LilsZoo2015 Slow, moody, harsh, honest, beautiful, brilliant. I wanted to stop at these words, but the guidelines insist on being a bit more verbose which I personally feel will take away from the original drama meant by my first lines. But to satisfy the "rules" I go on. I think our man Pete here did a bang up job directing this period piece of a time in American history when we lived close to the land and even closer to people we bond to, (wives vs. best buds). Enuf said!

Wizard-8 The early 1970s certainly were a time when Hollywood took some big chances, and "The Hired Hand" is one example of this. While westerns before it had been fast-paced and action-packed, that is not the case with this movie. It is quite slow at times; for example, it takes more than a third of the movie before Fonda's character first arrives at his wife and daughter's home. But while the movie is slow, it is very captivating all the same. The cinematography is beautiful; shot after shot looks gorgeous. And you can feel the run- down and primitive environment these characters are living in. There is also some good acting, primarily Oates and Bloom. Fonda is only adequate, though that may be that being also in the director's chair, he had to concentrate more on that instead of his performance. Another flaw is that I don't think there are enough scenes between Fonda and Bloom to explain how their relationship is rekindled after so many years of being apart. But the good stuff manages to outweigh the flaws, in my opinion. As for you, dear reader, I don't know for sure what you would think of the movie. If you like westerns and are in a patient mood, the odds are better that you'll like this sleeper of a movie.

FightingWesterner This downbeat, salt-of-the-earth western drama is a meditation on forgiveness and the meaning of friendship, as well as a great showcase for Fonda (who makes his directorial debut), Warren Oates, Verna Bloom, and Vilmos Zsigmond, whose impressive cinematography is almost the fourth star of the movie.Fonda's character is an interesting one. His inability to express himself forces the viewer to learn about his character almost solely through his reactions to the people around him.One complaint though, is that I wish that the character's relationship with his daughter was fleshed out a bit more. As it stand, their interaction was a little superficial. There should have been a scene where he really tries to talk to her.Warren Oates was an excellent actor and always a joy to watch, especially in a western picture. For another western in the same art-house vein, I'd also recommend 1967's The Shooting, where Oates stars alongside Fonda's old pal Jack Nicholson.

jeremy3 I can't give this a 10, like all the other reviewers I see have. However, this was a very strong film. The filming was breathtaking. There were just beautiful scenes of the West. I also liked the towns. The "evil" town was miserably poor and dull. That is authentic. The ranch where his wife and daughter lived was in the boring, dull prairie (which most of the "Old West" really was) with gossipy, private townies.I also liked the idea of three males, one middle aged (Oates), one in his thirties (Fonda), and a little known actor playing the youthful man named Dan . The youthful man is naive. He goes up to some local toughs and acts overly friendly. He pays the price of his life for this naiveté. Fonda's character is the wise and shy, not so young man. Warren Oates' drifter is the older warrior, who knows his position and place.Life is hard, and life is rough. There is no friendliness in this film, other than the little girl. The man's rapprochement towards his estranged life is very beautiful and complicated. She has grown cynical, and he has grown weary. He doesn't even know really why he returned home, other than weariness.The parts that are weak are the beginning. What is this little girl floating in the rapids? Is she a doll or a dead girl? Why do they let her float downstream? Does this represent no innocence in the West? Secondly, what does the shooting of the two men at the home where Dan's horse is have to do with the relevance of the plot? Is it showing how brutal these two drifters have become even if they feel they are justly in retribution for the death of Dan? Does the shooting of the man's feet represent the crucification of Christ? Am I reading too much into this? Does this shooting of these two men represent the sin of man, and therefore they have to be repaid later for all their sins in life? This movie was very good. I like that Verna Bloom is a worn woman of the prairie, who is just tired of being alone. Maybe, it is her selfishness in wanting to keep her husband at home when he has to return to rescue his friend from the kidnappers that has to be repaid with his loss of life. Warren Oates has always been one of my favorite non-leading actors (except for in Dillinger). He is very real as someone who is a drifter, who has accepted his path and fate. He is a good complement to the younger man who has become too sober and too serious about everything. The flaws in the movie I have highlighted. I wish there was a little bit more obvious cues from the filmmakers to show what direction the symbolism was going, so the viewer could be more clear about what the message of the film was. In closing, I especially liked the ending, when Fonda's character says something like "I knew there was something wrong with going back to this town". It was as if the town revisited was an omen all along, representing the very sins of the life he was trying to leave behind.