The Appaloosa

source: The Appaloosa

Marlon Brando would display masochistic tendencies in his sixties parts.His self-directed movie (excellent in other respects),"one-eyed jacks" featured a very long scene where he was whipped by his "Streetcar named desire" pal Karl Malden.In the underrated "reflection in a golden eye" ,he was humiliated by his wife (Elizabeth Taylor).And I will not even mention his beating up in Penn's "the chase":it has to be seen to be believed. "The Appaloosa " features this kind of scene :it's John Saxon's turn to play the torturer this time.And if it is not clear enough,the movie begins with confession and penance in a church. The plot of "the Appaloosa" is very simple probably too simple for its own good.Saxon steals Brando's horse and the latter who was about to start a clean brand new life has to fight against that cruel Mexican -Saxon's face and voice desperately try to sound Mexican- whose favorite pastime is arm-wrestle over a scorpion.And he treats his woman bad ,a woman who used to dream of a romantic wedding with priest and walk down the aisle. The landscapes are nicely filmed but the story is never really exciting.This era was a hard time for Brando whose career seemed shriveled.But it wasn't of course.

Today I have seen for the first time THE APPALOOSA and it is some western, bizarre and oblique and striking, played by one the very few extraordinary actors ever, and a strange hallmark as well—made in '66, I believe, it looks like an original, rough, sharp and uncanny revisionist western taken over by Brando once more ;it reminded me of that western directed by Brando himself, several years before Appaloosa. Which one is better? I can not say that, as it's long since I have seen ONE EYED …. And can they truly be compared? These movies exists only around Brando; and Hopkins explained well that they are iconic movies, movies enlivened by Brando's iconic presence (--and whims, and antics, if you like …--), egotistical performances meant to startle and to amaze. The script is smashed, and if Appaloosa is indeed powerfully dramatic, it's because of Brando's guts. Acts of courage, of egotism, a narcissistic cinema unfortunately sabotaged or denied by the '60s Hollywood industry; come to think of it, Gabin, Grant and others were accorded what Brando needed too—a celebratory cinema intended to exploit an actor's unusual energy and iconic glow. This is Brando exploitation. Movies like this one are designed as cult—films, and this seems their primary significance. On a large scale, this was done in the generous era of cinema—the era of true stardom. Gabin, Bogart, Garbo—and, before them, the true stars of the silent cinema, fully benefited from this. Brando, like Newman, came too late, when the cult meant a rather small niche and such a strategy was possible only in the B cinema (see the Bronson file, or the Italian genre actors …). Here, as the gringo ,Brando is (again) larger—than—life; the theme of the humiliated and wronged man can be superficially traced through some famous westerns, like LARAMIE and that already mentioned above ONE EYED …,but is it any good? I think not; aside from a superficial resemblance, the scene is new each time it's used by another director from a different movie. Another aspect—Brando's role as Matteo, the gringo, is a stand—out because of Brando's own line of rough and fancy realism—if you will only accept such an expression. In the final duel, Brando uses with the same delighted nonchalance his obvious clumsiness—he used his hands in a bizarre way, and this somehow boosts his character, enhances if not the realism, then the attractiveness of a scene. When we avidly watch Brando are we really in for realism (performing credibly average unobtrusive people)? Brando always strives—if he did it at all—to play interesting, dashing, intriguing characters—not pedestrians. First of all, a realist performance presupposes a realist script and realist intentions. Brando naturally enjoys to fascinate and to startle. He offers high—voltage fancy. Of course his beautifully made characters are real—because he created them, not because they are realistic to a grand degree. Was he ever required realism? Whose realism, or, realism according to whom? In his westerns too, he is not trying to give realistic performances (the way Duvall, Costner, Eastwood, Hackman, Caan, with the adequate scripts and parts, tried—and largely succeeded too). Dean, Nicholson, De Niro and maybe even Clift aimed sometimes at achieving realist performances; not Brando, not Pacino, who characteristically subordinate the parts to their energies and personalities and even playfulness. Gabin was seldom realist in his performances; and he was seldom solicited, required to be realist. Some mistake a certain intensity for realism; but, first of all, let us inquire if a certain movie or script requires or at least admits realism, and to what degree.

