Film Review: Joe Kidd (dir by John Sturges)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1972’s Joe Kidd opens with the title character (played by Clint Eastwood) in jail. Joe is a New Mexico rancher and apparently, someone with a long history of getting in trouble with the law. This time, he’s been arrested for poaching and disturbing the peace. Given a choice between a fine and ten days in jail, Joe goes for the ten days. Cowardly Sheriff Mitchell (Gregory Walcott) says he’s going to put Joe to work. Joe Kidd snarls in response.

However, that’s before Luis Chama (John Saxon), a Mexican revolutionary, raids the courthouse and demands that all of his people’s ancestral land be returned to them. Local landowner Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) forms a posse to track Chama down. Joe says that he has nothing against Chama but that changes once he discovers that Chama raided his ranch and beat up one of his ranchhands. Joe joins the posse but he soon discovers that Harlan and his men are sadists who are more interested in killing Mexicans than actually capturing Chama.

I was actually pretty excited about watching Joe Kidd. Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, and John Saxon, three of my favorite actors in the same movie! How couldn’t I be excited? Unfortunately, neither Duvall nor Saxon are at their best in this film. Frank Harlan is a one-dimensional villain and Duvall doesn’t make much of an effort to bring any sort of unexpected nuance to the character. Duvall doesn’t give a bad performance but it’s hard not to feel that Harlan is a character who could have been played by any forty-something actor. It feels like waste to cast such a good actor in such a thin role. (Add to that, I prefer Duvall when he plays a good guy as opposed to when he plays a bad guy.) As for Saxon, this is probably one of his worst performances but his character is also rather underwritten and the film can’t seem to decide if it wants the viewer to be on his side or not. Saxon delivers his lines in an exaggerated Mexican accent that makes it difficult to take Louis Chama seriously. Gregory Sierra would have made a good Louis Chama but Saxon just seems miscast.

Fortunately, Clint Eastwood is always a badass, even in an uneven film like this. Eastwood is at his best in the early scenes, when he’s grouchy and hungover and annoyed at finding himself in the jail. He is believably outraged by Harlan’s tactics and, in typical Eastwood fashion, he delivers every pithy one-liner with just enough style to keep things interesting. That said, Eastwood is let down by a script that never really makes it clear why Joe Kidd stays with the posse once it becomes clear that he’s traveling with a bunch of sociopaths. Joe’s motivations are never really clear. In the end, he seems like he goes through a lot of trouble to protect his farmland and get revenge for one of his ranch hands (who is just beaten up), just to then desert it all once all the shooting is over.

That said, Joe Kidd is a gorgeous film to look at and Joe makes creative use of a steam engine. This isn’t the film to show anyone who isn’t already an Eastwood fan. But, for those of us who are already fans of Clint, it’s enjoyable to watch him snarl, even if it is in a lesser film.

Film Review: Kelly’s Heroes (dir by Brian G. Hutton)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1970’s Kelly’s Heroes takes place in France during the Second World War. The American army is moving through the country, liberating it town-by-town. Private Kelly (Clint Eastwood) is a former lieutenant who was busted down in rank after leading a disastrous raid on the wrong hill. (It was the fault of the generals but Lt. Kelly was set up as a scapegoat.) When Kelly learns that the Germans are hiding a huge amount of gold in an occupied town, he gathers together a team of weary soldiers, misfits all, and plans to go AWOL to steal the gold for themselves.

Kelly’s Heroes was one of the big budget studio films that Eastwood made after finding stardom in Europe with Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti westerns. This is very much an ensemble film, in the vein of The Dirty Dozen. Indeed, Eastwood’s co-star, Telly Savalas, was in The Dirty Dozen. Here, Savalas plays Big Joe, the sergeant who isn’t sure that he wants to put his men in danger for gold that may or may not exist. Don Rickles plays Crapshoot who is …. well, imagine Don Rickles in the middle of World War II and you have a pretty good idea of who Crapshoot is. Stuart Margolin, Harry Dean Stanton, Perry Lopez, Gavin MacLeod shows up as soldiers. Carroll O’Connor plays the bombastic general who mistakes Kelly’s attempts to go AWOL for a brilliant tactical maneuver, Like all of the senior officers in this film, O’Connor’s general is a buffoon. Kelly’s Heroes was made during the Vietnam War and, much like Patton (released the same year), it attempts to appeal to both the establishment and the counterculture by making the heroes soldiers but their bosses jerks.

