Rating the Post 1973 Brando Movies

Brando released 12 pictures after Last Tango in Paris (1973) all of them supporting roles. Anyone looking for Brando  "The Great Actor" will be disappointed.   Three of the twelve movies are extended cameos. In the remaining nine films, we have:

• two with serious acting
• one SF/horror film
• one political movie
• one Western
• one Heist movie
• and three Comedies 

Here are the two movies with serious acting:  In Apocalypse Now,  he's simply awful and earned bad critical reviews. And Dry White Season won Brando an AA nomination for a 15 minute, two scene standard lawyer role.  Looked at from another angle, three of the nine are stinkers, four are forgettable, and only two  are good/very good. None are Excellent.

Its a sorry record, and covers the last 30 years of Brando's life.  But -as he said publicly- Brando only acted for $$$ or to push his left-wing politics. And he succeeded in making as much money as possible with the least amount of effort.  To make these 12 movies Brando didn't spend - in total - more than 12 months on set and made at least $100 million . And he never had to lose weight. He could be chubby or a 280 lbs land-whale and still rake in the cash.

I've ranked the movies as follows:

Very Good
Apocalypse Now (1979) - But Brando is awful. The worst thing in the movie

Good
Superman (1978) - *
The Score (2001) - A generic role. Brando performance unremarkable.

Average
Missouri Breaks (1976) - Some interesting acting in a dull part.
Dry White Season (1989)  - A Generic  Lawyer Role. Undeserving of an AA nomination
The Freshman (1990) -  A comic Godfather
Don Juan Demarco (1994) - Average in every respect.

Below Average
The Formula (1980) - An effective performance but little acting required .
Columbus (1992) - *

The Worst
Island of Dr Moreau (1995) - Brando does comedy - Unintentionally
Running Brave (1997) - *
Free Money (1998) - An awful performance in a bad comedy.

* = Brando's role is so small - no  comment is necessary.

Major Barbara (1941)

Based on the 1906 George Bernard Shaw play, this seems like an odd movie to make in the middle of World War II - but its an excellent adaptation, due to the acting talent involved. Standouts include Wendy Hiller as Barbara, Rex Harrison as the Brother, and scene stealing Robert Morely as the witty, cynical Arms Merchant. Having listened to the play on CD, these great actors improve the dialogue 100 percent. The B&W photography is brilliant but the direction stagy.  

Cons?  Well, its George Bernard Shaw.  Which means there's too much talk, and everyone's a caricature - not a realistic character*.   And, though the movie improves on the play -  we get too much dated politics.**  Summary: An excessively long Shaw play made enjoyable by an all-star cast. Rating 3 of 4


Notes
* -  Shaw was an extremely odd man, who lived a very odd life.  Its one reason real people don't seem to exist in his plays. Its not just that Shaw makes them political mouthpieces, they also lack warmth and normal attitudes/motivations. For example, is there a single Shaw play where two people are genuinely in love?  Or have a affectionate parent/children relationship? Even in Pygmalion, he refused to have Liza and Higgins fall in love, like everyone wanted.  Instead, he insisted they end up  like two bank clerks who've  learned to respect each other!  

** In 1906, it was easy to believe that war and an arms merchant were the ultimate evil. And we could stop it all by getting the Great Powers to quit making Battleships and Cannons and sign peace treaties. The ensuing World Wars and Cold War showed how naive and silly that was.

Death of a Cyclist (1955)

I really loved this Spanish art film about an adulterous couple that commit hit-and-run manslaughter and fear they will be found out.  Great B&W cinematography. direction, acting, and dialogue. Another plus is the location shots of 1955 Spain - and the Spanish Civil War subtext. The cast if great - especially Lucia Bose as the adulterous wife - what a beautiful face! And then there's Carlos Casaravilla as the sly, villainous art critic/pianist.  His ability to change moods in mid-sentence was amazing. The supporting actors are pitch perfect.  The story isn't Hitchcock, its too realistic for that, but there are some interesting twists and turns. Until the end, I felt I was watching a movie about real people - not fake actors.

Cons?  The Music was sometimes intrusive. And then there's the ending - see spoiler discussion below.  Summary:  Excellent, if talky,  Spanish crime film that kept my interest. If you're in the right mood, its very enjoyable.  Rating *** 1/2 

The Ending (Spoilers) 
Sigh. I think there was a law back in the 1950's that every European Art film had to have a sad ending. Why couldn't Marie have bravely gone to the police station with Juan? Or why couldn't Juan have "Taken the fall" for Marie? This would've allowed her to reconcile with her husband and chastened,  agreed to sin no more.  Instead, we get Marie - seeing no way out - running Juan down in a fit of despair, and then dying herself when she speeds to catch a plane.

I agree there's an almost geometric logic/justice to it. They both pay for their misdeed. He dies for helping her get away with manslaughter, and the same reckless driving that killed the cyclist, kills her. But still, I would've liked a more noble ending for our characters.  BTW, I found it odd that SHE drove the car, but realized its a very expensive car and most Spaniards in 1955 didn't know how to drive.

Mo' Better Blues (1992)

Pros: Acting, Characters, Atmosphere, Music.  Cons: Lack of narrative drive, meandering dialogue, excessive length.

