Burn!

Burn!

Burn!

Such a boring piece of s*** movie it promised a lot with Marlon Brando in it and of course everybody wants to see that but really the story had no story at all the movie was boring and the whole thing was just stupid the only nice thing about it was a camera work but even the idealistic morale has no value at all of course we know already history of startup Evolution you know we come from the animals than there are human beings being between those things halogen Boom Pow. So what does it mean so it's just a very boring thing

If, like me, you've only seen The Battle Of Algiers and are immediately impressed by Gillo Pontecervo as a director, and then come across this movie... Well, the "message" may be very admirable and all that, but the movie is a drag. Bad editing and a strange documentary style of camera work that was fine in Battle Of Algiers which took place in our modern time, put in a period piece like this ? It just jars all the way through (i think the contrast somehow just cancels the movie out). And far too much socialist sentimentality, especially the scene on the beach after the slaves succeed in rebelling : a montage of people just walking along with the most melodramatically romantic music possible, that just goes on and on and on. I mean, if you want to deliver a "message" then you have to get an audience. This movie looks like it was made entirely for the satisfaction of the directors ego.

Do you want to understand Colonialism? See this film! You'll finally understand why Portugal and Spain are the poorest countries in the European Union (with Greece, for other reasons), although they have stolen tons of gold and silver from South and Central America during 400 years... Guess where all this gold and silver are today...

Apparently, the Sir William Walker that Marlon Brando plays in this film isn't quite THE Sir William Walker! Let me explain. Walker was a real person who bore SOME similarity to the character in the film. However, the film took HUGE liberties with the guy's life. Instead of being an American, they make him British (which is odd--why not have Brando do a big stretch and just play an American?! Perhaps Brando just ADORED doing accents or he forgot his American one!) and a man who is indifferent towards or perhaps a bit anti-slavery in sentiments. However, Walker actually was practically the patron saint of slavers and fomented revolutions during the 19th century in order to re-institute slavery into Central America! Talk about not getting it right!! This is like doing a film where Santa hates children or General MacArthur is a pacifist!! This is a shame, as this real-life rogue would make a marvelous character in a movie as he led an amazingly colorful, albeit evil and self-serving life. And, in fact, they DID do such a film years later. "Walker", starring Ed Harris, claims to be the actual bio-pic of the guy and "Burn" is only very, very superficially his life story. Sadly, "Walker" is a terrible film--and despite the film saying it's all true...it isn't. How the film does get it right is that Walker was a professional trouble-maker. He literally bounced from one tiny country to another fomenting revolution for kicks--and in some cases in an attempt to make himself el Presidente for life. But, the film gets it wrong because much of his motivation in "Burn" is simply to destabilize Britain's enemies. And, frankly, this makes no sense because he WASN'T British and because by the 19th century no one really cared much about destabilizing Portugal. The reason they picked on poor Portugal in the and its colonies in the film is because the Spanish-speaking folks where they filmed the movie didn't like the idea that it might make Hispanics look bad--so they made the baddies Portuguese! Obviously historical accuracy was not terribly important to the filmmakers. If you ignore the historical mess that is this film, is it worth seeing? Yes, but it certainly is a bit muddled. The film is supposed to be about the evils of colonialism and later in the film it shows Walker actually regretting his actions in using a proud black man as his pawn. While this was a pretty interesting twist, the real Walker was a selfish jerk. My feeling is that if the film had been 100% fictional, it would have worked so much better. In addition, the pacing was a bit too slow, Brando's performance a bit too restrained and the music mind-numbingly repetitive. Overall, it's an interesting film but hardly a must-see.

Gilo Pontecorvo has crafted an extremely intense documentation of the use of human beings as slaves, and how do those slaves free themselves not only mentally but physically. Evaristo Marquez plays Jose Dolores with an intensity and intelligence as a symbol of oppression. Marlon Brando plays William Walker who is is sent to Portuagal occupied sugar plantations to manipulate slave Jose Dolores into leading a revolt against the Portuguese, which will later allow England to dominate the slaves themselves. Complication arises once the slaves have had a sense of power and freedom. Their reaction becomes baffling to the Portugese and to the British. Both Brando and Marquez give forceful performances giving their relationship a love/hate subtext. The scenes in which Walker trains Jose to revolt through manipulation are fascinating to watch. Dierector Pontecorovo once again proves he is a master of crowd scenes and mass destitution on screen, as he did in the more well received THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS. Morricone also as usual lends a haunting score. It would be hard to imagine a film like this being made today in such blunt fashion, but the manipulations of those in power over the servitude continues to be relevant. BURN doesn't have solutions to the problem of Man's desire for domination, but it gives it one hell of a vision of the motivations and calculations empires will do to control others and ensure their domination in the World. At times film seems to be a bit choppy and loses focus, but this was know to be a problematic production to begin with. There are several versions of the film with slightly longer running times. In some ways the dubbing of voices and awkward transitions lend to a more haunting and gritty experience while watching the film. The scenes of battles and dances seem so authentic it almost feels as if the cameras is witnessing events that occurred hundreds of years ago. Brando himself seem to really be enjoying playing the somewhat sadistic, but at time empathic Walker. He shows know fear that his playing with the victims of colonialism like a game of chess could result in dire consequences not only for England, but for himself.

