Burn! (1969) User Reviews

"If a man gives you freedom, it is not freedom. Freedom is something you take for yourself."

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 15 September 2008]

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

One of the Most Machiavellians Characters of the Cinema History

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 28 March 2009]

In the Nineteenth Century, the cynical and pragmatic British agent William Walker (Marlon Brando) arrives in Queimada, a Portuguese colony in the Antilles, to promote a revolution and benefits the sugar trade with England. He finds in the water and luggage carrier José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez) the necessary potential to be the leader of the slave revolt, and the Portuguese troops are expelled from the island; then the provisional government of President Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatore) assumes the power with the support of the British government. Ten years later, William is hired by the Royal Company that is exploring the sugar cane plantations and the Queimada government to chase José Dolores that is disturbing the economical interests of England in sugar cane with his army of rebels.

It is impressive the timing of director Gillo Pontecorvo to make and release "Burn!". In 1969, the South America was under military dictatorships promoted by the United States of America to improve their economical and political interests in the region. There are many parallel situations in the colonization process between what was happening in South America in that historical moment and in the fictitious island of Queimada in the previous century. Marlon Brando performs one of the most Machiavellians characters of the cinema history and very similar to the American advisors that supported the foregoing dictatorships (despite not using torture). His character is fascinating as well as his political capability to envision the consequences of his actions; he is indeed the personification of the thoughts and concepts of Machiavelli in "The Prince". My only remark is the use of English language in a Portuguese colony; Mr. Pontecorvo should have casted actors that speak Portuguese to be more accurate. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Queimada!" ("Burn!")

Ambitious but extremely flawed cinematic polemic

[Hancock_the_Superb · 6/10 · 27 April 2008]

Sir William Walker (Marlon Brando sporting a ridiculous blond wig) is a British agent sent to the sugar-rich Portuguese island of Queimada in the mid-19th Century. Walker's mission is to incite the island's slave population to revolt against their Portuguese masters, in order to open the island for British colonization. Walker manipulates humble porter Jose Dolores (Evaristo Marquez) into helping him rob a bank; this kick-starts a series of events in which Dolores becomes the head of an island-wide slave revolt. However, Walker has also manipulated the white landowners into declaring independence, and Dolores and his black colleagues are side-lined by the new government, which immediately opens trade relations with British sugar companies. Ten years later, Walker returns, this time accompanied by British troops, to find that Dolores has incited another revolt - and Walker is forced to put down the very revolution he started.

Queimada! is Gillo Pontecorvo's big-budget, ambitious follow-up to The Battle of Algiers. The movie seethes with the anti-colonialism and barely-restrained anger of Pontecorvo's masterpiece, but is seriously flawed in a number of important areas, which balance out the film's fascinating story and political themes.

Pontecorvo's film certainly conveys its message very well. Walker's actions to methodically secure the island are simply fascinating. He manipulates every group on-hand, focused solely on his expedient political goals. As in today's foreign policy, actions are undertaken for short-term victories, even if they backfire in the long term. Walker incites a black slave rebellion, then keeps it under control by convincing a group of white landowners to seize the capital city - an easy victory which gives Queimada a "presentable" government. Nevermind the part Dolores and his blacks played in the revolt; although no longer "slaves", their "liberation" results in their being even worse-off than before - even though the new government improves infrastructure and builds up the country - leading to a new revolt by the same rebels. Finally, when the government proves ineffective, they are disposed of by the very people who propped them up - and British soldiers intervene directly in the conflict, escalating the brutality. Though successful, these policies are also counterproductive - by burning the sugar cane forests to root out rebel forces, the British destroy the very reason they came to the island - to monopolize on its sugar. Thus, this imperialist war becomes nothing more than an exercise in pride and brutality.

All of this rings true. It is certainly pertinent to today's situations in Iraq and Afghanistan (if not as much as it was to the contemporary Vietnam conflict), showing that the more things change, the more they stay the same. On this level, the film is mostly successful.

