Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

ScratchAce If not for the performances of Nicholson, Quaid and Lloyd, this western would be completely forgettable. A very slow-paced (at least initially) picture that doesn't warrant more than one viewing. Its hard to believe in Brando's character based on his performance. You could remove his character from the movie and it wouldn't detract from the story.The cinematography is realistic and appropriate for this time period. The chemistry between Lloyd and Nicholson is intriguing and it would be interesting to see them act together in a different movie.Some decent laughs (the train robbery with Nicholson), but the plot is flawed and not that interesting. This movie doesn't crack my top 100 of westerns.

Fred Schaefer Despite what a lot of reviewers on IMDb say, I think the critics who slammed THE MISSOURI BREAKS when it came out got it right the first time: this movie is a mess, and considering the incredible talent both on screen and behind the camera, a colossal disappointment. It's meandering and indulgent, a representative of some of the worst of 1970's film making.I am a big fan of both Marlon Brando and Jack Nicholson and remember the anticipation when this movie came out back in the spring of 1976 only months after Nicholson won the Best Actor Oscar for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; Brando was still riding high on the strength of his comeback in THE GODFATHER. It was also directed by Arthur Penn, the man who made BONNIE AND CLYDE; what could go wrong?Well, just about everything starting with the script by Thomas McGuane, which was evidently thrown away before production even started. What we get is an ambling story about some horse thieves in Montana being hunted down by a Regulator hired by a spiteful rancher. That's a good story for a ninety minute Randolph Scott/Budd Botticher horse opera in the 1950's, but not enough to fill more than two hours two decades later; we get scenes full of rambling dialog by actors trying to sound "authentic" as they wander through miles of beautiful Montana countryside. Great effort is made to effect a grimy and dingy look as characters trudge through muddy streets to get to an outhouse. Then there is Brando's wildly out there performance as Robert E. Lee Clayton, the Regulator hired to hunt down Nicholson and his gang of horse thieves by rancher John McLiam. Reportedly Penn could not get Brando to follow his direction and just gave up, letting the big star improvise his lines ("Granny's getting' tired.") in an erratic Irish brogue, even playing some scenes in a Mother Hubbard dress. What we get is a performance from Brando that seems to be in a movie all it's own, with little relationship to the rest of the actors around him. It is clearly apparent that the Emperor has no clothes, and that the greatest and most dynamic actor of his, or any, generation doesn't know what the hell he's doing and does not care. It's a shame, because when he did give a damn, and had a strong director (Elia Kazan, Francis Ford Coppola) to work with, Brando did legendary work. Given that it is a western and the tone of the screenplay, I really wonder what Sam Peckinpah would have done with it; he worked on ONE EYED JACKS and reportedly got along well with Brando.Nicholson on the other hand, does not shame himself here, but his Tom Logan is really not one of his "Jack" performances, still nobody could shout a line like him. He would revisit the genre with better results a few years later in Going SOUTH. I fully understand why THE MISSOURI BREAKS has its fans, there is much about it that is striking and unique, especially the violent death scenes when Clayton takes out members of Nicholson's gang: the drowning of Randy Quaid; Frederic Forrest getting blown away by a Creedmore rifle while taking a dump in the before mentioned privy; Harry Dean Stanton getting that nasty looking harpoon/shiv in the eye. And any movie with the great Harry Dean in it is worth at least a look; Kathleen Lloyd makes for a lovely leading lady opposite Nicholson as the villain's daughter. Shame she didn't get better roles in better movies. I guess what I really hold against THE MISSOURI BREAKS is that it helped kill off the western in the 1970's despite the success that same year (1976) of John Wayne's THE SHOOTIST and Clint Eastwood's THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES. Both Brando and Nicholson were paid over a million dollars each for their work here and the movies's failure made producers skittish about taking such risks again. They don't make movies like THE MISSOURI BREAKS anymore, and that's just as well.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) In "The Left Handed Gun" Arthur Penn was breaking the myth of the gunfighter, but was creating in its place another myth, the "Brando, James Dean, Rebel Without a Cause, The Wild One" gunslinger. But in "The Missouri Breaks", with Marlon Brando, Penn breaks away from any stereotype, there is no style for Brando's performance, only anarchy. And through this anarchy he manages to fit in a convincing way in an almost conventional western screenplay.Almost because of the unusual role of the women making sexual advances on the men like David Braxton's daughter and the farmer's wife, and also the insinuation of Braxton's homosexuality. If this lack of "style" and anarchy prevalent in Brando's character makes him such a good killer, it is also the cause of his downfall, due to carelessness. "The Missouri Breaks" is a very good western which was badly received when originally released, but was ahead of its time, and deserves to be seen again.

MartinHafer While Marlon Brando was in his prime, he was considered by many to be a genius actor. In the mid to late part of his career, however, there were some performances that might just indicate that his hold on reality was slipping a bit or perhaps he just didn't care. Some chalked it up to his greatness--and they adored these 'eccentric' performances. Others, just felt confused--after all, he WAS a great actor...but these odd parts just seemed weird and often off-the-cuff. His real-life antics didn't help any--with some VERY high profile occasions where he showed up on sets completely unprepared and unwilling to take conventional direction. With "Apocalyse Now", he showed up---grossly overweight, never having read the novel or screenplay and insisted on doing things 'his way'--which often meant very random method acting that the director, Francis Ford Coppola. Here with "The Missouri Breaks", Brando once again gave a VERY idiosyncratic performance. Like Coppola, Penn ended up just letting Brando do what he wanted and hope it worked.When the movie debuted, I remember some of the critics being rather harsh with the film--and a few criticized Brando in particular. Now, decades later, I've decided to see some of these later films to make up my own mind. While it's well documented that Brando was odd and difficult on the set, could he still turn out a good performance? Well, while I know it is bound to ruffle a lot of feathers, I will go so far as to day that he was the worst aspect of this film. His acting seemed inconsistent (the accent seemed to come and go) and just plain strange. His behavior when he showed up at the wake seemed whacked out, he had a weird scene with his horse and he also wore a woman's bonnet and dress during one of the scenes late in the film just seemed like a joke. To me, this was all just distracting from the film itself. It's a shame, as the western is a decent 'modern western' (with looser language, grungy costumes and a less glamorous look) by Penn--the same guy who modernized the gangster genre with "Bonnie and Clyde".In contrast to Brando, I felt that Jack Nicholson was a major plus to the film. While a 'bad boy' by reputation, here he seemed professional and believable....and a bit likable even though he was indeed a rogue. When he was funny (such as the hold up scene), it made sense. In fact, I wanted more of his in the film and a lot less of Brando. Overall, it's a decent western but one that is frustrating at the same time--not bad but if could have been a lot better.By the way, if you do watch the film, it is rather graphic and adult in its sensibilities. You will NOT mistake this for a Roy Rogers or Gene Autry film!