Watch Viva Zapata! For Free

As Good As It Gets

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

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

You will be entertained and given a little course in Mexican history when you watch this little time well spent movie. Second reason to watch? Marlon Brando who by now was feeling his oats and his power and learning how to command it. Nice portrayal of simple life in the Mexican culture consisting of tortillas, beans, hard work, humility and comraderie. We are reminded of just how simple life can be when watching this movie. another dynamic presented is standing up for a cause and how one should do whatever it takes if they believe they have righteousness on their side even unto the giving of their life. Vintage movie watching and enjoy Anthony Quinn in a supporting role. I say ....

Few actors (I can think of none) who actually live the scenes they are in rather than act them. Brando is in a class of his own. Here are a few scenes that capture the depth of Brando's skills. The best one is the scene in the church where he tries to propose to Josepha. It goes from deep anger to incredible tenderness. He actually physically hurts Jean Peters in this scene before capturing her heart. Another one captures the depth of his anguish when he holds his brother in his arms after the latter is assassinated. It cannot but bring tears to one's eyes. There are many many more in this wonderful movie which is directed exquisitely by Elia Kazan..Viva Brando!

No need to recap the plot. The movie works best as a cautionary tale on the seductions of political power. We see a succession of Mexican presidents exploit the corrupting opportunities power provides, including the tragically conflicted General Madero. Even Zapata (Brando) gets a timely reminder from an aggrieved peasant (Henry Silva), at the same time his brother (Quinn) succumbs to the temptations. The ending itself remains powerfully symbolic.Unfortunately, the movie stumbles outside of the cautionary context. The narrative itself comes across as disjointed, at best, John Steinbeck or no. Major developments, such as game changing wars, are either left out or only briefly alluded to, while too much of the dialog is that clunky pseudo-poetic phrasing Hollywood identified with noble primitives. Then too, director Kazan achieves little of the dramatic intensity he was famous for. Likely, he was hampered by the broad historical canvas that had to be crowded into a relatively brief space.Which leads to Kazan's most famous protégé, the redoubtable Marlon Brando, who appears to have swallowed a lemon since his entire performance consists of a single sour expression. We realize the burdens of peasant liberation are great, but does it have to be quite so tedious. On the other hand, Quinn projects enough boisterous personality for them both, becoming as tiresome in its own way as Brando's one note. However, neither of the stars can compete with the outrageous over-acting of Florenz Ames as the snooty father. Nevertheless, there are some good scenes, especially where Kazan choreographs the latent power of the peasantry. But on the whole, the movie is a disappointing follow-up to the previous year's Streetcar…. Looks to me like the lesson may be that action features are not the best venue for stage directors and actors, no matter how good they are.

This movie covers the life of the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata from 1909 until his death in 1919. The opening scene has a group of about fifteen Mexican peasants meeting with their president Porfirio Diaz. Diaz refers to the group as "my children" and to himself as "your father, your protector." However, when it comes to protecting the land rights legally due the peasants it is seen that Diaz is more inclined to protect the wealthy land owners who have usurped the peasant lands for their own use. The peasants are deferential to the president except for one who stays behind when they are ushered out, and that is Zapata (Marlon Brando). This is a great entrance for Brando as he appears out of the anonymity of the group to challenge the president to act. This is an interesting role for Brando since his characterization of Zapata is more of a man of action rather than a man of words. Brando speaks in straightforward sentences, often with little emotion, but he is superb in his ability to express indignation. Recognizing the corruption and injustice of the Diaz regime set Zapata on the revolutionary road.Anthony Quinn is good in his Oscar-winning performance as Zapata's more impulsive and earthy brother Eufemio. As a Mexican by birth Quinn is well suited for his role. I did have a small qualm about having a white American play Zapata. But Brando had a nice tan and did something with his eyes to where I reacted to him as Zapata rather than Marlon Brando. I found Jean Peters a bit weak as Zapata's love interest Josefa. In fact I felt that exploring that relationship bogged things down--are we really to believe that the two spent their wedding night having Josefa trying to teach Zapata how to read, using the Bible?Trying to cram a decade's worth of turbulent history into two hours, in addition to the love story, presented some problems. On occasion Zapata would appear at his home having announced a major victory, but no details were given as to who had been defeated or the significance of the victory. I was often confused about the big picture.There are many memorable scenes. The gradual emergence of the peasants out of the hills to foil Zapata's early arrest, as he was being led on a rope like and animal, was beautifully choreographed. And the final scenes have been burned into my memory since I saw this movie on TV some fifty years ago. Re-seeing some of these old classics on modern equipment is a delight.As presented here, Zapata was not a terribly complex man. He was pure of heart and obsessed with righting wrongs. Zapata's walking away from the position of authority he had achieved was an interesting turn of events, implying that he was more comfortable as a rebel than as an official leader.The screenplay has many Steinbeckian touches. The struggle of the common man against what often looks like a stacked deck is a favorite Steinbeck theme, and that is emphasized in this movie. How could Steinbeck not have been interested in this? There are some great quotes, the likes of which we rarely see in contemporary movies: o A monkey in silk is still a monkey.o A pediment of the heart is the stomach.o Can a man whose thoughts were born in anger and hatred ... can such a man lead the peace?o A strong people is the only lasting strength.o Sometimes a dead man can be a terrible enemy.o A strong man makes a weak people. Strong people don't need a strong man.o Peace is very difficult. I wonder how a man can stay honest under the pressures of peace.These latter quotes are relevant today in light of the uprisings in the Middle East. After the oppressive regimes are overthrown, then what?In spite of some of its flaws, I think this movie deserves more of an audience than it appears to have had over the years.