And that brings us to Donald Sutherland, who plays a tank commander named Oddball. You may not have know this but apparently, there were hippies in the 40s! Actually, I don’t think that’s true but there’s really no other way to describe Oddball than as a Hollywood hippie. He’s a blissed-out, spacey guy who thinks nothing of accidnetally driving his tank through a building. The films ask us to believe that the long-haired and bearded Oddball is a World War II tank commander and Sutherland is such a likable presence that it’s temping to just go with it. Oddball was obviously included to bring in “the kids” but he does generate some needed laughs. This is a very long movie and the comedic moments are appreciated.

Kelly’s Heroes is two-and-a-half hours long and it definitely could have been shorter. Director Brian Hutton allows some scenes to drag on for a bit too long and he sometimes struggles to balance the moments of comedy with the moments of violent drama (quite a few character dies) but he does get good performances from his ensemble. Eastwood’s taciturn acting style is nicely matched with Savalas’s more expressive style and it’s hard not smile at Don Rickles, insulting everyone as if they were guests at Joe Gallo’s birthday party. The film, at times, doesn’t seem to know if it wants to be a satire or a straight heist film but the cast keep things watchable. Eastwood even gets to show a few hints of the dry sense of humor that always hid behind the perpetually bad mood that often seemed to hang over him in his early films. Whatever flaws the film may have, it was a box office success. One year after this release of Kelly’s Heroes, Eastwood would make history as Dirty Harry.

Film Review: Two Mules For Sister Sara (dir by Don Seigel)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1970’s Two Mules For Sister Sara, Clint Eastwood and Shirley MacClaine take on the French!

It’s an often forgotten piece of history that, during the American Civil War, the French invaded Mexico and tried to turn it into a colony, one that was ruled by the hapless Archduke Maximillian. The French were then led by Napoleon III, a rather enigmatic figure who spent his entire reign trying to live up to his namesake (and failing). While the Americans would never have tolerated a French invasion of Mexico under normal circumstances, the Civil War provided enough of a distraction for Napoleon III to make his move in 1861. Of course, as soon as the Civil War ended, America turned its attention to getting the French out of Mexico and, by the end of 1867, Maximillian had been executed and Napoleon III had withdrawn his forces.

Two Mules For Sister Sara takes place shortly after the end of the American Civil War, when the latest Mexican Revolution was in full swing. Clint Eastwood plays Hogan, a former union officer who is now in Mexico working as a mercenary. He’s been hired to help the revolutionaries attack a French garrison, in return for being given half of whatever is found inside. Traveling through the desert, he comes across a group of bandits who are about to rape a woman named Sara (Shirley MacClaine). Hogan guns down the bandits and is then shocked when Sara dons a habit and introduces herself as a nun who has been helping the revolutionaries. She requests that Hogan travel with her and continue to protect her. Hogan is reluctant, saying that he doesn’t want to become Sara’s mule when she already has one. (That would be two mules for Sister Sara …. get it?) But since Sara is a nun and claims to have no idea how to defend herself in the wilderness, Hogan agrees. Sara and Hogan become unlikely allies as they get further and further involved in the Mexican Revolution.

