Clevercell Very disappointing...

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

PimpinAinttEasy 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.

Wuchak Gillo Pontecorvo, the acclaimed director of 1966's "The Battle of Algiers" released his next film "Queimada" -- aka "Burn!" -- three years later in 1969. "Burn!" stars Marlon Brando as William Walker, a British agent sent to a fictional Caribbean island, Queimada, to spark a revolution amongst the black slaves who work the sugar cane fields. But Walker isn't really interested in freedom for the slaves, he just wants to procure the sugar trade for England. It doesn't take long for the freed slaves, led by Jose Dolores (Evaristo Márquez), to realize that their freedom is in name only. The film's called "Burn!" because fire is the European's preferred method of putting down slave insurrections, as in burning the whole freakin' island if necessary! Shot in beautiful Cartagena, Bolívar, Colombia, "Burn!" explores the nature of imperialism and insurrection. Add the most captivating actor in history and Ennio Morricone's memorable score and you have what should be a great film. While it is an impressive and unique film like "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", and had potential to be spoken in the same breath as "Apocalypse Now", this unfortunately isn't the case. "Burn!" is certainly educational and somewhat compelling in the second half, but it lacks flow and characterization. As a result, the viewer doesn't know the characters and therefore isn't drawn into their story.I've watched "Burn!" three times now and it's left me with the same feeling each time: It's worthwhile, but don't expect to be entertained or to care about the characters and their story. Brando cited "Burn!" as one of his best performances, but his portrayal of Walker is actually unmoving because he's never fleshed out as a human being, not to mention his lack of character becomes clearer as the film progresses.The film runs 112 minutes, which is the version originally released in the USA in 1969, but there's supposed to be a restored version that runs 132 minutes. I doubt the extra 20 minutes can turn such an un-involving film into an engrossing one, but I'd be interested in seeing it some day.GRADE: C+

Tony Rome I recall liking this film as a teenager, although noticing that it was not edited very well. I now find out that there was a 132 min version, that would explain the jumps in the film. Nevertheless it is a great film, beautifully photographed. It looks great in Widescreen, the Fullscreen Key VHS release was missing lots of the photography. Brando never looses his accent throughout the film. I like the narration when he is back in England 10 years later, however I expect that this was done to supplement some of the footage that may have been cut. Hopefully there is a directors cut that can be released in the US. Maybe that cut still has Brando's original dialogue to the scenes that were deleted. *****

bkoganbing 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.