It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Another Clint Eastwood western and another outing that offers a rather good time. This 1968 western is nowhere near classics like Leone's Dollars trilogy, but it's nevertheless a well-made, well-acted picture. The film starts off confusing, lacking much in terms of depth, but once it progresses it's much better with some terrific sequences involving one where Eastwood walks into a bar and finds one of the men who tried to wrongly hang him, and the brilliance within that scene is most exciting. There's some solid dialogue, impressive direction from Ted Post and some good writing, as well as nice cinematography. The picture also has some really good performances; Eastwood is terrific as usual as Jed Cooper, Pat Hingle is a strong presence as no nonsense judge Fenton and Ed Begley is an impressive villain, playing Captain Wilson. One performance that doesn't work is Inger Stevens who play's Rachael Warren, a weird, expressionless woman who consistently stairs at all the men who are to be put to death, and she simply wasn't very compelling, and rather unnecessary here.There are parts that are a bit harsh, showing detailed hangings, lingering on the moment too much, some of these men didn't even murder or rape anyone, so seeing them go on and on with one of these scenes was a mistake, and during that scene there was a lecture about God from one of the doomed men, who annoyed the hell out of me, I was anticipating someone to shut him up already. After that the picture gets back on track yet again with some really good, slow building sequences, one in the dead of night and one somewhere before that. I also enjoyed the chemistry between Hingle and Eastwood, there scenes together was very entertaining, where they disagree with one another and even something simple as a discussion radiates the screen. However the film has a lame love story that thankfully doesn't last long between Jed and Rachael, because it was slow, boring and took me away from the main storyline, it's another five or ten minutes that could have been changed. Overall though Hang Em High may have its flaws, but it showcases two great performances from Eastwood and Hingle, Solid direction from Ted Post and some truly exciting moments that fans of the genre will surely enjoy.

This is a movie that has a cool concept, has some good scenes, but overall isn't the movie it should have been. I wanted a good revenge film, but it was muddled down with things that do nothing but slow it down.The movie gets into the action right off the bat. We meet Eastwoods character and he is immediately accused of being a cattle rustler and hung. But he survives, and he wants revenge. Sadly, a lot of the revenge is sidetracked by scenes that just make the film boring. First off, we have a lot of scenes in the beginning involving this wagon of prisoners that just seems too long. Then we have a bunch of scenes involving a trial of two cattle rustlers that were accused of murder. We also have a romance thrown in later in the third act. None of these things feel necessary. I thought maybe the movie was going somewhere with the whole corrupt law kind of idea, but it brings it up and doesn't give us much more. The movie could have cut these scenes and it wouldn't have suffered.Clint Eastwoods performance is very... Clint Eastwood-ish. Lot's of staring and furrowed brows. It's really nothing special here. It works, but it doesn't give us anything too memorable. The other actors get the job done, but also don't really give us a lot to remember or love.Some people might enjoy this movie, and thats okay, but I personally wouldn't say it's an amazing western. Obviously fans of the genre would want to check it out, but other than that, it just doesn't leave you with a lasting impression aside from a few interesting scenes.

This western opens with a man being lynched for cattle rustling… the lynch mob made two mistakes; the man was innocent and he did not die. The man in ex-lawman Jed Cooper; he is determined that his would be killers pay for their crime so accepts Judge Fenton's offer to become a marshal. Fenton wants the men brought back alive but inevitably they aren't keen to be brought to justice which would mean ending up at a public hanging. As a law man he can't only worry about his own personal justice; he must bring in other criminals; some he thinks shouldn't hang… but hang they do. Inevitable once the members of the lynch mob realise the mistake they made they know that if they are to avoid hanging they must either run or kill Marshal Cooper.While 'Hang 'Em High' isn't one of Clint Eastwood's best known westerns it is still well worth watching; especially if you are a fan of Eastwood or westerns in general. Revenge is a common theme in westerns but here it is portrayed in a slightly different way as Eastwood tries to bring his attackers to court. We also see just how unpleasant judicial executions were as the townsfolk all turn out to watch the convicts die. Another surprise is the ending; the story finish before all the loose ends are tied up; most notably that involving a woman who insists on seeing every prisoner in the hope of finding the men who killed her husband and raped her. The acting is solid; Eastwood is as good as always as Marshal Cooper, Pat Hingle is good as Judge Fenton and Inger Stevens is charming as love interest and wronged woman Rachel Warren. Also of interest is a brief appearance by Dennis Hopper as a typically raving character early in the film.

It was in the mid-90s when I first saw Hang 'Em High. I was new to Eastwood's westerns, having just seen the Leone films for the first time. All I knew of this one was a scene that I had seen in television commercials, where Clint says the movie's most famous line "When you hang a man you better look at him." So needless to say I was excited. The movie starts off well enough as innocent Eastwood is lynched by a group of men for cattle rustling, only he survives. From here you have a plot that Anthony Mann or Sergio Leone would have made into a masterpiece.Instead, what you get is a slow meandering film that fixates on and preaches about law & order, the dangers of vigilantism, etc. These kinds of plots were commonplace in virtually every western TV show from the 1950s and 60s. Hang 'Em High offers nothing new to a discussion that was already old by the time the film came out. Although I came into the movie predisposed to root for Clint, after awhile his character's lack of motivation at wanting revenge made me wish the lynch mob had done a better job and spared us an unfulfilling two hours.Like I said I first saw it in the 90s and was disappointed. I just recently rewatched it for the first time since then, hoping to see it with fresh eyes and enjoy it more. But I found myself feeling the same sense of disappointment and boredom I did all those years ago. As a western drama it's watchable and competently put together. As a western action revenge movie it's weak and should be avoided.