However, the film's primary failure is in its direction. Pontecorvo's static, unemotional cinema verite style worked well with Battle of Algiers; the use of non-actors in key roles enhanced the film's realism. Pontecorvo employs the same techniques here (although the supporting cast is fleshed out with a handful of British and Italian character actors), and yet mostly fails. This is because Algiers was a relatively modest docudrama set within one city; Queimada is (or tries to be) a large-scale historical epic, and the static visual style and direction cause many of the film's major set-pieces to falter. Most of the film's action, both political and military, happen off-screen; usually, we only learn about the effects afterward. What we do see are brief snippets, which vary in effectiveness. The movie has its share of visually stunning sequences - the march of the slave army, the execution scenes, and Walker watching the massacre of rebels through an eyeglass - but on the whole, the effect is underwhelming.

The movie also lacks strong central characters. Algiers had Jean Martin's coolly professional Colonel Matthieu and Brahim Haigag's Ali La Pointe, who goes from street punk to principled revolutionary. The equivalent characters in Queimada, Walker and Dolores, are cartoonish by comparison. Although his actions are fascinating, Walker himself is not a well-drawn character; he effectively stands for the ideas he represents, but nothing more. Brando's performance is surprisingly subdued, but his wig, accent and the screenplay undermine his best efforts. Evaristo Marquez's Dolores is similar; he is more of an idea than a character, and unlike in Algiers, the casting of a non-actor does not work. In this case, it simply undermines the character. Neither character has much depth or development through the picture, and thus neither is really interesting. The supporting cast is made up of even more cartoonish stereotypes, and hardly worth a mention; only Renato Salvatori as the hapless President of Queimada makes any impression.

For all its ambition, Queimada! is something of a disappointment. Although it makes its points broadly and well, as a movie it doesn't quite work. It is ultimately one of those films that is more interesting than entertaining.

"That's The Logic Of Profit, Isn't It?"

[stryker-5 · 26 July 1999]

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.

"Your bag, senor?"

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 18 August 2022]

One of the last films Brando made that he actually cared about, it takes quite a film to live up to that terrific title sequence (complete with music by Morricone) but this certainly rose to the challenge!

Watch the original

[renegau · 10/10 · 31 March 2013]

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 .

Interesting but overlooked film

[rosscinema · 7/10 · 29 December 2002]

Most people have not seen this film and I think its a shame because its very interesting in a Costa Gavras sort of way. Brando is always fascinating to watch and this script gives him a chance to play the type of character you would come to expect from him. I have to warn you that he tries an english accent here and its not very good. I thought that Evaristo Marquez who isn't really an actor did a fine job and carried the film well when Brando wasn't on screen. Watching Brando use and manipulate Marquez like a pawn to instigate a revolt is both appalling and riveting to watch. Fascinating story is shot in an almost documentary style but the rough look of the film seems to enhance the story. Nothing glossy, but a hard look at a character with shameless motives. If you liked "Z" then you definitely will want to see this film.

An intelligent action filled political thriller.

[Alberto-7 · 10/10 · 15 October 1998]

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.

Spells Out The Problem, But Provides No Answers

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 29 March 2008]

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.

If a man gives you freedom it is not freedom. Freedom is something you... you alone must take

[politfilm · 10/10 · 29 March 2019]

In the golden age of colonialism, British government sends an agent to a tropical island under Portuguese rule with the mission to start a slave rebellion, so that Britain would take over the island, for its significant sugar cane production. However, after the British take over and formally abolish slavery, the former slaves realize that the wage-labor is also a form of slavery, and decide to revolt again.

In a simple and comprehensible way, Burn! addresses complex questions of freedom: struggle for freedom, different interpretations of and approaches to the meaning of freedom, as well as of the suppression of freedom, oppression and colonialism. It deals with the anti-colonial struggle as the conflict between the colonizer and the colonized, which is, in its essence, a class conflict.

