I guess if you want to talk yourself into believing this movie makes some sense you could do so. There are some well presented reviews here that make a pretty good case for it, but if it takes twisting yourself into a pretzel to make all the pieces fit, why wouldn't it be just as good an idea to have a story with a beginning, middle and an end?

I'll say one thing though, I've never seen a Western before where so many horses just disappear and reappear again. The woman (Millie Perkins) must have let the mule go free, but what happened to Coley's horse in the desert? Pretty convenient that there was a bearded old guy with a broken leg in the middle of the desert so Coley (Will Hutchins) could catch a ride again. And I'm not really sure why the woman's white horse that she shot for no reason wound up dying all over again - was that an editing mistake, a mirage, a delusion, what?

Having Jack Nicholson arrive looking all real strong and pretty was a nice touch, and I had to do a double take when he said it not once but twice - "You talking to me"? It makes perfect sense that Travis Bickle would have been inspired by gunslinger Billy Spear ten years later in "Taxi Driver". He would have been right at home in this picture.

Willett Gashade (Warren Oates) returns to his mining camp to find Coley (Will Hutchins) in a fright. Coley tells him that his brother Coin had walked away and their other partner Leland Drum got killed a couple of days earlier. A mysterious woman (Millie Perkins) finds herself at the camp after shooting her lame horse. Willett finds the dead horse not injured. She offers them $1000 to take her to Kingsley. Willett accepts despite not trusting her. They are followed by gunman Billy Spear (Jack Nicholson) who seems to be communicating with the nameless woman.

This has an intriguing premise. It's one that seems foreseeable. Some version of that ending was always expected. The movie brings out the mystery but the intensity could be higher. Oates is solid. On the other hand, Perkins' acting is a little flat. Her role could have been really juicy but she doesn't bring it. It's an intriguing indie western.

I'm saddened by the many negative reviews I've read here. But I can see why the film's a cult favorite...and why it's not for everyone. I loved it.

Bearing in mind that what the message the audience takes from a film is never necessarily the message that the makers themselves intend, here's my take:

What if Willett and his "brother" Coigne are really the same person...and this is all an ALLEGORY--not to be understood in a literal sense? What if Willett and Billy Spear are the same person? During the journey, when Willett smashes Spear's hand with a rock he's actually smashing his own hand in a (vain) effort to keep this entire scenario from happening again and again. (Notably, Willett has a bandaged hand at the start of the film, when we see him leaving a trail of flour for the woman ("Death") to follow--thereby literally sowing the seeds of his own destruction). Thus, it was Willett who killed the "woman and child" in town; it's also Willett (in the form of the flip side of the...Coigne) who killed Leland (through his other persona of Billy). In the end Death shoots Willett/Coigne...and the circular process begins anew, as Billy/Willett/Coigne endlessly wanders the desert--a pawn in the meaningless game we call Life. ;)