Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

gsygsy Steve McQueen's credentials as an action man are not in doubt, but he's under-rated as an actor. If you're unfamiliar with the quality of his work, this movie is an excellent place to start. He gives one of his very best performances as Tom Horn, personification of the Old West with all its strengths, flaws and contradictions. He's well supported by Richard Farnsworth, Billy Green Bush, Linda Evans and Slim Pickens.The screenplay is somehow awry. Linda Evans' character articulates a moral judgement about Tom Horn that seems to come out of nowhere. This is because her world-view is not sufficiently set out by the script. Things like this litter the film, weakening its impact. Similarly, shots of poetic sunrises and sunsets are thrown in without any sense of appropriateness: they just seem arbitrary. And the estimable Ernest Gold was not a good choice to compose the score: his symphonic approach is, to no good purpose, at odds with the acting style. The director, William Wiard, was an experienced TV hand who feels out of his depth handling the bigger picture, although individual scenes are controlled pretty well.All in all, McQueen is the reason to see this movie, although its fundamental theme - the duplicity of vested interests - is unfortunately as current as ever

TOMASBBloodhound Tom Horn is one of the last pictures ever made by Steve McQueen. It is unfortunate that it fails to completely engage the audience or sustain any real drama. McQueen looks frail and doesn't bring much life to the title character. The writing is amateurish, the direction pedestrian, and there isn't a lot of action. There were apparently five different directors used, and that is a shame. The fellow they finally decided on appears to have spent much of his career in television, and you can tell by the way he fades out like they're going to a commercial after some scenes. McQueen's ego is listed as the reason for the project going through so many directors. I'd love to have seen what Eastwood could do with a story like this....Tom Horn is largely based on true events. Horn is a famous Indian scout and interpreter who has built up a very worthy reputation by the early 1900s. The West by then had toned itself down quite a bit, and a man like Horn who shoots first and asks questions later finds himself on the wrong end of the law by the end of the first hour. Horn has been hired by ranchers to stop cattle rustling which has really been a problem in the part of Wyoming depicted in this film. Horn blows away several rustlers, and is soon framed for shooting a fifteen year old boy in cold blood by local politicians who want his brand of justice outlawed. Horn is facing the death penalty with what appears to be flimsy evidence against him. We quickly learn however, that Horn has no intention of lowering himself to the point of defending his name in the ludicrous show trial devised by power-hungry local officials. When asked to refute the evidence in court, Horn simply looks off to the mountains on the horizon and answers the questions in maddeningly vague terms. The long trip to the gallows in the last half hour of this film is as frustrating for the viewer as the dopey romantic subplot told to us in flashbacks.Horn's motivations for seemingly laying down and allowing this miscarriage of justice to happen are not all that compelling. If he is willing to risk his life in an escape attempt (which he does try), then why won't he try harder to clear his name in court??? What is his fascination with the handful of tiny Indian charms he holds in his hands all the way up to the gallows? What is his motivation for killing so many men who steal the cattle of others? Is he just a mean old SOB like some claim? Hard to say on all accounts.The film is worth about five stars. Most of them for the cinematography which is very, very good! The Hound.

disasterfilm84 As one of my personal favorite westerns I have looked at this film several times and wondered how McQueen was able to give such a fine performance as the title role of Tom Horn. McQueen signed on to do the role in 1977, and would spent three years researching the role and even spending the night at Tom Horn's grave to help develop the his character. The film is viewed by many to be very dark and not historically right, but viewing this film more than once you see that the character is really the victim and not the enemy. You also see this a different side of McQueen and the way he portrayed this character. For me anyways the picture will always remain in my top ten films of all time, just for its acting talent and superb camera-work. When viewing the film notice how McQueen portrayed the character as never being afraid of anybody even death. This is also an example of a standard western in which the hero dies honorably without showing fear. The courtroom scenes are also very interesting to watch on how the character seems to loose himself in the end.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) I was so shocked by Steve McQueen's death, that I could not see this film during years. Tom Horn is an unusual western, a must for everyone who likes the genre. I must confess though that if I had not read some IMDb user comments and and also used Google to know more about Tom Horn the meaning of the film would have escaped me. It is hard to understand why Tom Horn does not defend himself and help his lawyer, but then this is the whole point of the film. Linda Evans is quite a presence, we don't see enough of her, McQueen has quite a performance in spite of being ill, and Richard Farnsworth and Slim Pickens are always a pleasure to see. It is almost as if the film borrows McQueen's style. Objective,tough, nothing is superfluous.