This can best be seen around the middle of the film when Jose Dolores, leader of the slave revolt, ceases to be unaware tool for British interests and becomes a truly aware historical subject and thus becoming a model of conscious and revolutionary anti-colonial struggle. One of the captured insurgents, who expects to be executed, explains to his captors: "Jose Dolores says that if what we have in our country is civilisation... a civilisation of white men, then we are better uncivilised because it is better to know where to go and not know how, then it is to know how to go and not know where. And then Jose Dolores says that if a man works for another, even if he is called a worker he remains a slave, and it will allways be the same since there are those who own the plantations, and those who cut, own the machete, to cut cane for the owners. And then Jose Dolores says that we must cut heads instead of cane." Later in the movie, Hose Dolores himself explains: "If a man gives you freedom it is not freedom. Freedom is something you... you alone must take."

This movie merges historical events that took place in Brazil, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Jamaica, and elsewhere. In its background is a mosaic of historical facts and I'd like to draw your attention to some of them. The isle of Queimada is, in the context of the world situation of 1969, clear allusion to Cuba. Burning of the entire island in order to defeat the guerrillas is a clear reference to Vietnam and the US use of napalm. Indochina is even mentioned in the film. Our protagonist Jose Dolores is an obvious reference of Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the Haitian Revolution. In the movie, there is even an explicit comparison between the two. The Haitian Revolution of 1791 was the most successful slave revolt in history - a ragtag bunch of slaves won against three European colonial powers - French, British, and Spanish empires. It resulted in Haiti becoming the second free nation in the Americas and the first modern country run by people of African descent. Idea that slave rebellion must be severely suppressed in order to prevent it becoming a model and inspiration to other rebellions irresistibly resembles the US doctrine of the threat of a communist 'domino effect'.

William Walker, British agent in the movie, was historically the US adventurer and mercenary who, among other things, organized a private military expedition to Nicaragua in 1855. This expedition was funded by Cornelius Vanderbilt, a tycoon who controlled transportation in Nicaragua, since at that time the Panama Canal hasn't been constructed yet and trade between New York and San Francisco was conducted through Nicaragua. Walker took over Nicaragua, declared himself president and ruled until 1857 when he was driven out by a coalition of Central American armies. The day of Walker's defeat is celebrated as a national holiday in Costa Rica.

Pontecorvo's unjustly neglected tale of revolution

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 6 June 2008]

Gillo Pontecorvo's bold follow-up to "The Battle of Algiers" has become something of a cult movie over the years for a variety of reasons, (not least for the involvement of Brando), but it is a film that is little seen and was something of a commercial disaster. Set in the Antilles in the mid nineteenth century and dealing with revolution, the studios must have thought they had an adventure yarn on their hands, a swashbuckler albeit with political overtones. But the film is much closer in tone to "The Battle of Algiers" than it is to "The Crimson Pirate" and like "The Battle of Algiers" is almost a revolutionary textbook.

Brando's presence is almost incongruous since Pontecorvo cast an amateur, Evaristo Marquez, as his adversary and the film is certainly no 'star vehicle' even if Brando's performance is one of his finest and surely one of his most perverse. He plays William Walker, an English agent provocateur, sent to the island of Quiemada to instruct the natives in the art of revolt and overthrow the legitimate government, picking an uneducated, if charismatic, native, (Marquez), as the revolution's leader. But he instills in the man a Marxist sense of revolutionary fervor over and above what he had originally planned and finds himself returning to the island ten years later to help quell the revolution he had instigated.

This is a complex, diffuse film shot, (superbly by Marcello Gatti and Giuseppe Ruzzolini), like a documentary. Despite Brando's presence the studios just didn't know how to market it and it was released in a truncated version, (which is one currently reviewed here). If it isn't the masterpiece "The Battle of Algiers" was or lead us to expect from Pontecorvo, it never deserved its fate. Well worth seeking out.