Two Mules For Sister Sara owes a good deal to the Spaghetti westerns that were then coming out of Italy. (Eastwood, of course, owed much of his stardom to his appearances in Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy.) The Mexican Revolution was always a popular subject amongst the writers and directors of the Italian Spaghetti westerns. Of course, Two Mules For Sister Sara is lacking in the political subtext that appeared in many of the Italian films. Director Don Siegel may have been a liberal but, unlike many of his Italian contemporaries, he wasn’t a Marxist. Instead, Two Mules For Sister Sara shows its Spaghetti influence in its panoramic visuals, it’s somewhat cynical sense of humor, and the casting of Eastwood as a taciturn mercenary whose main concern is using the revolution to make some money. Eastwood plays a slightly more humorous version of his Man With No Name. Hogan may be a cynic who doesn’t speak unless it’s absolutely necessary but he also possesses a good enough heart that there’s no way he’s going to abandon Sister Sara to fend for herself. (The Man With No Name, on the other hand, would probably not have been so generous.) Of course, Sister Sara has a secret of her own….

Supposedly, Eastwood and MacClaine didn’t get along particularly well while making Two Mules For Sister Sara. (During preproduction, the film was envisioned as starring Eastwood and Elizabeth Taylor.) If there was hostility between the two leads, it worked in the film’s favor because both Eastwood and MacClaine do a good job of playing off of each other. MacClaine, at first, seems too contemporary for the role but, as the film progresses, she becomes more convincing. There’s a revelation towards the end of the film that reveals that many of the moments that made MacClaine seem miscast were actually deliberate. As for Eastwood, there’s a subtle humor running through his performance, as if he’s poking fun at his own tight-lipped persona. His performance here shows hints of the actor that he would become.

Two Mules For Sister Sara is an entertaining western, one that features Eastwood and Seigel celebrating and, at the same time, poking fun at the genre. A year after this film, Eastwood and Seigel would make film history with Dirty Harry.

So, I Watched Paint Your Wagon (1969, Dir. by Joshua Logan)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Dazzling Erin

Lisa Marie asked me to review Paint Your Wagon for Clint Eastwood’s birthday and, being a good sister, I agreed. I have to learn to stop doing that.

Paint Your Wagon is a musical western starring a bunch of people who have done a lot of westerns but who still have no business singing, at least not in a movie. If they want to sing in private, that’s fine. Ben Rumson (Lee Marvin) and “Pardner” (Clint Eastwood) discover gold in a muddy creek and soon, the incredibly ugly town of No Name City springs up. Because everyone in the town is a dude, everyone’s really lonely. Then a Mormon shows up with two wives and the miners convince him to sell his youngest wife, Elizabeth (Jean Seberg) to the highest bidder. Ben is always drunk but he still manages to buy Elizabeth. Elizabeth says that she’s not going to marry Ben unless he builds her a cabin and also lets her marry Pardner as well. Hello, polyamory. Eventually, a bull gets loose in the mines underneath No Name City and the entire town collapses but that’s okay because it was an ugly town and no one’s going to miss it. Ben sings about how he was born under a wandering star so that means he can’t stay very long in once place, even if he does have a polyamorous marriage to look forward to. Pardner sings that he likes to talk to the trees so he doesn’t need a town to live in.

My first thought on Paint Your Wagon is that it was really, really long. It had a two and a half hour running time but it felt more like five or six. My second thought is that movie looked really bad, like it was filmed through a mud filter. It wasn’t just the buildings in the town that looked bad. The entire movie looked dirty, oppressive, and depressing. I like my musicals to have more color to them. This movie looked like it needed an antibiotic. My third thought was that, for a musical, none of the songs made much of an impression. After the movie was over, I didn’t find myself humming any of them. I can’t even remember what most of them were about. Even if they had been better, Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood shouldn’t have been singing them. Lee Marvin’s singing voice sounded like whiskey being poured out over cement. Clint Eastwood’s voice was thin and he got stuck with all the sappy songs. I’ll take old and grumpy Clint Eastwood over singing and sappy Clint Eastwood any day. This was like watching a community theater production where you’re not supposed to care about how bad the performance is because you know everyone in the cast. Finally, I thought that there wasn’t enough wagon painting. The entire town was unpainted. It wasn’t just the wagon that was being neglected.