Film critic Tom Wiener calls The Appaloosa a "truly boring, worthless film." After somehow managing to sit through all 98 minutes (and really, a film that is barely an hour and a half long should not be so unbearable), I could not agree more. The plot was dull, the script was flat, the pace was glacial, and on the whole, this movie was sheer torture to sit through. It is a must-see if you have problems getting to sleep at night, because The Appaloosa will clear things up in no time. In spite of everything that was wrong, Marlon Brando in the lead role and John Saxon in a supporting role gave fine performances - or, as fine as they could manage with a film like this. The set was beautiful and everyone in the cast could act, and for this, I add an extra star to bring my rating to 2/10. Really, I pity the actors - it's not their fault. This ridiculously boring film left them with nowhere to go.

Over the years I seemed to have missed "THE APPOLOSSA" and was thrilled to see Marlon Brando and John Saxon perform excellent roles as bandit and horse owner. The photography and close-ups kept you glued to the screen. Brando was at his best and eleven years later made "Missouri Breakes" another picture to match this one.

I rate this mid-60's Brando Western a 6, but it really wasn't accepted at the time. Marlon is incredible as always, Anjanette Comer is a stone fox, great supporting cast, and John Saxon as Chuy Medina is a worthy adversary to taunt Brando. Beautiful Southwest and Mexican terrain in this Sidney J. Furie flick that is well worth the trip. Similar to Joe Kidd (also with Saxon). Best performance = Marlon Brando. Westerns of this type were on their way out by 1966, but with Brando it still makes the grade. Rafael Campos is believable as always in the most authentic way. This one is easy to find so give it a shot!

For decades, Marlon Brando has been considered one of the foremost actors of the age. There was a real aura about him and his later performances were real events--as securing his services for films had become very expensive and fraught with difficulties. Brando had become VERY difficult to direct and he regularly refused to learn his scripts or prepare--preferring to work as little as possible and use cue cards (this is according to directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Arthur Penn). Yet, despite this, he still was adored by critics. As for me, I just never understood all the hubbub about his acting. However, recently I decided to watch a few more of his films--and give him a second chance. As my wife pointed out, after seeing about 10 of his films recently, his performances seemed to either be very, very subdued or rather 'out there' and over-the-top. "The Appaloosa" begins with a Mexican bandit (John Saxon) and his men stealing Brando's prize horse. And, for the rest of the film, Brando tracks down the guy to retrieve his animal. How all this transpired was a bit odd--but that really is the plot--along with a subplot involving a woman who hated Saxon and wanted to leave him. The film comes off very much like a Spaghetti Western version of the plot for "Winchester '73"--though not as good as the original film. There are a few neat elements in the film but also some very silly ones (such as the scorpion scene and the use of too many spurs' sound effects). Overall, the film isn't bad and Brando underplays the part a bit. He wasn't bad--but his character did seem curiously muted considering the role.

This ritualistic Western must be one of Marlon Brando's least-seen films, and no wonder. The plain story moves very slowly, and Brando himself never fully slips into his role (and the Western environment). The film's few highlights include a tense armwrestling match, in which the defeated man will be stung by a deadly scorpion, and the final showdown between Brando and John Saxon (who's quite good). (**1/2)

I'm being nice and giving it an even five stars just because the women and scenery are so beautiful. In Chicago there used to be a movie theater that ran Mexican produced westerns every weekend. They came out of a sardine can for the most part, when you got really lucky they had a special three banger like, "The Horsethief", "The Man Who Stole Horses" and finally, "That Man Stole My Horse!" Granted they were different movies but... Appaloosa seems to be an American adaptation of of of these movies but it's anybodies guess which one. These movies are fun though, I guess thats why they made so many of them. This one however should have been put in a tuna can. Marlon Brando is bored out of his mind. He perks up when he visits a married couple who are his friends. He flirts with the woman, lovely Mexican MILF Miriam Colon, but he's clearly more interested in her husband Emilio Fernandez. I can't pick on John Saxon, he's not the greatest actor but he earns his paycheck every time like the pro he is. Anjanette Comer is gorgeous but not in a steamy Mexican kind of way. She was perfect in The Loved One. Born to do campy sexy roles in short dresses. She's miscast here. Unless you can't get enough of your favorite actor, watch something else.

The opening sequence contains a closeup of John Saxon's pants, boots and spurs that is better than the last three seasons of runway fashions. This movie is all about the men's clothes. D&G and Armani must have seen this a few years ago because all their lines are clearly "inspired" from the clothes in this movie. The movie itself? Marlon mumbles.