This version (presently available on DVD and US release) is the edited one. Like so many foreign films at the time, was edited for "American audiences". Since the studio had the rights to the film, there was nothing Pontecorvo could do, but watch his masterpiece reduced to nothing. 22 minutes were cut. In addition the DVD version is very poor. The aspect ratio has been changed, and the copy is very poor. As a result of the cuts, the subtle undertones of the relationship between the main characters was altered, as well as the political undertones. Pontecorvo had already conceded the change of title and script change (Spanish island to Portuguese island) because Generalisimo Franco's protest, and his threat not to allow distribution in Spain. It's ashame that at this point the directors cut version is not available , at least as an alternative to the average viewer. It is available , in the Italian DVD . It's in Italian language, with Brando's voice dubbed. The dubbing in this case doesn't take away from Brando's performance (his personal favorite). It has English subtitles. Pontecorvo himself edited this version before his death. It's quality is much better, and has the original aspect ratio. Occasionally shown at art festivals. My rating applies to this version . The real masterpiece .

Queimada is a film I grew up with. I saw it for the first time in Kolkotta, India, in 1970. It's a film with one of the finest scores of Ennio Morricone and an ambiguous performance by Marlon Brando--that makes you wonder if the William Walker role is merely to be viewed as that of a mercenary. In my view, this is Brando's best performance. Recently, I found out that Brando himself stated this performance was "the best acting I've ever did" during a Larry King interview on CNN. It appears that his explanation on why he considered this was cut short by King, who evidently knew little about the film or the filmmaker. And so we will never know why Brando thought this was his best performance. But I think I can guess the reasons. I have watched the film several times and loved Gillo Pontecorvo's direction of the scenes at the port, which are one of my favorite sequences in cinema. Pontecorvo wanted Brando to create an evil figure of "Sir" William Walker, who was a real person though not a British knight. He was an American mercenary who even went to Indo-China. Brando apparently argued with Pontecorvo that the character instead of a clear-cut evil figure should be more ambiguous and this led to major differences between the two. On viewing the film, it is evident Brando won the argument. Franco Solinas, the screenplay writer, was a brilliant Leftist who contributed to Pontecorvo's success on "Battle of Algiers" and "Kapo." However, their films rankled the far Left and the far Right. Quiemada's script upset the Spanish government, and the filmmakers changed the details from a Spanish colony to a Portuguese colony. But Brando who probably was aware of the American connection of the lead character must have enjoyed the parallels of the story--knowing his personal love for the native Indian cause. The film is a witty, cynical portrayal of colonial designs on impoverished poor. Sugar was the commodity in vogue then. A century later you could replace "sugar" with "oil." The film is replete with a brilliant speech penned by Solinas, spoken by Brando that begins by comparing the economics of having a wife versus a prostitute. He then ends the speech comparing the gains of a slave with that of hired labor. The political philosophy is unorthodox but hard hitting. The visual effect of Brando's blonde hair and white clothes against the black natives is a visual metaphor. It is perhaps most anti-racist movie that I have seen with William Walker in all his glory unable to comprehend the political conviction and values of a native worker who refuses a chance to escape a cruel execution. This film has a small but significant role for Italian actor Renato Salvatori. I have seen hundreds of political movies--but this will remain my all time favorite. The film won Pontecorvo in 1970 the best director national award in Italy. The mix of Brando, Pontecorvo, Solinas, Salvatori and Morricone is a heady cocktail that will be a great experience for any intelligent viewer.

True, Brando walks away with every scene he's in- but when doesn't he? The other actors are clearly non-pros, which gives it at times the feel of a documentary, and at times the feel of a bad student film, and yet the depth of the topic rises above these minor quibles. It's a great film that should be seen by every social studies class, it has much to say and it says it well. Highly recommended.