Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Burn! More at IMDbPro »Queimada (original title)
| Page 1 of 5: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 44 reviews in total |
29 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Brando's best film of the sixties, 25 April 2000
Author:
judy.dean from St Andrews, Scotland
Marlon Brando here perfects the portrayal of an upper class Englishman that
he first essayed in Mutiny on the Bounty. His British agent, Sir William
Walker, is patrician, duplicitous, sardonic, manipulative, charming - the
embodiment of perfidious Albion. This exploration of colonialism is one of
the better films Brando made in the sixties, if not the best. In it he was
able to realise his long-expressed wish to make films of a serious,
political nature and this one, which charts Britain's involvement in a
Portugese colony in the Antilles during the mid 19th century, offers an
unequivocally Marxist analysis of the struggle for freedom on the part of
the black sugar cane workers. Gillo Pontecorvo, the Italian director, had
previously made the much admired Battle of Algiers on the theme of French
colonialism.
Walker is sent to the island of Queimada on two occasions in furtherance of
British interests in the sugar trade. Initially he is employed by the
Admiralty to incite a rebellion against the Portugese and install an
independent government. Ten years later he returns, this time on behalf of
a major sugar company, to destroy the rebel leader he himself has
created.
Walker, however, is an ambivalent figure, only too aware of the
contradictions in his nature. His stance is that of the professional who
tries 'to do a job well, and to see it through'. At the same time, he
admires Jose Dolores, the rebel leader, and is contemptuous of those not
fighting alongside him. ('Why aren't you up there with them on the Sierra
Madre?' he asks a bemused government soldier.) When his successful
counter-insurrection leads to Jose Dolores' capture, Walker offers him the
chance to escape execution, and is then puzzled by his refusal. As a man
without political conviction, Walker cannot comprehend it in
others.
The film is not without its flaws. Some fairly ruthless cutting leaves the
plot difficult to follow on first viewing. The middle section, accounting
for the intervening years in Walker's life, is unconvincing. If he is a
disillusioned man, reduced to drinking and brawling (through
self-loathing?)
there is no sign of it on his return to Queimada. And whatever happened to
his next assignment in, ironically, Indo-China?
The rest of the multi-national cast are no match for Brando, who has most
of
the dialogue and is seldom off screen. Jose Dolores, for example, is
played
by a young Colombian who had never seen a film before, let alone acted in
one, and the imbalance between the two performances is all too evident.
Pontecorvo orchestrates the big crowd scenes well, and they have the
documentary feel of Battle of Algiers, but they cause the film to swing
unevenly between action and ideas.
Making the film was apparently an unhappy experience for all concerned.
Shot mainly in Colombia, working conditions were appalling with the cast
and
crew subject to illness, bad weather and threats of violence. With
Italian,
French, English and Spanish speakers involved, there were major problems of
communication. Brando and Pontecorvo had different views on the main
character - the director wanted him portrayed as an unmitigated force of
evil while Brando pushed for more light and shade - and relationships
between the two deteriorated rapidly. Filming was finally completed in
Morocco after Brando, who was at a very low ebb in his life, walked off the
set and threatened to quit the production altogether.
Despite its flaws, it remains a fascinating film, with a literate script, a
strong anti-racist message and a central performance of great intelligence
and wit. Why has it never been released on video in the
UK?