The funniest thing about this movie is that was advertised as being “the comedy goldmine of 69.” Nice.

I didn’t like Paint Your Wagon but don’t worry. I’ll be watching Trouble With The Curve later today. Now that one, I do like!

Hang ‘Em High (1968, directed by Ted Post)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

1889. The Oklahoma Territory. A former lawman-turned-cattleman named Jed Cooper (Clint Eastwood) is falsely accused of working with a cattle thief. A group of men, led by Captain Wilson (Ed Begley) lynch him and leave Cooper hanging at the end of a rope. Marshal Dave Bliss (Ben Johnson) saves Cooper, cutting him down and then taking him to the courthouse of Judge Adam Fenton (Pat Hingle). Fenton, a notorious hanging judge, is the law in the Oklahoma territory. Fenton makes Cooper a marshal, on the condition that he not seek violent revenge on those who lynched him but that he instead bring them to trial. Cooper agrees.

An American attempt to capture the style of the Italian spaghetti westerns that made Eastwood an international star, Hang ‘Em High gives Eastwood a chance to play a character who is not quite as cynical and certainly not as indestructible as The Man With No Name. Cooper starts the film nearly getting lynched and later, he’s shot and is slowly nursed back to health by a widow (Inger Stevens). Cooper is not a mythical figure like The Man With No Name. He’s an ordinary man who gets a lesson in frontier justice as he discovers that, until Oklahoma becomes a state, Judge Fenton feels that he has no choice but to hang nearly every man convicted of a crime. (Judge Fenton was based on the real-life hanging judge, Isaac Parker.) Over the course of this episodic film, Cooper becomes disgusted with frontier justice.

Hang ‘Em High is a little on the long side but it’s still a good revisionist western, featuring a fine leading performance from Clint Eastwood and an excellent supporting turn from Pat Hingle. The film’s episodic structure allows for Eastwood to interact with a motley crew of memorable character actors, including Bruce Dern, Dennis Hopper, L.Q. Jones, Alan Hale (yes, the Skipper), and Bob Steele. Hang ‘Em High has a rough-hewn authenticity to it, with every scene in Fenton’s courtroom featuring the sound of the gallows in the background, a reminder that justice in the west was often not tempered with mercy.

Historically, Hang ‘Em High is important as both the first film to be produced by Eastwood’s production company, Malpaso, and also the first to feature Eastwood acting opposite his soon-to-be frequent co-star, Pat Hingle. Ted Post would go on to direct Magnum Force.

The Adventures of the Man With No Name: A Fistful Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

Originally, Sergio Leone envisioned none other than Henry Fond as The Man With No Name.

The year was 1964 and Sergio Leone was searching for the right actor to star in the movie that would become A Fistful Of Dollars. The film, which reimagined Akira Kurosawas’s Yojimbo as a western, centered around a mysterious, amoral gunslinger whose name was unknown. Leone needed an American or a British name to star in the film so that it could get distribution outside of Italy. Leone had grown up watching Henry Fonda movies, all dubbed into Italian. He later said he wanted to cast Fonda because he always wondered what Fonda’s voice actually sounded like.

After realizing that a major Hollywood star would never agree to star in a low-budget Italian western, Leone then offered the role to Charles Bronson. Bronson read the script and said it didn’t make sense to him. Leone went on to offer the role to Henry Silva, Rory Calhoun, Tony Russel, Steve Reeves, Ty Hardin, and James Coburn. Everyone was either too expensive or just not interested. Finally, it was actor Richard Harrison who, after tuning down the part himself, suggested that Leone offer the role to Clint Eastwood. Eastwood, then starring on the American western Rawhide, could play a convincing cowboy. Leone followed Harrison’s advice and Eastwood, eager to break free of his nice guy typecasting and hoping to restart his film career, accepted. The rest is history.

Eastwood would only play The Man With No Name in three films but, in doing so, he changed the movies and the popular conception of the action hero forever.

