brando best thing in it
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Missouri Breaks
phil-loughborough — 21 years ago(September 01, 2004 01:17 PM)
i must confess i found certain passages somewhat booring, only enlightened by brando's appearences.
You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed -
cultfilmfreaksdotcom — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 12:29 PM)
Marlon is one of my fav actors, but I think he was terrible in this.
Movie Reviews
www.cultfilmfreaks.com
or
www.facebook.com/cultfilmfreakcinema -
Petronius Arbiter II — 10 years ago(August 17, 2015 11:05 AM)
Nope. Saw it the first time in 1977 when it was new, I've seen it several times since, and my opinion has never changed: Jack Nicholson's performance, and the uniquely quirky screenplay (much of it improvised while being shot), are the best things about this film.
8/10. Although there certainly things about Brando's performance I really liked, like the sharing the carrot bit, I would probably rank it a bit higher if so much of Brando's performance didn't seem "weird for the sake of being weird," and not the kind of weirdness one expects out of real life, either.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(January 10, 2021 09:25 AM)
it wasn't weird for the sake of being weird. also who can you know this? how can you know the difference between being weird for the sakes of weird and being naturally weird. weird is not a defined thing. it's just what it is, weird.
lukejbarnett -
bregund — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 10:09 PM)
I saw this film on its release and everyone in the audience laughed whenever Brando was on screen, I'm pretty sure they were aware from the beginning that he wasn't serious about this role. He was a genius, and constantly hearing this probably muted his inner critic, hence the weirdness of this role and the one in Apocalpyse Now. Watching it again tonight after forty years, I'm struck again by his screen presence, which was every bit as sharply-defined as that of fellow geniuses Peter Sellars or Jonathan Winters. But geniuses eventually go mad, and I feel that's what we're seeing on the screen, the last vestiges of sanity slipping away, even as we struggle to convince ourselves that he possessed the same faculties that gave us the brilliance of his role in the godfather.
In this film, when Brando is in a scene with other actors, it's amusing to see them roll with the punches, after having been up all night carefully learning their lines, they get handed some wild, unpredictable behavior from a veteran actor who wants to keep them guessing what's going to come out of his mouth next. This is especially evident in the scene where Braxton confronts him in the dining room, the dialogue from both characters doesn't match, it's like they're in two different scenessame thing when Braxton is on the porch scolding his hired gunman, as the actor who plays Braxton gamely delivers his lines and hopes for the best. In the end the focus isn't on the film, it's on the weirdness of Brando, and I'm sure he wanted to be remembered that way. -
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(January 10, 2021 10:05 AM)
now watching him in this i kept thinking how is he acting this well? how is he processing acting? how did he act in the way he does in this film? what was he thinking? how did he get in this frame of mind, emotionally and every other way? how does he put himself in the mood, the aura and the essence of his character?
he seems in a different plane of mind and body and soul. like he's not human. he seems like a spiritual being who does and says and acts however is in him deep spiritually as far as his acting style and approach.
i love how as great as jack nicholson is in this film he's never at any moment going to be capable of being in his performance anywhere close to as great as marlon brando is in this film.
there's just so much difference in quality of acting when you compare jack nicholson with marlon brando in this film. and you see it more when they are acting in a scene together. brando has this superpower of acting that you can't learn in any acting class. it's a god given gift that is kind of frightening if you really think about it and watch him act.
in this film it's endlessly fascinating watching brando act. there wasn't a moment where i lost my focus, my interest on his acting.
what he does in this film is more than just acting, he inhabits his character. he does more than making this role his own. you know what i mean?
so the first time i watched brando in a movie after knowing about his reputation as one of the best actors of all time and after i knew about movies and acting and what good acting is and really appreciating great movies and acting was in the movie reflections in a golden eye about 2 years ago. i wasn't impressed pretty much at all.
i didn't notice anything special about his performance as far as acting greatness. i wasn't moved at all either. but i did notice and appreciate a small part of his performance. it was odd, the character and he played it well.
now looking back on the 3 movies i have watched him in, in this time, this movie, the apolloosa, and the missouri breaks i noticed every character is completely different, every small thing in their personalities and ways of acting, talking is completely different. this is amazing. such varied characters.
it's like brando was possessed when he acted. also it's like he was a different actor every time he acted. this is a very difficult and rare talent and skill, to masterfully and flawlessly play completely different characters.
and even thinking about the genius actor that johnny depp has always been he's not in the same league as brando. they were actually in a movie together which is so awesome, don juan de marco. now that i know brando bc it've watched hi in 3 movies in the last few years, i really want to re-watch don juan de marco.
i'm sure johnny depp is a huge fan of and idolizes marlon brando.
lukejbarnett