Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-480P

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-360P

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-720P

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-480P

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-360P

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-720P

Paul Newman & Robert Redford play Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid in director George Roy Hill's take on the historical pair of western outlaws who amiably(!) rob banks and trains with their hole-in-the-wall-gang, who soon find themselves wanted men who must flee across the west, taking refuge where they can, and especially with their lady friend Etta Place(Katherine Ross) before they make that fateful trip to Bolivia... Though Paul Newman & Robert Redford are undeniably appealing as the title characters, and the hit song, "Raindrops keep falling on my head" is wonderful, film itself is far too protracted and tedious to succeed; it just didn't hold my interest, though both "Unsolved Mysteries" & "In Search Of..." did excellent jobs focusing on Butch, and whether or not he survived that Bolivian gunfight(no word on Sundance). I'd much rather watch those accounts than this film...

Comedic western based on actual people--Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). They were outlaws in 1880s and robbed banks. The plot of the movie (what little there is of it) has them robbing banks, joking with each other nonstop, riding from the police, robbing banks, joking with each other etc etc etc. It's basically the same thing over and over. Newman and Redford work well with each other. They toss off one-liners (some that are quite funny) with ease in a care-free, easy-going manner. The problem is that's all their characters are--walking talking joke machines. No complexity or depth is ever shown. Poor Katharine Ross (who can be very good) is also shamefully wasted as Redford's girlfriend. Even worse Redford is terrible as the Kid--blank-faced throughout. Slow-moving and too long also and it turns needlessly violent at the end. There's also a near-rape in the film that's treated as a joke! The movie has some good points--it starts out in sepia (a nice touch) and doesn't turn into color until about 10 minutes in; the bicycle sequence with Newman and Ross with the song "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" (an Oscar winner) playing; Newman is very good in his role and the lines are funny. But everything else is pretty bad. How this was a such a big hit is beyond me. A 4 all the way.

This movie is one big disappointment. Although there are a few interesting cinematographic effects such as the metaphoric color change at the beginning from sepia to technicolor, the movie lacks everything I look for in a fine film. It has no discernible plot, the music is atrocious and doesn't fit in with what little emotional content the film has to offer, the actors don't fit into the roles at all, etc. I gave it a 4.

I waited so long to see this...why? I don't know. I was expecting lots of laughs, some good old fashioned gun fights in saloons, real western stuff. However what I got a a boring, lame-ass, put me to sleep movie, nothing really worth viewing or waiting to view. Aside of some decent camera shots and settings, and the nice stunt work from jumping off a cliff into some rapids...the rest is just a waste. What I don't understand is...these 2 guys robs banks and trains and payroll...they have a ton of cash to spend, but they decide to flee the country with all their wealth and do nothing with it. They eat lavish and wear very nice attire and can live very well of with what they have in finance, but they don't. What kind of stupidity is that? Say that you've robbed a whack of banks...gathered up around $500 000 in todays currency and fled the country to another country where your money will make you uber wealthy... Why even bother to continue to rob and steal? Buy a house, live by the beach, go fishing...whatever... They had the money to go on a train and on a ship across the ocean and to start all over, fresh...but they totally wasted this opportunity. And back then, it was much easier in terms of getting away with crime So the overall story sucked. Even written in the late 60's, this made for a a really boring movie. After viewing Bonnie & Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sudance Kid within 2 weeks of each other, I realize that back in the late 60's...making quality films was close to non-existent. All one has to do is have some lame action for about 2 hours and the characters have to travel across the country - as in soooooo many movies that were made in the 60's and 70's. Assuming that these were really great scripts - which they are not, I would have hated to read the one which the studios passed on. I guess if somebody was able to type 130 pages or so script on a type writer without too many errors, then it would be made into a screenplay. I have seen too many movies where the stories were just time wasters - and they were made in the 60's. Aside from some Clint Eastwood flicks, the rest are just super boring. No real western that emerged from the 60's or 70's had any real plot. Catherine Ross's character was a waste - as were most of the actors in this title. Am I impressed? No. Is it Oscar material? No. Is it to stand the test of time? No Is it a remedy for putting somebody to sleep fast after a long day of work or insomnia? YES! For a movie that I always wanted to see...this sucked. Another Hollywood let down. I am slowly realizing that I don't care to see cinema from generations PRE 1980. If this is quality story telling, then I would rather look at *...it has as much depth, but is more visually stimulating.