All three of the Man With No Name movies have been reviewed on this site. But, since today is Clint’s birthday, I thought I’d take a look at how these classic films are holding up, over 60 years since the Man With No Name made his first appearance.

A Fistful Of Dollars (1964)

Having now seen both this film and Yojimbo, it’s remarkable how closely A Fistful of Dollars sticks to Kurosawa’s original film. Interestingly, it’s clear that Eastwood patterned his performance of Toshiro Mifune’s in Yojimbo and yet, at the same time, he still managed to make the role his own. The Man With No Name rides into a western town, discovers that there are two groups fighting for control of the area, and he coolly plays everyone against each other. Whether it’s planting the seeds of distrust, exploiting an enemy’s greed, or being the quickest on the draw, the Man With No Name instinctively knows everything that he has to do. Even when he’s getting beaten up by the bad guys, The Man With No Name always seems to be one step ahead. Today, a western in which everyone is greedy and looking out for themselves isn’t going to take anyone by surprise. But if you’ve watched enough westerns from the 40s and 50s, you’ll understand how unique of a viewpoint Leone brought to the genre. Eastwood’s amoral gunslinger was such a surprise that, when the film aired on television, a scene was shot by the network in which Harry Dean Stanton played a prison warden who released The Man With No Name (seen only from behind) on the condition that he clean up the town.

For A Few Dollars More (1965)

For A Few Dollars More finds The Man With No Name working as a bounty hunter and teaming up with Colonel Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) to take down El Indio (Gian Maria Volonte) and his gang (including Klaus Kinski as a hunchback.) This is my least favorite of the trilogy but that doesn’t mean that For A Few Dollars More is a bad film. Being the least of three masterpieces is nothing to be ashamed of. Eastwood and Van Cleef were two of the best and it’s interesting to see them working together. El Indo is a truly loathsome villain and the members of his gang are all memorably horrid. If it’s my least favorite, it’s just because I prefer the wit of A Fistful of Dollars and the epic storytelling of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Speaking of which…

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)

This is it. The greatest western ever made, an epic film that features Leone’s best direction, Ennio Morricone’s greatest score, and brilliant performances from Eastwood, Van Cleef, and especially Eli Wallach. It’s hard to know where to start when it comes to praising The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It’s a nearly three-hour film that doesn’t have a single slow spot and it has some of the most iconic gunfights ever filmed. Leone truly found his aesthetic voice in this film and that it still works, after countless parodies, is evidence of how great it is. I appreciate that this film added a historical context to the adventures of The Man With No Name. (Personally, I think this film is meant to be a prequel to A Fistful of Dollars, just because The Man With No Name is considerably kinder in this film than he was in the first two movies. The Man With No Name that we meet in A Fistful of Dollars would never have gotten Tuco off that tombstone.) The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly takes place during the Civil War and, along with everything else, it’s an epic war film. While America fights to determine its future, three men search for gold. The cemetery scene will never be topped.

American critics did not initially appreciate these films but audiences did. Clint Eastwood may have been a television actor when he left for Italy but he returned as an international star. And, to think, it all started with Sergio Leone not being able to afford Henry Fonda.

RAWHIDE (TV Series) – starring Clint Eastwood – S8, E10: “Duel at Daybreak” (Guest star – Charles Bronson)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Bradley Crain

This episode of the classic western TV series RAWHIDE opens as Rowdy Yates (Clint Eastwood) and his group of drovers agree to drive 750 head of cattle belonging to rancher Mason Woodruff (Larry Gates) to market. The deal gets off to a bad start when Roman Bedford (Brendon Boone), who’s part of Yates’ outfit, finds himself trying to romance Vicki Woodruff (Jill Haworth), the daughter of the ranch owner. Woodruff’s foreman and world class A-hole, Del Lingman (Charles Bronson) sees Roman making his move and gets pissed. You see, Del wants Vicki for himself, so he tries to bully Roman into a gunfight. Luckily for young Roman, Rowdy and Mason Woodruff are able to momentarily diffuse the situation before the cowboy can be blown away by the experienced gunman. Unable to accept the humiliation that he suffered at the hands of Del, Roman challenges him to a duel to settle the score. Roman is a good shot, but he’s not a fast draw, so a couple of the men with Yates’ crew, Jed Colby (John Ireland) and Simon Blake (Raymond St. Jacques), try to teach him some tricks that just may give him a chance against Del’s superior gunplay. To complicate matters even further, Mason Woodruff has a hidden criminal past that Roman may know about. Because of this, the rancher has another reason to want Roman dead, and Del Lingman is just the man to take care of the problem. Who will survive the duel at daybreak?!!

