Best movie of this year hands down!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

One would think a film starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, directed by Elia Kazan, and written by John Steinbeck would be a sure thing. But "Viva Zapata!", while not a bad film by any means, never manages to live up to the expectations one would justifiably have for it given its pedigree. I know casting Caucasian actors as people of color was a common convention in earlier cinematic times, and that one needs to just suck it up and go with it if one is going to bother watching a movie like this in the first place, but my goodness was it hard to get past Marlon Brando as a Mexican revolutionary. The makeup they put on him looks distracting at best and actually disturbing at worst, and he makes absolutely no effort to sound Mexican. The film is oddly static and has none of the dynamic momentum Kazan could bring to a film like "On the Waterfront." Even "A Streetcar Named Desire," which essentially has a cast of four and no action sequences, feels more full of movement than this film. And much as it pains me to report, the weakest link in the chain is John Steinbeck's screenplay. It's extremely disjointed and disorienting, with major plot developments happening off screen so that Brando (in one example) goes from being a revolutionary in one scene to president of Mexico in the next without anything in between to explain the transition. It's like reading a novel with chapters missing.Quinn received the first of his two Best Supporting Actor Oscars for playing Zapata's brother, but I'm not sure why. His performance is the consummate Quinn performance, all yelling and shouting. It's criminal that he beat Richard Burton that year in "My Cousin Rachel" when Burton was in literally every scene of his movie and played his character expertly. Brando won his second of four consecutive Best Actor nominations, Steinbeck was nominated for Best Story and Screenplay, and the film received two technical nominations for its black and white art direction and its score (by Alex North).Not exactly a dud, but definitely a disappointment.Grade: B-

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 ....

Mexico, 1909. The people in the state of Morelos rise up against the tyrannical regime of President Porfirio Diaz. They are lead by a simple, illiterate peasant-farmer, Emilio Zapata. All he wants is justice and fairness for his people but as things progress he is drawn deeper into a civil war where allies and enemies are often difficult to tell apart.Written by John Steinbeck, directed by Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, and based on a true story, on paper this has all the makings of a classic. The end result, however, is far from satisfactory.The intention was good: show the life of a man of integrity and honour and the lengths he is willing to go to for the rights of his people, throw in a theme of how power corrupts, plus another theme of how a name can sustain a revolution. Can't fault the performances either. Brando, in his third movie, puts in a strong performance as Zapata. The movie provided him with his second Oscar nomination, after only three movies (his first was in A Streetcar Named Desire, his second movie). Anthony Quinn won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1953 for his portrayal of Eufemio, Zapata's brother.No, it is in the execution, especially direction and editing, that things fall a bit short of their potential. The story is clumsily told by Elia Kazan. Scenes don't link well, some scenes seem entirely unnecessary and it is difficult to follow the history behind the sequence of events. No explanation is given for the seeming lack of continuity, eg Zapata is President, all seems well, then next we know it is back to civil war with Zapata a revolutionary. No detail for the change provided.This sudden change of direction, without the events that changed the direction, is incredibly jarring and disconcerting.So, in the end, you have a historic story with many of the historic details left out. Not ideal.Overall, okay, but not great. While Elia Kazan was a great director, I can't help but think this movie would have been a masterpiece if someone like John Huston, or maybe John Ford, had directed it.

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!