Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

jeremy3 Brando appeared a bit over the top in films like The Wild Ones, On The Waterfront, The Godfather, and Apocalypse Now. Having just seen this film for the first time, I compare this role to The Chase (1966) where Brando plays a sheriff in a Texas town humbled by his duties. In The Ugly American, based upon the 1958 novel, Brando plays an LBJ like journalist who becomes ambassador to the fictitious southeast Asia country of Sarkan (but very clearly really Vietnam). The film was made while JFK was President, but there are great similarities to Brando's Ambassador MacWhite and LBJ. Brando plays a moderate to liberal Democrat who faces an uphill confirmation hearing due to the skepticism of hawkish Senator Brenner (Judson Laire). Laire is a virulent anti communist who is both wrongly and rightly concerned that a journalist who just fought the Japanese in WWII in Sarkan has any experience to be the ambassador of the country of Sarkan in the late 1950s. The main argument MacWhite makes is that he is good friends with Deung (Eiji Okada), the powerful nationalist opposition leader in Sarkan. MacWhite is confirmed but he is nearly killed by a mob that greets him at the airport. MacWhite may be liberal leaning politically, but he is still 100% a former military man. MacWhite naively believes that it is all about America being the "good" force for progress against "Communism". MacWhite meets his old friend Deong, but then foolishly starts an argument over the value of building the "freedom road" to the north border of the country, which MacWhite sees as progress, and Deong (with wide popular support) sees as American imperialism. MacWhite denounces Deong as a "communist" and they become enemies. MacWhite insists on continuing the building of the "freedom road" to the border with the communist neighbors, despite several people telling him that it will just provoke the paranoia of the communists and be seen by the majority of Sarkans will resist it as cultural and economic imperialism. Eventually, his stubbornness and persistence results in a civil war. Prime Minister Sai (Kukrit Pramo) demonstrates that he is a very wise leader, in contract to MacWhite's foolhardy arrogance. Prime Minister Sai finally convinces MacWhite that Deong is not a communist, Deong himself will be betrayed by the communists, and that Sarkan may fall to the Communists unless the U.S. military intervenes. I really liked this movie, because Brando's character does realize, albeit probably too late, the errors of his thinking. MacWhite saw everything in "black" and "white" and failed to see what was truly going on in Sarkan. MacWhite tries too late to warn the American people to go back to the principles of our own revolution and show the World that we are for these principles, not lecturing other cultures about how to live.

moonspinner55 Marlon Brando gives a fair performance as the new American Ambassador elected to Sarkhan in Southeast Asia, which had been a peaceful, friendly nation fifteen years prior but is now being taken over by radical Communists distrustful of outside development. Adapted from the novel by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, the dramatic, talkative picture (filmed mostly in Thailand) is a thoughtful rabble-rouser about conflicting political views. Brando's one native confidante in Sarkhan (wonderfully portrayed by Eiji Okada) admits to working both sides of the proverbial fence, which allows for a stimulating discussion of personal values in which common sense no longer comes into play. Although beautifully photographed by Clifford Stine, the results are literate and intriguing without being intrinsically exciting (at its core, the nature of the film is a tug-of-war, with the participants often engaged in a shouting match). Moving in fits and starts, one must sit through a great deal of pontificating before arriving at the conclusion, however the film's strongest scenes remain forceful and memorable. ** from ****

raymundjohansen Southeast Asian freedom fighter is duped by communists and American bumbling into misidentifying his and his people's true enemies. Endlessly fascinating how this straightforward and beautifully told story is misinterpreted decade after decade. The film leaves the viewer with feelings of nostalgia for an America that was once confident of its own decency, while at the same time pointing out how that aspect of the American character (meaning our confidence) could lead to dangerous miscalculations. If you want to see a really disturbing segue, watch the last scene back-to-back with Colonel Kurtz's soliloquy on communists cutting off the arms of inoculated children.

linga_04 This film came out in 1963, just when the Kennedy/Johnson administration started to escalate the war in Vietnam. I am terribly dismayed and disappointed that the U.S government learned nothing from this movie.In the first place, it is utterly and unrealistic to muddle into the political affairs of a country with very different culture and political background. Secondly, while we in the western world deplore communism, it is very silly and idiotic to treat it as a contagious disease, to be repelled and avoided at all costs. With our wealth, freedom of expression and using an open-door policy, we can show the people in the Communist countries or countries about to go Communist that our system is better and in every way offers people more freedom, pleasure and security. I think this film should be shown whenever and wherever people come to see the Vietnam Monument in Washington