As hard as it is to believe, my viewing of “Duel at Daybreak” is the only episode of RAWHIDE that I’ve ever watched, and it’s special to me for two reasons. First, the episode premiered on my mom’s 14th birthday, November 16, 1965. And second, it’s the only time that tough guy icons Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson would appear on screen together. For historical reference, this was the last season of RAWHIDE, with only three episodes of the classic series to come after this. Eastwood was at the beginning of his legendary movie career after filming FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964) and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE (1965) for director Sergio Leone. Bronson, who was already a well-respected character actor, was two years away from making THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967) and three years away from breaking out as an international superstar by playing Harmonica in Leone’s masterpiece, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968).

For the episode itself, Charles Bronson is the true standout as Del Lingman. He’s the kind of mean SOB who would goad a man into a gunfight, kill him, and then sit down for dinner without a care in the world. Bronson has a face that makes for a good villain, and he often played the bad guy in his early TV shows and movies. He projects real menace and danger in this role. Clint Eastwood’s Rowdy Yates may be the star of the show and the trail boss, but he’s a bit more of a secondary character in this specific episode as the main tension is between Bronson and the young cowboy played by Brendon Boone. Looking back now, it’s an incredible missed opportunity that the “duel at daybreak” wouldn’t feature Eastwood versus Bronson. Eastwood mostly tries, and fails, to play peacemaker in the episode. The two legends do exchange a potentially badass back and forth when Eastwood is trying to deescalate the situation and keep Bronson from shooting the young cowboy over a little mud on his pants:

Rowdy Yates: “Putting a high price on a pair of pants, ain’t you?”

Del Lingman: “Perhaps you’d like to pay for them.”

Rowdy Yates: “Any time, mister.”

It’s a good scene, but it’s just a shame that they didn’t get a chance to mix it up at the end.

As Charles Bronson’s biggest fan, I enjoyed seeing a couple of actors who worked with him in the 80’s. John Ireland, who plays Jed Colby in this episode, co-starred with Bronson in MESSENGER OF DEATH (1988) as Morman patriarch Zenus Beechum. It’s not one of Bronson’s best, but one of the highlights of the film is its strong cast. Ireland has roles in so many great films, including MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946), RED RIVER (1948), GUNFIGHT AT THE O.K. CORRAL (1957) and FAREWELL MY LOVELY (1975). He would appear in 11 episodes of RAWHIDE. Raymond St. Jacques, who plays Simon Baker in this episode, has a very memorable role in Bronson’s disturbing hitman thriller THE EVIL THAT MEN DO (1984). In a unique twist in the Bronson filmography, Jacques’ bodyguard character Randolph gets duped into thinking he’s about to get some three-way action with Bronson and Theresa Saldana only to end up dead with a knife sticking out of his throat. It’s a memorable meet and kill. I noticed he played a character named “Coffin” Ed Johnson in COTTON COMES TO HARLEM (1970). With a name like that, he’s got to be good! He would appear in 13 episodes of RAWHIDE.

Overall, “Duel at Daybreak” is a special episode of RAWHIDE since it put Eastwood and Bronson on screen together for the only time in their careers. I wish they could have fought with fists or guns, but it wasn’t meant to be. Beggars can’t be choosers, and at this point, I’ll gladly take what we got.