20 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
"If a man gives you freedom, it is not freedom. Freedom is something you take for yourself.", 15 September 2008
Author:
ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
Marlon Brando's involvement in the making of "Burn" came about directly
as the result of his politician idealism and his desire to make films
with a comment on the human situation… In 1968 he was deeply concerned
in supporting civil rights causes, particularly those to have reference
to black and Indian conditions, and, according to his friends, he was
greatly disturbed and depressed by the assassination of Robert Kennedy
and Martin Luther King…
"Burn" begins in 1845 as Sir William Walker (Brando) arrives on the
island of Queimada, truly as far as can be judged as a harmless
traveler but actually an agent of the British government ordered to
incite a revolution that will shatter the Portuguese control on the
island and permit the British to put their hand on the valuable
sugar-cane total product… Queimada has a population of two hundred
thousand, of whom only five thousand are Europeans…The main town is a
well-protected port with a fort and a garrison, a governor's palace, a
cathedral, a bank, a hotel and a brothel…
The English gentleman recognizes he must play the part of a political
Pygmalion… He looks around for a suitable subject to train as a
revolutionary and he selects José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez), a large,
handsome black dock-worker with an air of confidence… Walker also
recruits Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatori), an almost-white clerk with
political ambitions… Walker persuades José Dolores to steal the bank of
the island, and once he does, Walker reveals his name to the
government, thereby turning Dolores into a hunted bandit… The ingenious
Walker then teaches Dolores and his followers in the use of firearms
and gradually absorbs in them ideas and feelings to overthrow the
Portuguese government…
The film is quite obviously political in tone, and is a passionate
piece of propaganda in the anti-colonial struggle… Brando's
interpretation of Sir William Walker is apt to call up memories of his
Fletcher Christian… This is another Englishman, whose gentle speech and
soft manners disguise with courage and determination…Walker is not a
villain but a cold, inflexible pragmatist with a hard work to
accomplish…
21 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
An intelligent action filled political thriller., 15 October 1998
Author:
Albert Ohayon from Montreal, Quebec, Canada
One of the most under-rated films of all time. Marlon Brando is at his best playing the cool, witty Sir William Walker. The film is taut and fast paced. Add to this an intelligent script and beautiful scenery as well as an ironic political story and you have an excellent film. Brando carries the film in his portrayal of Sir William Walker, who is ready to play either side of the political struggle to satisfy his government's (Great Britain) needs. He is equally at ease with the rich upper class plantation owners as with the slave sugar cane cutters allowing him to take advantage of both. Where the film triumphs is in its ironic showing of how colonial powers will stop at nothing to get what they want no matter what the cost. Are the islanders of Queimada any better off as an independent country but relying on the British for trade, or as a colony of Portugal? Hard to say. The sugar cane cutters are no better off that's for sure. The musical score by long time Sergio Leone contributor Ennio Morricone captures very well the senselessness of the revolution as well as the fact that the slaves are just pawns in a much larger and dangerous game.Apparently the actor who plays Jose Dolores was an illiterate sugar cane cutter and had never even seen a film. Even with this handicap, he still manages to give the heroic Jose an air of dignity. It is nice to see a film that does not accept that everything is all right in the world and that such a trivial thing as having sugar for our tea, can have life and death consequences for so many people. A film not to be missed.
22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
A Complex Political Thriller, 9 May 1999
Author:
Paul Arthur (pnarthur@msn.com) from London, England
Albert Oyahon (a previous review) seems to have said it all. This indeed is a deeply complex, gripping and deeply political film. For those who are used to simple moral tales it will seem confusing, uncomfortable even, but for those who relish the complexity of the human condition it is a challenging and thoughtful film. The number of truly outstanding political thrillers can be counted on the fingers of one hand (A Man For All Seasons and Z come to mind) but this ranks amongst the best. With the possible exception of On The Waterfront, it is difficult to think of a film in which Brando gave a better performance. He is outstanding as a complex political manipulator. The film also has qualities that arise only when different cultures (in this case Europe and The Americas) come together. To an intelligent filmgoer I cannot recommend this film too highly.
21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Powerful, Moving and Humane, 19 October 1999
Author:
Dave Godin (Dave G) from Sheffield, England
This is, without doubt, one of the best films ever made which deals with
the
festering malaise of racism, and, by distancing it into the past,
Pontecorvo
brings home truths that are entirely appropriate to the present day. He
brings an almost psychological precision to his films.
Working in close association with Ennio Morricone who augments so many
scenes with his stunning score, Pontecorvo creates a film of ideas
presented
as adventure, with scenes of breath-taking spectacle which are on a par
with
those of the earliest silent days of cinema, when one could be overwhelmed
by the sheer number of extras employed and the vast panoramic canvases
presented to us. In a sense, these images of a collective mass of humanity
are in themselves an abstract call to insurrection and rebellion; a
fearsome
judgement on the over-wheening
arrogance of white Christian and colonial culture in the past, and those
remnants of it that still echo to this day. As those who read my postings
may well guess, I believe music plays a tremendously creative role in film,
and is a contributory factor of immense importance, and QUEMADA utilises
music almost like a weapon in its armoury!
Brando has said, in an interview published some years ago in `Playboy'
magazine, that he and Pontecorvo didn't get on well together during the
production of this movie, (one perhaps forgets now that when QUEMADA was
made, Brando's career was at a very low point!), and yet there is no hint
of
this in the movie itself, as Brando turns in one of his most measured,
considered and subtle performances. So suave, and so genteelly treacherous!
Pretending to `do what's right', but eventually `doing what's
white'.
Fine and thought-provoking dialogue is a plus: `Freedom is
not
something somebody gives you. It is something you take for yourself', and
there is a powerful scene where, in an unguarded moment of temper, the
character played by Brando, who, up until then has shown himself to be the
benign white liberal, suddenly hurls a racist epithet at his prisoner, thus
reminding us, that every `brother' ain't always a `brother'!
