One-Eyed Jacks

This movie gets better with every viewing. Another poster said that Karl Malden plays sinister very well--also check out "Nevada Smith" for the same type of performance. Although Brando is "Brando" so to speak, I think that his direction of the movie ie underrated. It is a much better western, or movie for that matter, than it is credited for.

I was never that smitten with this film many years ago on my first viewing, but now, with the advent of time, I like to think I view films with newer and wiser perspectives. Sadly I can't say that One- Eyed Jacks has left me anything other than frustrated and cold with disappointment. Marlon Brando took over directing duties from Stanley Kubrick after the two giants fell out about the direction the picture was taking, this let Brando loose to shoot for 6 months on a film meant to be wrapped in two. Now this may be the main problem to me because the film is painfully devoid of major fleshing out of the characters, scenes are not expanded and there are obvious gaps due to mass editing cuts. It reads on the screen that our protagonist gets sentenced to 5 years in jail, two seconds later we see a bearded haggard man escaping prison chained to another inmate, next shot he is clean shaved and it seems we have missed some important chat between the two escapists. On it goes throughout the picture, I'm sure that the final elongated cut (rumoured to be between 4 & 6 hours) would have been a joyous experience, but as it is we get a cut down 141 minutes of film that rather outstays it's welcome. And to get through it you really need to believe in patience being a virtue. Brando of course holds court and is never less than interesting, and at times he sizzles and dominates the screen in the way that Marlon was want to do. But the whole performance has the reek of over indulgence about it. Making it more about the actor than the actual narrative. Along side him, Karl Malden is solid and gruff as the villain of the piece, but Katy Jurado is badly underused and seems like an afterthought to be an important character. Sadly, too, Pina Pellicer struggles to convince in her only American film, but naturally that is not important in the context that she was to take her own life at the woefully young age of 29 (depending on what site you believe as regards age at death). The bright spot here is the cinematography from Charles Lang Jr at the various sites in California, it is simply gorgeous, check out the coastline shots and take it all in. I personally feel that this film is one that Brando fans choose to ignore the major flaws with. His name some how making the end product seem better than it actually is. In its longest form I'm sure it "could have been a contender" in the great Western stakes, as it is it remains average and something of an unfulfilling disappointment. 5/10

From what I've read, Brando and Kubrick disagreed on script contents, and Brando, being the heavyweight at the time, gave Kubrick the ol' heave-ho. Whatever Kubrick's version was to be, it had to be superior to the film's final product which can be summed: Love conquers all. All the characters are exaggerated almost to the point of absurdity. This is most likely the product of Brando's inexperience as a director. The film lacks any genuine sense of realism and so, there is no amount of intensity to Brando's (Rio) plight. When he's jailed, a day way from being hung, you know it's not going to happen. Great supporting actors of the Western genre such as Ben Johnson, Slim Pickens and Kathy Jurado are essentially wasted. What's good about it? The cinematography is excellent. Cowboys riding horses against the backdrop of the California coastline is an unusual setting, and camera man Charles Lang uses it to maximum effect. I read that the musical score is considered great, but I just didn't notice it. When you compare this Western to the works of John Ford, Howard Hawks, Anthony Mann, Sam Peckinpah, and Sergio Leone, it's just not in that class. Yes, it's a pretty good movie, but not in the same ballpark as the works of the aforementioned masters of the cowboy movie.

Reading the other reviews of this movie makes me wonder if we've all seen the same show. I can't say much to recommend this one. A weak-to-nonexistent plot, corny dialog (and acting), and editing that's clumsy at best, I just can't come up with anything to praise about it. Wearing more makeup than he had since "Teahouse of the August Moon" Brando mumbles his was through a disjointed, schmaltzy, depressing, and Boring few hours. If you're a student of Brando you might need to see this, just to get an idea of what he was like at his nadir. Otherwise, don't bother. It's really not worth it...