A powerful political film

[JuguAbraham · 9/10 · 18 October 2001]

Queimada is a film I grew up with. I saw it for the first time in Kolkotta, India, in 1970. It's a film with one of the finest scores of Ennio Morricone and an ambiguous performance by Marlon Brando--that makes you wonder if the William Walker role is merely to be viewed as that of a mercenary. In my view, this is Brando's best performance. Recently, I found out that Brando himself stated this performance was "the best acting I've ever did" during a Larry King interview on CNN. It appears that his explanation on why he considered this was cut short by King, who evidently knew little about the film or the filmmaker. And so we will never know why Brando thought this was his best performance. But I think I can guess the reasons.

I have watched the film several times and loved Gillo Pontecorvo's direction of the scenes at the port, which are one of my favorite sequences in cinema. Pontecorvo wanted Brando to create an evil figure of "Sir" William Walker, who was a real person though not a British knight. He was an American mercenary who even went to Indo-China. Brando apparently argued with Pontecorvo that the character instead of a clear-cut evil figure should be more ambiguous and this led to major differences between the two. On viewing the film, it is evident Brando won the argument.

Franco Solinas, the screenplay writer, was a brilliant Leftist who contributed to Pontecorvo's success on "Battle of Algiers" and "Kapo." However, their films rankled the far Left and the far Right. Quiemada's script upset the Spanish government, and the filmmakers changed the details from a Spanish colony to a Portuguese colony. But Brando who probably was aware of the American connection of the lead character must have enjoyed the parallels of the story--knowing his personal love for the native Indian cause.

The film is a witty, cynical portrayal of colonial designs on impoverished poor. Sugar was the commodity in vogue then. A century later you could replace "sugar" with "oil." The film is replete with a brilliant speech penned by Solinas, spoken by Brando that begins by comparing the economics of having a wife versus a prostitute. He then ends the speech comparing the gains of a slave with that of hired labor. The political philosophy is unorthodox but hard hitting.

The visual effect of Brando's blonde hair and white clothes against the black natives is a visual metaphor. It is perhaps most anti-racist movie that I have seen with William Walker in all his glory unable to comprehend the political conviction and values of a native worker who refuses a chance to escape a cruel execution.

This film has a small but significant role for Italian actor Renato Salvatori.

I have seen hundreds of political movies--but this will remain my all time favorite. The film won Pontecorvo in 1970 the best director national award in Italy. The mix of Brando, Pontecorvo, Solinas, Salvatori and Morricone is a heady cocktail that will be a great experience for any intelligent viewer.

Riveting and decently made political denounce filled with great Brando performance and bravura set pieces

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 July 2021]

Queimada or Burn ¡ is a sort of memorable sequel to Battle of Algiers , depicting the efforts of a 19th century British ambassador to put down a slave revolt on a Portuguese-run Caribbean island by carrying out a manhunt . It results to be an Italian-made indictment of imperialist control by guerrilla-director Gillo Pontecorco . It sees Brando in nicely ambiguous form as Sir William Walker , a British agent sent to the Caribbean island of Queimada in the mid-1800s to stir up a native rebellion led by Evaristo Marquez against the Portuguese sugar monopoly . Ten years after , Brando is forced to go back there to destroy the revolution himself created, in order to open up trade with Britain and its overseas market companies .The man who sells war. The bloodier the battle - the higher the price. He's going to make a fortune on this one

Attractive film moving between political allegory and epic adventure , containing a competent imagery and providing a provocative , sharp analysis of colonialism , being professionally directed by Gillo Pontecorvo . Displaying a nice filmmaking by Pontecorvo , giving an intelligent movie , though he never allows the allegory to dominate the human content and working from a storyline by expert on the political sub-genre : Franco Solinas . Marlon Brando delivers a stiff-upper-lipped acting , emphasising his role's confused mixture of deceit and dignity , evil and intelligence . Along with Brando appear other secondaries giving acceptable interpretations , such as : the newcomer Evaristo Marquez , Renato Salvatori , Dana Ghia , Giampiero Albertini , among others . This is a good , fascinating and interesting film, though flawed at times .