Pontecorvo's films always seem to manage to upset both the Left and the
Right of the political spectrum, (from my own libertarian point of view, a
source of deep satisfaction), because he has always refused to traffic in
slogans or short-term solutions to complex and long-gestating problems. He
knows always that human nature is not consistent, and that, (as Shaw once
said), `People don't have their virtues and vices in sets; they come all
mixed up, anyhow'.
Finally, mention must be made of the superb title sequence; such a stunning
and exciting `overture' to the content of the film to come, which
stimulates
and excites from the very outset.
Gillo Pontecorvo has not made many films, (and whatever happened to OGRO?),
but in my view, he has made three masterpieces, and this is one of them.
One
could almost get nostalgic for the days when, to show the East how
laid-back
and freedom-loving we in the West were, we allowed heretics to make the
occasional movie that dealt with IDEAS... Now that such fine points no
longer need to be made at International Film Festivals, seems like `ideas'
as an ingredient in films, have been put on the back burner! No doubt we
shall all live to regret it!
16 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
response to synchonic's review, 26 December 2004
Author:
shamim_ahad from Canada
Synchonic says: >It would be a far more interesting story to try and
figure out, or >juxtapose, >why revolutions in the Caribbean or Latin
America, >generally led to civil >war ?and dictatorship while the
revolution in >North America -- as in what ?>became the USA and Canada,
became >peaceful wealthy democracies. Canada never ?>had a revolution,
but it >peacefully transitioned from colony into sovereign >nation
without a ?>shot or a death.
The revolution in the United States was a rebellion of white people
against a white monarchy. American colonists, although in the service
of British interest were not slaves and were not black. Further to that
the class that revolted in the US were the ruling classes of that
continent so when it came to negotiate they were not treated with the
same racist vehemence that colored Carribbean people were. That doesn't
excuse the the brutality of the eras that followed but it certainly
didn't help economic matters, which as we all know is the key to the
prosperity of any society.What was very obvious in Quemada was that
there was a war of independence but also class crisis : between the
ruling Portuguese and the domestic non black islanders and between the
black ex-slaves and everyone else.
Also Canada did have rebellions which were put down rather violently.
Aboriginal efforts aside, there was the rebellions led Louis Riel in
1869 and 1885, The Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837, Quebec's Silent
Revolution that led to the FLQ crisis in 1970 where PM Trudeau
instituted martial law and arrested several hundred people without
charge.
And what pray tell does Brando's effeteness have to do with anything?
all upper-crust gentlemen of that era are effete by our standards.
This is an excellent movie for Brando and history buffs alike. There
are many parallels you can make with current events concerning
globalization and the role that Multinational Corporations Play.
18 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
He is the man!, 9 December 2001
Author:
diegosantti from miami, florida
Marlon Brando is just amazing in this intelligent film.Most people don't understand Brando's career choices during the sixties.But I think that as years go by,they will.His ideas were way ahead of his time.His talent and range were unbelievable.Every actor tries to imitate his intensity (deniro,penn,nolte,.....) with no success.Definitely the king of acting.
11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
"That's The Logic Of Profit, Isn't It?", 26 July 1999
Author:
Michael Coy (michael.coy@virgin.net) from London, England
In the 1830's, the island of Quemada in the Antilles is a Portuguese
colony - that is, until an English agent provocateur arrives and inspires
the black slaves to rise and expel the colonial authorities. However, as
is
always the way with revolutions, a group of middle-class power brokers
seizes political control and the people's aspirations are
betrayed.
Ten years pass, and the sugar industry now requires peace and
stability
on Quemada. The continuing guerilla campaign by the dispossessed blacks
is
harming profits. The very same English adventurer is once more despatched
to the island, this time to hunt down and eradicate the revolutionaries he
created.
Marlon Brando plays Sir William Walker in his best Fletcher Christian
English accent and a blonde wig with a life of its own. His is a
thoughtful
performance, putting across the complexity of the man, a character who is
undoubtedly cynical and unscrupulous, but who is also an emotional man and
something of a political philosopher. He is certainly effective at what
he
does.
The direction of Gillo Pontecorvo is somewhat erratic at times.
There
are points where the narrative is confused, and the gold robbery which
drives the plot somehow got left on the cutting-room floor. Jose Dolores'
rise to power is the most significant event in the story, but we see
nothing
of it. During the voodoo carnival, two of the participants are wearing
20th-century soccer shorts. The film's central pivot, the passage of ten
years between Walker's two visits to the island, is handled very sketchily
by means of a few incongruous London scenes and a voice-over
narration.
