister to her three sons, Burt Lancaster, Audie Murphy, and Doug McClure.

It was an unwritten law of Hollywood that no one shoots a film in Monument Valley except John Ford. So John Huston made due with Durango in Mexico which had become a favorite western location site also. Huston got some good performances out of his cast although he had many problems.

Audrey Hepburn fell off a horse and was injured for a few weeks. Audie Murphy nearly drowned in a river. Topping it all off, according to a recent biography of Burt Lancaster was the fact that Lillian Gish served as a kind of back seat driver to John Huston. She was forever telling him that D.W. Griffith did this or that a different way. But apparently Ms. Gish was satisfied with the finished product because she acclaimed Huston as another Griffith when it was over.

The story really gets going when some Kiowas come knocking on Lillian Gish's door demanding Audrey Hepburn's return. When it's discovered that Hepburn in fact is an Indian, the reaction of the neighbors and some of the family is to send her back. Lancaster, Gish, and McClure aren't having it though.

The Unforgiven was butchered in the editing department. One role that was mostly left on the cutting room floor apparently was John Saxon as a halfbreed named Johnny Portugal. Standing out though is Joseph Wiseman as the crazy ex-cavalryman now turned preacher who has a hate for Audrey Hepburn. Why he does you'll have to see the film, but it's an interesting problem.

Its parts, its individual performances make The Unforgiven an uneven film where the whole is not greater than the sum of those parts.

The film is about a young lady who suddenly learns she might just be an Indian child who was stolen from her tribe when Indians visit her home and try to buy her back! When her family denies this and refuse to deal, the Indians threaten to attack.

This COULD have been a western that stood out from the crowd--earning an 8 or even possibly a 9 on IMDb. However, no matter how good the rest of the movie was, the casting decisions behind this film just make no sense whatsoever. Sure, Audrey Hepburn was in high demand at the time--having several very successful films behind her by 1960. But what lame-brain though it made sense to cast her as a person who is accused of being a full-blooded American Indian?! While not as silly as having Katherine Hepburn or John Wayne play Asians (in DRAGON SEED and THE CONQUERER, respectively),it was a completely unbelievable move--not just because of how she looked, but also because of her lovely accent--which apparently NONE of her step-brothers had! In addition to this bizarre casting, John Saxon played what appeared to be a Mexican-Indian--not nearly as bad a miscast, but still,...why not just have someone with this ethnic background play this part and several of the Indian parts instead of slapping brown pigment on White actors? I would have hoped that by 1960 this sort of casting was a thing of the past.

In addition to the casting problems, there also was a really creepy underlying theme that burst forth in all its glory towards the very end. This is because Ms. Hepburn's step-brother (Burt Lancaster) seemed to possibly have some other than brotherly feelings towards her throughout the film. But, at the very end he openly professes his love for her and they share a very passionate kiss. This was just so disturbing on many levels--sort of like the relationship between Greg and Marcia in the last Brady Bunch movie (but in that case, it was deliberately played this way to disgust the audience and elicit laughs).

Still, despite these serious problems, it's a pretty engaging film that could easily have been a lot better but is still a little better than just your usual "time passer".