Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

mark.waltz In casting the very American Paul Newman as a drunken Mexican rapist, director Martin Ritt risked controversy, protest and career suicide. But this portrayal of an ugly soul performing a vile act comes off as art, almost an Ingmar Bergman film in its theme, gripping and emotional, as it dramatizes the different versions of Newman's inhumane violation. Laurence Harvey and Claire Bloom are his victims, Harvey tied to a tree and forced to watch wife Bloom being subjugated to the worst offense a woman can be victim of. Three storytellers, preacher William Shatner, lawman Howard da Silva and bum Edward G. Robinson, give accounts how Newman ended up tried for Harvey's murder, all completely different and all equally compelling.A super cast delivers the goods in this drama of human degradation, the insight into what remains of a supposedly evil man's soul, and the question of what is the truth when something like this is brought to court for justice. Newman gets no sympathy in any of the many versions of what happened, but if there is a shred of decency in him, it's up to the individual viewer to decide. He is amazing, showing the many facets of a type of character often assumed to be scum even without proof. Bloom allows her character's inner death to be exposed, especially when she looks on Harvey glaring at her in disgust after her rape. Harvey pretty much can only act with his eyes, and he does so convincingly. As the three storytellers with their own recollections of what happened, Shatner, Robinson and da Silva give mesmerizing portrayals. Certain scenes remind me of Bergman's masterpiece, "The Seventh Seal", especially the scene with a native American chanting and Bloom's imagined desire for suicide over a huge cliff with rushing water below.

classicsoncall Without knowing it before hand, as soon as the movie started I had a definite feeling that this was a remake of the 1950 Kurosawa film "Rashomon". I thought the opening scene was great, almost like a horror movie in some respects with the sinister storm and dark atmosphere. Within moments characters portrayed by William Shatner, Howard da Silva and Edward G. Robinson appear on screen, whetting my appetite for an effectively offbeat story. Robinson's character is described as the 'Con Man' and probably has the best dialog in the picture when he's challenging what passes for status quo thinking in the Old West of the 1870's.I had to go back and read my own review of the "Rashomon" picture because I knew there was something that bothered me about it when I first saw it. Kurosawa's pacing is sometimes too laborious for me, though it surprised me that this treatment was actually a few minutes longer. And for anyone who thinks Paul Newman's performance as the bandit Carracas is over the top, you'll really have to see Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune. His characterization of the bandit Tajomaru is so manic it makes Newman's role look tame by comparison.In most other respects, the story is almost exactly the same, with the three principals involved in the murder of a Southern gentleman and the rape of his wife all telling a different story. Told in a flashback style among the characters who opened the picture, one is constantly left questioning which of the narratives is valid, and whether the people involved have a spark of dignity or honor among them. This carries right through to the finale when the old prospector (Da Silva) is hauled up short by the Con Man for being as disreputable as the ones who testified at the trial of Carracas.I guess if one has the means to do so, you might try watching both films one after the other. When I first watched "Rashomon" I had to rewind some scenes for clarification as the characters seemed more esoteric and difficult to follow. I didn't have the same reaction to "The Outrage", but that could be because I already knew the basic story. I also have a preference for Westerns, so that's part of the equation as well. Both pictures merit the same rating by my count, though for it's more familiar players, I prefer this Martin Ritt directed version.

dglink Although director Martin Ritt and actor Paul Newman had collaborated successfully on "Hud," "Hombre," and several earlier films, their ill-advised remake of Kurosawa's classic, "Rashomon," misfired. Michael Kanin's screenplay retained the outline of the Japanese film, but moved the locale to the American Old West. Three men at a deserted railroad station discuss a recent incident between a Mexican outlaw and a genteel Southern couple, while they await a late-arriving train. A rape and a death had occurred, but the facts differ vastly among the four versions told by the participants and an observer.Ritt assembled a stellar cast that included not only Newman, but Claire Bloom, Laurence Harvey, Edward G. Robinson, William Shatner, Howard Da Silva, and Paul Fix. Unfortunately, only Robinson excels as a con man waiting with Shatner and Da Silva for the train. A hammy Newman overplays the outlaw, Carrasco, with a thick Frito-Bandito accent in a role better suited for Anthony Quinn. Claire Bloom, whose perfect make-up never fails her in the desert heat, gives a stagy performance as though auditioning for the part of Blanche DuBois. Harvey and Shatner are, well, Harvey and Shatner, wooden. Shatner in particular, plays the preacher, who intones every line as though imparting Great Words of Wisdom from on high. Aided in no small part by Shatner, "The Outrage" plods along sluggishly and makes the relatively short running time seem endless.The film's greatest asset is James Wong Howe's elegant Oscar-worthy black-and-white cinematography. Howe's carefully composed shots of landscapes, textures, and faces are worthy of being framed and hung alongside the work of great Western photographers. However, beyond the cinematography, a spare score by Alex North, and Robinson's lively performance, "The Outrage" is slow ponderous going. Die-hard Newman fans will want to make a campy double feature of this with "The Silver Chalice," but serious students of Kurosawa best return to the original masterpiece.

LeonLouisRicci Talky, Claustrophobic, Message Western, a Who-Done-It that is a Remake of a Kurosawa Film from 1950 (Rashomon). If you haven't seen it, don't Fret, only Film School Geeks and Residents of Japan have had the Pleasure. It is said that it is one of the All-Time Greats.That will Never be said of this one. An Intellectual's Movie that is Thoughtful, but Plodding, and by the time the Same Story is told for the Fourth Time, you may want some Relief. You get it here by turning a Rape/Murder Story into Something of a Slapstick Ending.Another Thing much Talked About, from those who Talk About such Things, is the Debatable Miscasting of Paul Newman as a Bandido. An Argument could be made either way. This is just too Stagy to Matter that much and there is Dialog and more Dialog and still more Dialog, all essentially telling the same Thing from a Different Perspective. That's the Whole Point of the Movie. In case you didn't Get It the first two Times the Scenario is Replayed.The Film has a Dark and Brooding look and the Actors all turn things Up a Notch, and some say Newman turns it up more than one. Overall it is Certainly Off-Beat, and Finely Made, but has a few Missteps that Add to the Delirium and at Times the Movie moves with too much Weight and Drags. Interesting, to say the Least, but Occasionally Boring and the Ending is a Letdown, although it does have a Baby(?).