In Sonora, Mexico in 1880 , Rio (Marlon Brando , the character of Rio originally was based on Billy the Kid), his pal Dad Longworth (Karl Malden) and a third man, Doc (Hank Worden) are robbing a bank. As the bandits escape from the town with a loot . The bandits flee but the Mexican mounted police trail the bunch to the mountains . The mounted police follow and trap the bandits atop a desert hill (Death Valley that bears remarkable resemblance to Almeria desert where were filmed lots of Spaghetti) , with one of their horses shot . Their only option is for one of them to ride their single horse to a little post down the canyon and return with two fresh mounts . But Dad double-crosses him and flees . Rio is detained and locked in Sonora Prison but five years later he breaks out . Then Rio seeks vengeance against his former friend Dad who lives now as a sheriff married to a Mexican woman (Katy Jurado) and an adopted daughter (Pina Pellicer who sadly committed suicide a few years later) . Riveting Western with psychological tones is stunningly performed , richly photographed and well directed , though overlong . Marlon Brando took over the reigns of filmmaking by first and only time . Very good performances from main duo : Brando as an obstinate revenger and Karl Malden who steals the show as his double-dealing former partner . Superb support interpretations from Ben Johnson , Timothy Carey , and Slim Pickens , Katy Jurado , both of whom a few years later played as an intimate couple in ¨Pat Garret and Billy the Kid¨. Lively and adequate musical score by Hugo Friedhofer . Striking cinematography by Charles Lang , being Paramount's last release in VistaVision and filmed on location in California , the following places : Cypress Point, Pebble Beach,Death Valley National Park, Monterey Peninsula,Pebble Beach, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur, Seventeen Mile Drive, Warner Ranch, Calabasas, California, USA. Marlon Brando's inexperience behind the camera was obvious on set , he took the direction from Stanley Kubrick, who originally was slated to direct the film. He shot six times the amount of footage normally used for a film at the time , he was indecisive in his only filmmaking effort and ran extremely overlong in getting the film finished , in spite of the problems , the film resulted to be visually striking and with interesting character study . Marlon Brando's first cut of the film was allegedly five hours long. He was reportedly unhappy with the final product, despite its box-office success , Paramount eventually took the film away from him and re-cut it as Marlon Brando's original cut of the movie was over five hours long . Rating : Better than average despite troubles during filming and the result is a terrific outing in this Western genre .

Although this movie probably suffered as a result of cost overruns/studio shenanigans, I would certainly put it in my top 20 westerns, probably knocking at the top 10. This is the only western I've ever seen that takes place in Monterey. I would *JUMP* at the chance to see Brando's 5 hour version. Ben Johnson and Slim Pickens were excellent as was the whole cast. When Brando gets fired up; watch out ! Brando's first effort as a director was excellent. Too bad he lost his taste for it; I don't think we got as much mileage out of his fine talent as we should have in later years.

Maybe it's the fact it's carelessly fallen into the public domain, and that people can only see it now on awful quality knock off DVD's, maybe it's because it was directed by it's star Marlon Brando who had never directed before (or since), but I really can't understand why this movie isn't considered anything less than an out and out classic. With the exception of only two or three I cannot stand the stoic American westerns of the 40's and 50's and always preferred the more anti-establishment and infinitely more stylish Italian westerns, but man 'One Eyed Jacks' definitely sits at a fascinating place between the two. I'm not sure how much of Peckinpah's script or Kubrick's ideas made it into what was eventually Brando's film but it's definitely easy to make an argument that their marks (be it directly through the script or just through influencing Brando) are definitely there. It has all the things that makes the BEST Spaghetti Westerns so great, a story that is uncomplicated (it's just a revenge tale) but at the same time takes no easy or obvious turns - rather than shoot his prey straight up Brando's character makes a much more protracted and fascinating game of his 'revenge'. And the reason for this (and this in part where I think Kubrick's ideas may have come in) is that this is not JUST a two dimensional story of settling scores at the end of a gun. The relationship between Karl Malden and Marlon Brando just bristles with possibility (again like the best Spaghetti Westerns and UNLIKE a John Ford western) you don't know where it's going to go. They are, more than once in the movie, allies then enemies and NEITHER of them is stupid. And as far as Brando's film-making ability goes, his struggle behind the camera might be well documented now, and he has even written this edit off as not being the film he intended, but the direction here is not even close to amateurish. I really don't think there are many American directors in 1960 who would hold quite so long and so beautifully on Karl Malden as he considers betraying Brando for the first time. I got chills on Brando's arrival up the road to Malden's estate, and the fantastic hold on Malden's face, again long and perfectly acted, as he watches this potential angel of death draw closer. It is obvious in that moment that this is a meeting he has been in a way anticipating and wondering about for many years - and never known what it would mean. Then there's the meeting between Brando and Malden through prison bars where, with the tables turned, Malden declares he will hang Brando himself. Just cold stuff, taken from the best westerns there ever was, but done with great modern style here. I sincerely hope a proper studio DVD of this film is produced soon and that this great western get's the recognition it deserves. Don't be swayed by the cheap packaging, it's a wonderful film. Especially for those who love the intellectualism of Kubrick's films and the sheer action and cruelty of the Spaghetti Western :)