But there are good things, too. When Santiago's widow hauls her
husband's body away, the masonry of the fort stands as a silent metaphor
of
colonial power - harsh, overbearing and sterile. Brando has some fine
speeches, musing on the nature of political legitimism. The fire scenes
are
visually arresting (though it would have sufficed to have two or three
guerillas being shot as they emerged from the burning sugar cane: seven or
eight is labouring the point), and Walker is positively luminous against
the
tortured black shapes of the charred forest, showing in symbolic form that
this man thrives on the suffering of the blacks, and that destruction is
his
natural element.
10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
The horror of slavery burns to the core of the human psyche., 3 December 2005
Author:
KJacob73 from United States
Gilo Pontecorvo has crafted an extremely intense documentation of the
use of human beings as slaves, and how do those slaves free themselves
not only mentally but physically. Evaristo Marquez plays Jose Dolores
with an intensity and intelligence as a symbol of oppression. Marlon
Brando plays William Walker who is is sent to Portuagal occupied sugar
plantations to manipulate slave Jose Dolores into leading a revolt
against the Portuguese, which will later allow England to dominate the
slaves themselves. Complication arises once the slaves have had a sense
of power and freedom. Their reaction becomes baffling to the Portugese
and to the British.
Both Brando and Marquez give forceful performances giving their
relationship a love/hate subtext. The scenes in which Walker trains
Jose to revolt through manipulation are fascinating to watch. Dierector
Pontecorovo once again proves he is a master of crowd scenes and mass
destitution on screen, as he did in the more well received THE BATTLE
OF ALGIERS. Morricone also as usual lends a haunting score. It would be
hard to imagine a film like this being made today in such blunt
fashion, but the manipulations of those in power over the servitude
continues to be relevant. BURN doesn't have solutions to the problem of
Man's desire for domination, but it gives it one hell of a vision of
the motivations and calculations empires will do to control others and
ensure their domination in the World.
At times film seems to be a bit choppy and loses focus, but this was
know to be a problematic production to begin with. There are several
versions of the film with slightly longer running times. In some ways
the dubbing of voices and awkward transitions lend to a more haunting
and gritty experience while watching the film. The scenes of battles
and dances seem so authentic it almost feels as if the cameras is
witnessing events that occurred hundreds of years ago.
Brando himself seem to really be enjoying playing the somewhat
sadistic, but at time empathic Walker. He shows know fear that his
playing with the victims of colonialism like a game of chess could
result in dire consequences not only for England, but for himself.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Spells Out The Problem, But Provides No Answers, 29 March 2008
Author:
bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This fictional drama of British economic imperialism in the 19th
century lays out the problem quite nicely about unequal distribution of
wealth, but provides no solutions except very tired Marxist rhetoric.
Sociology tells us how hunting and gathering societies give way to
agricultural societies, which then give way to industrial societies.
History does not paint a pretty picture, a lot of people get trampled
in the progress of mankind. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just as
phenomenon that exists. Of course what we should be studying history
and sociology for is to find ways to cushion the blow. If we're not
doing that, then what it's all about in school?
Queimada is the study of how one vigorous imperial power takes over an
agricultural society that's run by another. Marlon Brando plays a
British agent who foments revolution on a Portugese held island in
order to put in a puppet government that will give the British a most
favored status in trading for the island's one crop economy of sugar.
Brando succeeds all too well as the idea of freedom with all its
implications, especially with its charismatic leader Evaristo Marquez.
Oh, if Gillo Pontecorvo had only gotten Sidney Poitier as he originally
wanted for the role that amateur Marquez had. Queimada might have been
a far better film. Marquez is a charismatic amateur, but that's all, in
fact the rest of the cast will be completely unfamiliar to American
audiences.
One glaring error which I don't understand. This was originally to be a
Spanish held island in the West Indies which certainly would have been
more accurate. The British and Portugese have a traditional alliance,
in fact the United Kingdom and England before that was a guarantor of
Portugese colonies all over the world. Supposedly the Spanish protested
and Pontecorvo gave in. So it was not only inaccurate, but if the
Spanish were upset why would anyone not think the Portugese wouldn't
be?
Pontecorvo being a man of no mean integrity left the Italian Communist
party upon the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Still like many on
the left, he was eternally looking for that great just society that
seems never to work in practice. He provides no answers in Queimada
just diagnosis.
Still Queimada does raise thought provoking questions and should be
seen and studied.
| Page 1 of 5: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
| Awards | Newsgroup reviews | External reviews |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.