Artwork of the Day: Clint Eastwood (by Allen Glass)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Dazzling Erin

Painting by Allen Glass

Happy birthday, Clint Eastwood!

Film Review: Francis In The Navy (dir by Arthur Lubin)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1955’s Francis In The Navy, Donald O’Connor plays Lt. Peter Sterling, an officer in the U.S. Army who gets word that his best friend, a talking mule named Francis (voice of Chill Wills), is about to be auctioned off by the U.S. Navy. Sterling rushes to the Naval base but, along the way, his wallet gets stolen, he gets mistaken for an AWOL soldier, and Francis gets sold to a laboratory.

Hold on, I’m re-reading that last paragraph to make sure that I didn’t hallucinating typing all that…

Peter argues that he’s not the AWOL soldier, he’s just someone who looks just like him. Peter gets tossed into the psychiatric ward. Francis advices Peter …. yes, the mule that can talk gives Peter advice on how to get out of the mental ward …. to pretend to be the AWOL sailor. Unfortunately, the sailor is a champion boxer so that means Peter will have to enter the ring. Peter, needless to say, is not a boxer. Peter also falls for a nurse (Martha Hyer) but — uh oh! — she’s the sister of the AWOL soldier. Well, that’s kind of awkward. I don’t have a brother but if I did, I doubt I would ever want to make out with anyone who looked like him. Like seriously….

Hold on, I’m re-reading that last paragraph to see if there’s anything that I need to add.

Like, seriously, what the Hell? This movie has a talking mule, an oddly incestuous subtext, and Donald O’Connor playing two roles. Doing some research, I discovered that this was the sixth film to deal with the adventures of Peter Sterling and Francis. This was the last one of them to star Donald O’Connor, who apparently resented getting upstaged by a mule. There was one more Francis movie after this one and it starred Mickey Rooney. It was called Francis In The Haunted House so who knows? Maybe I’ll review it for our October horrorthon. (Don’t count on it.)

As weird as this film is, it’s kind of likable. Donald O’Connor is a favorite of mine and this one featured O’Connor in two roles, as both the hapless Peter and also the sailor who goes AWOL and repeatedly refuses to help Peter out. And, while I’m not really sure why he’s talking, Francis was actually cute. I enjoyed the boxing scene where he attempted to help Peter out. Unfortunately, there’s only so much a mule can do.

As for why I’m reviewing this movie, it’s because Clint Eastwood is in the cast. He plays Jonesy, a friend of the AWOL sailor who becomes a friend of Peter’s. Now, to be clear, Clint doesn’t do a lot in the movie. He works Peter’s corner during the boxing match. Otherwise, he spends most of the time in the background and he has a few scenes where he hangs out with the rest of the AWOL sailor’s friends. That said, Clint does make an impression. Even in this very early role, he had an impressive screen presence. He’s the tallest guy there and he’s got the best hair. Once you spot him in a scene, it’s hard to look away.

Francis In The Navy is historically significant because it’s the first film for which Clint Eastwood received on-screen credit. (Eastwood previously appeared in films like Revenge of the Creature and Tarantula but his name wasn’t included in the credits.) It’s an odd film, one that’s likable if you’re in an undemanding mood and you enjoy goof — extremely goofy — humor. It would be forgotten if not for Eastwood’s appearance. Seen today, this film, like Eastwood’s other early appearances, reminds us that everyone started somewhere.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Clint Eastwood Edition

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Clint Eastwood in Revenge of the Creature (1955)

4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today is Clint Eastwood’s 95th birthday!

Though Clint famously had to go to Italy to really get his film career going, he’s gone on to become an icon of American film. While his early films were often criticized as glorifying violence and of being reactionary, his later films have — more often than not — been meditations on aging, moral ambiguity, and what a lifetime of violence does to a person’s soul. He’s a filmmaker whose legacy will be rediscovered and probably appreciated in the future.

Here are….

4 Shots From 4 Clint Eastwood Films

For A Few Dollars More (1965, dir by Sergio Leone)