In addition , a sensitive and evocative musical score by the great Ennio Morricone . As well as atmospheric cinematography by Marcello Gatii and Giuseppe Ruzzeloni . Shot on location in Cartagena, Bolívar, Colombia , Marrakech, Morocco, Saint-Malo, Ille-et-Vilaine, France and Cinecittà Studios, Cinecittà, Rome, Lazio, Italy , but a perfect remastering being really necessary . Lavishly produced by Alberto Grimaldi who usually financed Sergio Leone films . The motion picture was compellingly written and directed by Gillo Pontecorvo . Being Gillo Pontecorvo's fourth feature film. Although Gillo made fewer than 20 films , he is regarded as one of Italy's greatest directors . He moved to France in 1938 to escape Italy's fascist racial laws. He eventually returned to Italy and led a Resistance brigade during WWII. After the war, he studied chemistry and worked as a journalist before becoming a film director; he started out making documentaries . His first feature film was ¨The Wide Blue Road¨. Pontecorvo was born into a Jewish family , as he directed ¨Kapo¨ that was one of the first films about the theme of Jewish holocaust and one of the more realistic in its recreation . Gillo subsequently directed the successful ¨Battle of Algiers¨ and this ¨Queimada¨ with Marlon Brando and his final feature movie : ¨Ogro , later on, he made Documentaries and Shorts.

Powerful moments in a muddled execution...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 27 November 2010]

A 19th century British diplomat instigates a revolution on the island of Queimada in the Caribbean between the black slaves and the Portuguese colonials in order to break Portugal's hold on the sugar market. An odd bit of political rabble-rousing and quasi-history from director Gillo Pontecorvo, who also worked on the story but seems far more comfortable gazing at the vistas and landscapes of the region rather than staging a riot. Marlon Brando (grizzled, and with a precarious accent) gives a necessarily unsympathetic performance and has some amazing bits and pieces, yet the picture really only comes to life during the montages, sweeping panoramas as scored by Ennio Morricone (whose work deserves the highest praise). United Artists, afraid of offending the Spanish movie market, changed the nationality of the villains from Spaniards to Portuguese in an eleventh-hour move designed for box-office; it was a misguided decision, particularly since U.A. hardly distributed the picture after the critics' reviews were less than enthusiastic. It has only recently acquired a cult following, mostly due to Morricone's majestic music. ** from ****

A Complex Political Thriller

[Paul-250 · 9 May 1999]

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.

Uninspired filmaking

[PimpinAinttEasy · 6/10 · 1 September 2013]

An above average but somewhat uninspired film from Gino Portencovo about William Walker and Africa. Brando turns in a charismatic performance as Walker. The film initially portrays Africans as an essentially destitute people incapable of any kind of rebellion against their Portugese masters. But William Walker plays the Africans against the Portugese if only for the British to flourish over there.

The film wasn't that nuanced or anything. I mean, why were the Africans so easy to exploit? The supporting cast except for Evaristo Marquez was unremarkable at best. Ennio Morricone's background score was pretty good. I liked the final scenes just before the execution of the African rebel leader when Walker realizes that it would be tough to civilize the Africans. The film lacked force. It doesn't help that a major portion of the action takes place off screen and we are informed about it only through the dialog. So it wasn't very cleverly put together. It did not seem to be inspired filmaking. But then, the print I watched was pretty bad. They should release a blu ray of this movie.

Powerful, Moving and Humane

[Dave Godin · 10/10 · 19 October 1999]

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!

