Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

renegau 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 .

MartinHafer 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.

ornekali This movie, I think one of the best movie about slavery, freedom, imperialism and colonization. Its tels the common history of Latin America through the island Queimada. The movie itself can be a subject of courses, but it is not an agitative the director uses casting very brilliantly. Do not evaluate the movie according to its IMDb point remember some awful Hollywood films can be in top 250. And I guarantee you you learn a lot from the movie like me! There are some hot arguments in the movie such as freedom. In the movie dolares says "freedom is not something to given but you take the freedom", and in the last scene director shows us the face of people of queimada, you see the anger but this anger means "hope of independence" last point watch the movie of the battle of Algiers and this movie together. Believe me although they are about different countries and different events but I feel that those movies are two parts of a common movie.

fedor8 Some call this a Marxist view of colonialism and history, but I'd only partly agree. American liberals, Marxists, and Europe's Left-wingers will surely want to claim ANY revolution or revolt in history as their own, i.e. fitting in neatly with Karl Marx's deluded little theories. Same with movies: they basically watch a film and see what they want to see. However, the revolt in Queimada isn't portrayed in such simplistic, idiotic, black-and-white terms, as we find them in that pitiful Bible of the Left. Once Dolores wins his first revolt, there is the realization that he and his rebels are light-years away from being capable of maintaining a functioning economy. While Marx, in his endless arrogance and ignorance, saw the proletariat as the proper force to guide a country and even all of mankind itself, even Dolores - "formerly a nothing", as Brando called him - himself realizes that the working class/the oppressed lower class/the proletariat/the lowest cast/whatever does not have the necessary education or abilities to achieve anything beyond a successful armed resistance. It is easy to destroy; building a society is quite another matter...This brings us to the more left-wing aspect of the movie: the overly simplistic portrayal of Dolores. The fact is that nearly every black revolutionary established a dictatorship in which the people lived far worse off than under the colonial power in question. Africa is a failed continent today (the only one with minus growth!) not because of white influence but because of a lack of it. The African continent has been far too quickly abandoned in the name of "equality, justice" and other notions, leaving the as-yet-unready and too uneducated black populace to find their own path in a world which was marching off, progressing at a rapid speed. Nearly every African/black country sports a tyranny in which the elections - when there are any - are a mere joke, more like a pathetic circus set up to fool those in the West who really think that the transition from tribal life or slave to modern capitalism is achievable overnight. Hence to portray Dolores as such a self-sacrificing idealist in the William Wallace "Braveheart" vein is utterly absurd and infinitely naive. In fact, William Wallace himself was no squeaky-clean individual. There is no such thing as a "revolutionary saint", the way Marxists, aided greatly by their sympathizers in the Western media, have tried and mostly succeeded in propagandizing mass murderers like Che Guevara into. People who lead the desperate into revolt very often have their own agendas, and aren't rarely intelligent psychopaths (Castro) who see a clever opportunity to get wealthy and powerful by riding on waves of the populace's desperation and genuine idealism and hope. The Marxist notion of the "noble proletariat", who have very little education, yet march bravely and with success toward a prosperous new modern world is just as fantasy-based as the idea of someone like Jose Dolores actually existing in the past or present. Marxists are all ultra-idealists, and what else is idealism but an over-simplification of truth, and an escape into flights of fancy that are nearly always based on wishful thinking rather than a sobering nose-dive into harsh reality."Queimada" is less black-and-white than that, fortunately. It shows the cold realities of economics and human development: one race dominates another, a nation dominates another, a class dominates another class. Empirically, objectively, there is nothing evil, immoral or despicable about this - it's just the way humans are, just the way human psychology coupled with biology works. Animals kill each other in the trillions every single day: it may seem cruel and pointless to us "civilized" Westerners, but only because we have become too soft in our cozy, comparatively luxurious existence. Reality is never what idealists tell you it is - or can be. Besides, the struggle isn't merely one of black against white (now, wouldn't have Hollywood's Oscar voters just loved that...) but there are different interest groups on the island, all with their own problems and enemies.The movie is visually interesting, having that grimy late 60s/early 70s look. I was not bothered by some oddities, such as there being no scenes of the bank robbery, or scenes showing the first clash between Dolores's men and the Portuguese. Good, unusual soundtrack.