I used to think, like the majority of the people on this board, that Brando was the best thing in it. It certainly wasn'
-
dannyjp-1 — 19 years ago(February 01, 2007 07:15 AM)
I disagree. I think Marlon Brando's eccentric performance in The Missouri Breaks is very entertaining. The character he was playing was a psychopath, hunting down and killing the rustlers was a game to him so his put-ons with the different accents and such fits in with the role. Brando's method acting was interesting in every role he did and I consider him the best actor ever.
-
Draco2-0 — 18 years ago(July 03, 2007 09:21 PM)
I felt that Brando's scenes were very entertaining.
but
They did not work at all in correlation with the rest of the movie.
I mean, lets face it the movie is a mess, albeit an entertaining mess, and it's mostly Brando's fault. -
YellowManReanimated — 17 years ago(April 01, 2009 05:29 AM)
I actually disagree. I don't think Brando's performance had to destroy the movie, in fact it could have greatly added to the movie. The real problem with the film for me was the
writing
. It was nothing short of ridiculous. Characters were poorly sketched, check the female lead. Motivations were woolly and poorly developed. The plotline shifted and shook in a very unclear, sometimes confusing way. Scenes went by half-boiled, such as the whole Canada scene. Nothing really developed satisfactorily from a plot point of view, and the writing, not Brando, is to blame for that. I mean tell me why Nicholson didn't kill Brando, knowing what Brando was up to. And tell me why Brando didn't secure himself against a Nicholson counter-attack having just destroyed all his gang.
Everything in this film was just so random, and that's why Brando's performance works. It suits the script. There is a real randomness, an anarchy in the way the film develops and that is perfectly represented and made sense of in Brando's performance. It wouldn't have worked if everyone tried to play it straight, it was a laughable movie and it worked because it looked as if the cast, particularly Brando, might have been in on the joke.
In conclusion, without Brando this would have flopped big time, with Brando the film has a resonance that makes it worth watching even today.
So I guess I'm a hipster
? -
theartpioneer — 15 years ago(July 30, 2010 11:19 PM)
I suppose I can see your point of view, although I think just the opposite. Brando's take on the character is truly unique. I'm not going to say brilliant, because that is thrown around far too often for far too little. As an artist, his job is to take the written words and make a character out of it. It would have been so very simple to play this character "straight" or the usual western tough guy, which he had already done in "One Eyed Jacks". Instead he simply put his own artistic spin on it. This is his art. Creating a character out of nothing, giving it life and it's own passions and obsessions is not an easy job. Making choices creatively and putting them all out there for the world to see and judge. That takes balls. Turning a tough cowboy into a feminine, sloppy, Irish man wearing a dress Those are some serious balls! His character is unique and truly alive. Complete with obsessive tendencies and his own view of the world. That's a lot to work with. All the actors need to do is listen and react to what was happening.
-
rsr26 — 15 years ago(August 25, 2010 02:35 PM)
That's great analysis from the original poster. Clearly, this is Brando at his most self-indulgent. Brando had a love-hate affair with acting and his self loathing manifested itself in destructive impulses. If left to his own devices, you would get crazy performances like this or Col. Kurtz. But the thing is, he's so good and interesting that I STILL enjoy these performances.
Right off the top of my head I can think of some memorable scenes from this movie.- Brando and Jack in the cabbage patch. I think Brando actually sort of took this scene seriously.
- Brando taunting his horse with a carrot. So bizarre but funny.
- Brando and Jack in the tub.
- Brando putting a grasshopper in Randy Quaid's mouth.
He's Brando. Without him this movie is a total bore.
-
coffeemann — 15 years ago(January 13, 2011 07:50 AM)
brando is an original. As wacky you may think this character he invented it's actually brilliant. And if you look closely at johnny Depps charatcer in Pirates of the Carribean i see similarities.
the problem with the film is not brando.. but the script..
the script is weak! boring, and doesn't go anywhere..
It was a pay day for jack and marlon and thats it..
the movie was garbage. the actors coasted through it. -
kbrai — 14 years ago(June 02, 2011 06:55 AM)
stanton never wanted to hit brando - they were life long palsstanton had only good things to say about brando - if you doubt that read all the books and see all the documentaries about Brando and Harry is saying only good things