I found this film quite remarkable on many levels. For one, it was the debut for Brando as director (and his only film direction since). Reportedly, it was taken after Kubrick left due to altercations. Well, this time, Brando has one foot in front of the camera, as well as one behind it. He does a great, solid job. In fact, this film never looked awkward or misguided -- it felt like an intelligent western helmed by an Anthony Mann or Raoul Walsh. To further boost the professional polish of the film, there is cinematographer Charles Lang (Magnificent Seven, How the West Was Won). Within this polished piece of work, the muscle of the film is found in the wonderful character study. Here, the characters, like in many great stories, are complex, dark, tempermental. Although the film is about the hero's(or anti-hero's) thirst for revenge on a man who done him wrong, there's a romance in the film that is truly tender and fateful. The magnet in this film would have to be Brando. (Karl Malden is great too). Brando's understated performance is of the subtle type, using his famous darting eyes to penetrate the characters and the viewer. He's one of my favorite all-time actors. As with all great films, One-Eyed Jacks is a quiet masterpiece, displaying what every good film needs: great script, powerful acting, layered characterization, and be technically-sound.

Spoilers herein. About a hundred years ago Vincent Van Gogh retreated to Arles to paint. He was joined by friend Paul Gauguin with whom he shared lodging and whores. The state of the visual vocabulary was in flux and these two giants were inventing the future. But they had radically different versions. They fought. Vincent lost his mind, an ear and later his life. A new language was being invented. Both used radical colors, flat perspectives with recognition of the medium. Both painted not what was, but what existed in the space between the subject and the eye. Vincent had this notion of energy in the eye, an honest projection of emotion. He projected himself into the world and painted himself. Gauguin had a rosicrucian notion of abstracting the world. His eye transmuted the world into a symbolic vocabulary which he painted. As then, so in the 1960's with film, with battles between two camps forging a new language. Brando and Kubrick. Kubrick had just come off of `Spartacus,' which troubled him deeply. For reasons not of interest here, he was not allowed to make it his art. Disgusted, he started work on a film that would. This one. It had a simple story, and lots of opportunity to place the distance among the major characters in the visual aether. Brando, meanwhile was at the end of his first and only important burst. It had been ten years since `Streetcar,' which reinvented how actors can fill the narrative space between the action and viewer. He had just run through a few pictures with nitwit directors, who neither understood his revolution, nor challenged him to take the next step. Kubrick wanted to use his eye as Gauguin's, to transform the world to establish a narrative. Brando filled the Vincent role, wanting to play the character and also play someone playing the character and so fill the narrative space with emotional mechanics. They fought, Kubrick departed. Brando directed, and never did again. But what he did here is an honest attempt to advance his approach. This is important: you must see this film to judge for yourself how well he does. He never was the same again, and in any case the film didn't connect with audiences. It is my opinion that he and friend Karl do succeed, primarily by reducing everything else to the bare minimum, and imbuing emotion in personal spaces. It works as intended, but doesn't connect with us the audience, so all this great acting goes off into outer space. In maybe another few decades before Brando-like actors (Penn?) might make this magic accessible to the rest of us. (Since then, a creole language of sorts has developed. These two approaches still sit uneasily in the same film. The closest marriage came in `Taxi Driver,' then `Snake Eyes.')

From IMDb trivia: Marlon Brando's first cut of the film was allegedly 5 hours long. He was reportedely unhappy with the final product, despite its box-office success. "Now, it's a good picture for them [Paramount]," he said upon its release, "but it's not the picture I made... now the characters in the film are black-and-white, not gray-and-human as I planned them." Hand it to Brando to be dissatisfied with a film because he didn't manage to make it as long as he wanted to. Regardless of what Brando thought, this is a really fine Western and a unique one, too - it seems fresh and "new," like a Cool Man's West or something. Having Brando (when he was still looking fairly trim) in the lead role certainly gives it a certain glamor and the story itself - and execution - is great. Overall I wish Brando had made another film after this but to the best of my knowledge this is really the only true film he ever made. If he was just trying to prove he could direct, he did - even if the film has its flaws, it's far from bad. In fact, it's very, very good - and extremely entertaining. 4.5/5