Not a great film, but worth seeing

[MoneyMagnet · 7/10 · 25 July 2007]

A new generation might not know how to take this film, since the production values are sometimes threadbare and the screenplay is very straightforward, but it's still a movie worth watching if you want to understand how the New World (including America) got to where it is today. (No, it's not historically accurate since Portugal never had Caribbean colonies, but it's clear that Portugal is just a stand-in for Spain or England or any other European colonial power.) From the start it is hard not to get involved in the struggles of the Queimadan slaves (who we see powerfully both in close-up and in mass scenes), after we first see the heartbreak and indignity of a widow and her small children forced to cart the headless corpse of their husband/father across the island themselves after he is executed by the slave masters for rebellion. It is also hard not to simultaneously appreciate and loathe the slick operations of Sir William Walker, an English agent provocateur who expertly manipulates one courageous man, Jose Dolores, into fomenting an effective rebellion that is actually planned to ultimately fail ten years later. Marlon Brando gives a masterful performance as Walker. (Even if you think you don't like Brando as an actor, you may be very surprised with him here. He considered this his best screen performance and his judgment was probably correct.) The ideas laid out in "Queimada" may seem old hat to today's audiences, but are also character-driven in a way that escapes most didactic modern treatments of racist imperialism. (Translation: It's a much better movie than BLOOD DIAMOND.) The most important message still relevant for today is that what we think of "freedom" often really isn't "free,", depending on whether we take it for ourselves, or if it is given to us (and who is doing the giving). Still an important lesson for "free" peoples around the world to keep in mind.

response to synchonic's review

[shamim_ahad · 10/10 · 26 December 2004]

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.

A memorable film

[dreaddy2 · 6/10 · 23 October 2005]

I was but a child when this film came out. AT the time so-called Spaghetti westerns were the in thing. My closest friend and I went to see another double feature when this movie trailer came on. The sequence was great but what was most memorable was the movie score. AT the time I was not familiar with the name Ennio Morricone. It's funny how that music alone sold the movie to us; just as Morricone's music carried Good, Bad, and the Ugly, and "Once Upon a Time in the West." We did go to see Burn when it did arrive but I can't remember much of it; being 10 years old, following a political movie wasn't within my grasp then. I remember getting away from home at the risk of a sound spanking to go see "Burn." I'm now seeking to own the DVD if it's out.

Underrated great film.

[WendyOh! · 10/10 · 22 July 2001]

True, Brando walks away with every scene he's in- but when doesn't he?

The other actors are clearly non-pros, which gives it at times the feel of a documentary, and at times the feel of a bad student film, and yet the depth of the topic rises above these minor quibles. It's a great film that should be seen by every social studies class, it has much to say and it says it well. Highly recommended.

Brando When He Was Still Making Movies For Reasons Other Than The Paycheck

[hokeybutt · 6/10 · 3 October 2004]

BURN! (3 outta 5 stars)

Very good drama about colonialism with Marlon Brando playing the real-life character of William Walker... who teaches a colony of black slaves to take charge of their lives and fight against their Portuguese masters... only to have to face the self-same black fighters later on when they have becomes the enemies of England. Great score by Ennio Morricone. Not really an action/adventure picture... so if that's what you're expecting you may be disappointed. Nonetheless, it is well-acted (despite some bad dubbing) with some great scenes and dialogue. I have only seen the truncated American release. I suspect if I ever see the extended version (with 20 extra minutes) my rating could be higher. At times the editing does seem really choppy... but that may just be the style. Ed Harris played the same character as Brando in the later film, "Walker".

The horror of slavery burns to the core of the human psyche.

[KJacob73 · 9/10 · 3 December 2005]

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.

Not quite up to the book.

[epat · 6/10 · 13 January 2011]

Seeing Queimada (Burn!) again after all these years & just having re-read the book, I find the film a bit lacking in clarity. The frenetic editing doesn't leave quite enough time for the full import of each incident to sink in before racing off ahead to the next scene. This gives the plot line a somewhat disjointed sensation that robs it of its overall power. In addition, the Jose Dolores character needed a bigger bolder actor to really carry it off — Ving Rhames would have been ideal. Brando played his William Walker role to the hilt — doesn't he always? — but I find the film doesn't quite do justice to Norman Gant's fine book.

Not bad...but a bit overlong and really, really, really inaccurate.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 3 November 2011]

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.