Although Clint Eastwood is incredibly famous for his "spaghetti westerns", this film was made domestically just after his spaghetti phase and I think it's as good any of these movies (even "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"). His acting is about the same, maybe a little better, but it's nice to see his supporting cast is much more competent than what we'd been used to seeing. Pat Hingle, Charles McGraw, Bruce Dern and Eg Begley, Sr. all provide able support, as do lesser-known characters such as the "good man" about to be executed or the two young boys who assisted Dern in his cattle rustling.
So apart from an able cast, why did I like it? Well, the story was the key. Clint Eastwood was wrongfully hung by a lynch mob at the beginning of the movie. He miraculously survives and becomes a lawman bent on apprehending the men who almost killed him. Despite this, Eastwood's character has depth and the movie really has something to say about frontier justice. Unlike some westerns, the bad guys are not ALWAYS killed by the Marshall but are brought to justice--which almost always means a hanging. Over time, Eastwood's lust for vengeance diminishes, as it's tough and not always a fair way to exact justice. You see and ultimately believe Eastwood's internal struggle.
So apart from an able cast, why did I like it? Well, the story was the key. Clint Eastwood was wrongfully hung by a lynch mob at the beginning of the movie. He miraculously survives and becomes a lawman bent on apprehending the men who almost killed him. Despite this, Eastwood's character has depth and the movie really has something to say about frontier justice. Unlike some westerns, the bad guys are not ALWAYS killed by the Marshall but are brought to justice--which almost always means a hanging. Over time, Eastwood's lust for vengeance diminishes, as it's tough and not always a fair way to exact justice. You see and ultimately believe Eastwood's internal struggle.