The greatest movie ever!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Ennio Morricone's haunting music provides an outstanding background to what is probably Marlon Brando's greatest performance. Of course, there will be those who vote for On The Waterfront, or Apocalypse Now, or The Godfather, but they probably have not seen this film. One of the greatest actors of all time, he is superb here in this role.Brando himself said in his autobiography that he did the best acting he ever did in this film.Director Gillo Pontecorvo (The Battle of Algiers) was also superb, and gave us a classic film showing how colonial powers foment revolution to their own ends, and how their plans often backfire.Evaristo Márquez, who died this year, was an illiterate herdsman before he joined Brando and Pontecorvo. H was magnificent as Jose Delores. Renato Salvatori was also very good as Teddy Sanchez.This review is based upon the 152 minute director's cut.

A 19th century British diplomat instigates a revolution on the island of Queimada in the Caribbean between the black slaves and the Portuguese colonials in order to break Portugal's hold on the sugar market. An odd bit of political rabble-rousing and quasi-history from director Gillo Pontecorvo, who also worked on the story but seems far more comfortable gazing at the vistas and landscapes of the region rather than staging a riot. Marlon Brando (grizzled, and with a precarious accent) gives a necessarily unsympathetic performance and has some amazing bits and pieces, yet the picture really only comes to life during the montages, sweeping panoramas as scored by Ennio Morricone (whose work deserves the highest praise). United Artists, afraid of offending the Spanish movie market, changed the nationality of the villains from Spaniards to Portuguese in an eleventh-hour move designed for box-office; it was a misguided decision, particularly since U.A. hardly distributed the picture after the critics' reviews were less than enthusiastic. It has only recently acquired a cult following, mostly due to Morricone's majestic music. ** from ****

Marlon Brando's involvement in the making of "Burn" came about directly as the result of his politician idealism and his desire to make films with a comment on the human situation… In 1968 he was deeply concerned in supporting civil rights causes, particularly those to have reference to black and Indian conditions, and, according to his friends, he was greatly disturbed and depressed by the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King… "Burn" begins in 1845 as Sir William Walker (Brando) arrives on the island of Queimada, truly as far as can be judged as a harmless traveler but actually an agent of the British government ordered to incite a revolution that will shatter the Portuguese control on the island and permit the British to put their hand on the valuable sugar-cane total product… Queimada has a population of two hundred thousand, of whom only five thousand are Europeans…The main town is a well-protected port with a fort and a garrison, a governor's palace, a cathedral, a bank, a hotel and a brothel… The English gentleman recognizes he must play the part of a political Pygmalion… He looks around for a suitable subject to train as a revolutionary and he selects José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez), a large, handsome black dock-worker with an air of confidence… Walker also recruits Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatori), an almost-white clerk with political ambitions… Walker persuades José Dolores to steal the bank of the island, and once he does, Walker reveals his name to the government, thereby turning Dolores into a hunted bandit… The ingenious Walker then teaches Dolores and his followers in the use of firearms and gradually absorbs in them ideas and feelings to overthrow the Portuguese government… The film is quite obviously political in tone, and is a passionate piece of propaganda in the anti-colonial struggle… Brando's interpretation of Sir William Walker is apt to call up memories of his Fletcher Christian… This is another Englishman, whose gentle speech and soft manners disguise with courage and determination…Walker is not a villain but a cold, inflexible pragmatist with a hard work to accomplish

This film is now available on DVD under its English name:"Burn" I see the main characters and setting of this film as purely symbolic. The island has a fictional name:Queimada, which refers to a once popular European spicy alcoholic drink. As part of its preparation, it underwent burning, which supposedly scared away evil spirits. This relates strongly to the story developed in this film. This island is said to be a former Portuguese colony in the Caribbean. Although the Portuguese were once among the most ruthless colonialists, they stayed clear of the Caribbean. Thus, the Portuguese connection is purely symbolic. Brando's character, William Walker, is the namesake for perhaps the most fanatical conquistador the US ever produced, whose ultimate ambition, in his last few years, was to annex most of Central America, Cuba, and maybe more parts of Mexico, to be admitted as slave states to bolster the flagging political power of the South, in its competition with the North. Thus, he represents the unbridled ambition of Europeans to rule and exploit all the other peoples of the world. The indicated previous wholesale burning of the island's native vegetation and the dramatized burning of much of the island's sugarcane and laborer villages symbolizes the total disregard of most colonialists for the physical environment of these foreign lands or for the wellbeing of the native and imported laborers. I believe Walker's ultimate demise symbolizes the ultimate withering of colonialism, despite its apparently unshakable entrenchment the world over. The brief interlude showing Brando brawling in a slum in Britian only makes sense if it is saying that most colonialists were basically degenerate bullies, whether at home or abroad.We can read further possible symbolisms into the script, if we choose. Jose Dolores and the other rebels might be seen as representing those Negroes and their white supporters in the US who had recently fought and sometimes died to achieve true racial equality. Ditto for similar events in other countries. We might see the Portuguese as a stand in for the French and the Brits as representing the US in the Vietnam situation that was current when this film was made. The changing relationship between Walker and Dolores might be seen as similar to that between China and the US during vs. following WWII. A more recent example would be the changing relationship between Sadam Hussein and the US.I don't like Brando's general arrogant demeanor, nor do I like his slovenly speaking style. Perhaps these were appropriate for this role. The initial slave rebellion, their transformation into free laborers, and their subsequent realization that there was little practical difference between their former and present status was treated far too superficially to prove satisfying to the viewer. Perhaps there was more about this in the 20 min longer film version. The person who played Jose Dolores was not a professional actor and appears to lack the charisma that a successful rebel leader would need. Also, I found it difficult to understand him, with his thick accent. I did enjoy the scenes of Negro festivals and village life, although they were sometimes too long.You may have noticed that my name is William Walker, which is the initial reason I chose to see this film. I own a good biography of William Walker, written by Albert Carr. I understand another movie was made: "Walker", which also alludes to the imperialist dreams of this fascinating man. Unfortunately, this again was not a serious attempt to chronicle the real story of Walker, but was rather a political satire, relating to the then involvement of the US in the political struggles within Nicaragua as a follow up on Walker's long ago meddling in the politics of this country. Apparently, it portrays the critical relationship between Walker and Cornelius Vanderbilt as being the exact opposite of the true relationship. William Walker was a fascinating enough man that his life deserves a straight treatment, without becoming a caricature of a message film.