As a ravishing Marlon Brando fan i was delighted to stumble across the DVD version of his first (and thus far only) attempt at directing, for a measly £5.00, which is about 1/4 of a regular priced disc. I was of course slightly apprehensive about getting it for this price because theres a reason it must be priced so low. Thankfully a lot of this can be given to the fact there are no extras, not even scene selection, and the picture and sound is not as crisp as you would hope in this day and age. Aside from the quality of the disc the film is actually reasonably good. By no means is this as good as a Sergio Leone western, but never the less it will pass a good saturday afternoon.
The film is famous for the director changing before production (originally Kubrick but i dont need to tell you that i think ever review mentains this), and for the 5 hour running time which was practically halved by Paramount, which did upset Sir Marlon (thankfully its not 5 hours as that would be pretty torturous). However few i've met have actually seen it, and this is down to the fact that its never on TV and the DVD sucks and is quite rare. Brando didnt direct again and the film has become famous for this one fact, otherwise it may just have been another of his 1960's drivel that noone really remembers like 'A Countess from Hong Kong'.
Admittedly the 60's were a dry patch for Brando before the glorious comeback which i need not remind you of, and the man on screen is not quite the man of 10 years prior or 10 years after. Hes less explosive, he almost seems like dare i say, a regular actor, he seems tired and as a result this will not be remembered as one of his great performances. Though this doesnt mean its bad, some of the expressions he makes are as good as ever, its just not a remarkable performance which he's of course capable of, and notable for. Karl Malden on the other had is excellent, i've developed a liking for this guy after his great performances in 'Streetcar' and his even better one in 'Waterfront' both with Brando, but in 'Jacks' the partnership is less good than before.
This may be down the the average storyline, its very ordinary and you kind of know whats going to happen anyway. However its not boring as theres enough action to keep you interested, even if the love story wasnt well developed at all. The cinematography is excellent, oscar nominated i add, deservedly so. Brando does a decent job in the chair, though hes hardly the guy he is the other side of the lens. I think it would be very interesting to see the way the method acting worked while he was working the camara. Perhaps the directing duties helped distract his performance in some way, this is not to say its a bad one, just not a great one.
Despite the flaws the film does satisfy you, and its certainly above average. Brando fans will be satisfied and its notably one of his 'better' 60's films, though that doesnt speak the world does it. I dont doubt that Brando could have improved on this as a director, and for his first picture it does in part impress you. However i feel that if it wasnt remembered for the director this film may have just easily been forgotten for being regulation, which it probably is to be fair, even if it is entertaining. Not to say theres that much wrong with this film, its not special, its not bad and its not one of the great westerns from the time, but a passable one.
If you like westerns and Brando then you'll possibly enjoy it, as i did, but you'll possibly not remember it in a years time. Marlon Brando is possibly the greatest actor to have lived, and has far more up his sleave than this (though its true to say he has much worse).
I'm not going to tell you that you 'must' rush out now and buy this film, and to put off your next breath while you search every shop in town just to give it a peek. But what i will say is that if you can find it for £5.00 in your local video store then its definately worth the gamble, just dont expect to hit the 'Jack'-pot.
***/*****
The film is famous for the director changing before production (originally Kubrick but i dont need to tell you that i think ever review mentains this), and for the 5 hour running time which was practically halved by Paramount, which did upset Sir Marlon (thankfully its not 5 hours as that would be pretty torturous). However few i've met have actually seen it, and this is down to the fact that its never on TV and the DVD sucks and is quite rare. Brando didnt direct again and the film has become famous for this one fact, otherwise it may just have been another of his 1960's drivel that noone really remembers like 'A Countess from Hong Kong'.
Admittedly the 60's were a dry patch for Brando before the glorious comeback which i need not remind you of, and the man on screen is not quite the man of 10 years prior or 10 years after. Hes less explosive, he almost seems like dare i say, a regular actor, he seems tired and as a result this will not be remembered as one of his great performances. Though this doesnt mean its bad, some of the expressions he makes are as good as ever, its just not a remarkable performance which he's of course capable of, and notable for. Karl Malden on the other had is excellent, i've developed a liking for this guy after his great performances in 'Streetcar' and his even better one in 'Waterfront' both with Brando, but in 'Jacks' the partnership is less good than before.
This may be down the the average storyline, its very ordinary and you kind of know whats going to happen anyway. However its not boring as theres enough action to keep you interested, even if the love story wasnt well developed at all. The cinematography is excellent, oscar nominated i add, deservedly so. Brando does a decent job in the chair, though hes hardly the guy he is the other side of the lens. I think it would be very interesting to see the way the method acting worked while he was working the camara. Perhaps the directing duties helped distract his performance in some way, this is not to say its a bad one, just not a great one.
Despite the flaws the film does satisfy you, and its certainly above average. Brando fans will be satisfied and its notably one of his 'better' 60's films, though that doesnt speak the world does it. I dont doubt that Brando could have improved on this as a director, and for his first picture it does in part impress you. However i feel that if it wasnt remembered for the director this film may have just easily been forgotten for being regulation, which it probably is to be fair, even if it is entertaining. Not to say theres that much wrong with this film, its not special, its not bad and its not one of the great westerns from the time, but a passable one.
If you like westerns and Brando then you'll possibly enjoy it, as i did, but you'll possibly not remember it in a years time. Marlon Brando is possibly the greatest actor to have lived, and has far more up his sleave than this (though its true to say he has much worse).
I'm not going to tell you that you 'must' rush out now and buy this film, and to put off your next breath while you search every shop in town just to give it a peek. But what i will say is that if you can find it for £5.00 in your local video store then its definately worth the gamble, just dont expect to hit the 'Jack'-pot.
***/*****