Spike Lee film about a successful Jazz Trumpeter (Denzel Washington) and his manager (Spike Lee).  Denzel is a ladies man juggling his love affairs, while Spike is an unsuccessful compulsive gambler. Jazz Clubs form the background for the interplay between the characters. There's plenty of music but its not a musical. Lee's direction. music, and the acting of Denzel Washington are highlights of the film.  I loved the characters and the world that Spike Lee gives us - but he doesn't do enough with it.  Too many scenes go nowhere. Summary: Like Tarantino, Spike Lee really needed a co-writer. Still, one of his better films - with no politics. Enjoyable.  Rating ***

The Godfather (1972)

Why Brando Took the Role
In 1971, Brando was at his career low point. The word on the street was that Brando was fat, lazy, and phoning it in. His behavior on Burn, forcing the film production to  be moved from Columbia to Morocco, didn't help his reputation. And he was no longer a box office star, (his last box office hit was Mutiny on the Bounty in 1962). Result?  "The Suits" were reluctant to hire him.

Given Brando's constant need for cash, this was a real problem. The solution was the Godfather role. It would make him some money ($500,000 for salary and points) and revive his career.  Brando was so eager for the role, he took a screen test and behaved like an angel on the set.  Of course, he didn't care about the movie, it was just a means to an end. He later refused to do Godfather II. 

Brando's Performance
Well, it won him an Oscar - deserved or not. He certainly didn't deserve it in the Leading Man category - Al Pacino is the Godfather's "Lead actor." And its easy to impress the Academy when you have memorable lines like: "I made him an offer he couldn't' refuse", and can play off great co-stars.  Despite the hysterical praise in 1972, some film critics weren't smitten. Such as:

Brando has a weak, gray voice, a poor ear for accents, and an unrivaled capacity for hamming things up through sheer underacting - and unconscionably long pauses.  He's out-acted by everyone else - even a lowly talent like James Caan.  (John Simon)

But from his opening first line, Brando betrays that he hasn't even gotten the man's voice under control. Insecurity and assumption streak the job from then on. They have put padding in his cheeks, and  dirtied up his teeth, he speaks hoarsely and moves stiffly, and these mechanics are acclaimed as great acting. I don't see how any gifted actor could've done less than what Brando does here. His resident power, his sheer innate force, has rarely seemed weaker. What Brando manufactures is surface - studied but easy effects. Brando is being praised for the difference between himself and the role - not for his achievement in it. (Stanley Kauffmann)

I think Brando did a good, if not great, job. Somehow the great actor gets lost in the Italian accent and all that makeup. I think its a top 10 performance - but below his absolute best. Rating ***

The Movie
Along with Godfather II, one of the Greatest Gangster movies ever. Perfectly acted, directed, and filmed.  If not the best movie Brando appeared in, its certainly the most popular.  Rating ****

Superman (1978) and Columbus (1992)

Why Brando took the Roles
Looking at Brando’s career after 1975, one question needs to be answered. Why were producers paying Brando $millions for so little work? It certainly wasn’t box office - from 1959-1975  Brando had only 3  box office hits: The Godfather, Mutiny on the Bounty, and Last tango in Paris.  And Godfather II proved Brando wasn’t the key to Godfather I’s success.  IMO, It’s due to 3 reasons:

1. With Brando signed-up, the Producers could attract high-end talent.  Everyone wanted to work with Brando.  And so,  George C. Scott (the Formula), Nicholson (Missouri Breaks), Matthew Broderick (The Freshman),  Faye Dunaway (Don Juan Demarco) , and De Niro (The Score), all signed up for mediocre movies because of a chance to work with the great actor. 
2. Having Brando lent a movie prestige and enabled the Producers to get financing. This happened with both Columbus and Superman. The Salkind Brothers were short on funds, and needed Bank loans & got them due to Brando's name. Note: despite Brando suing them over Superman , the Salkind’s paid Brando $5 million upfront for Columbus.
3. The producers, themselves, wanted to work with Brando. Francis Coppola could have cast Steve McQueen for Apocalypse Now, at a lower price, but preferred Brando. 

Brando’s Performances
Given the small screen-time, there’s not much to say. In both movies, Brando worked two weeks to produce about 10 minutes of film run-time.  In both films, he’s s overweight, but hides it beneath flowing robes (either clerical or Kryptonic).

Superman
On the set,  Brando got along with everyone. and impressed the Director with his acting ability. Given the absurd dialogue, his small role, and  "Hey, its a comic book character", Brando does well enough
Rating **

Columbus
According to his autobiography,  Brando tried to give a bad performance and succeeded..  Ebert called it
“the worst Brando performance in memory As Torquemada, the inquisitor, Brando sulks about the set looking moody and delivering his lines with the absolute minimum of energy necessary to be audible. He's phoned in roles before, but this was the first time I wanted to hang up.”

Why the bad acting?  Brando was angry that his movie suggestions (like showing a Jew being boiled in Oil) were ignored.  Nominated for a razzie. Rating *

The Movies

Superman
A great hit due to Christopher Reeves, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder, and (for the time) excellent special effects.  A good comic book movie - I enjoyed it. But it goes on too long.  Rating ***

Columbus
A critical and box-office bust.  Ebert put it on his "Most hated list".  But it’s not a terrible movie - just incredibly dull.  Dominated by charisma-free Georgas Corraface, its full of mediocre performances, and is sluggishly paced. There's zero sense of adventure. It takes us a whole hour to set sail.  We then spend 30 minutes on the voyage, meet the natives for 10 minutes, and then boom!, its back to Spain. There’s also a weird anti-Catholic vibe.  Rating *

The Brave (1997) and Free Money (1998)

Why Brando Took the Roles
After his behavior on Island of Dr. Moreau, Big money producers were leery of casting Brando, hence Free Money, a low-budget Canadian comedy.  The Brave was done as a favor to his friend Johnny Depp and also, Indians.

Brando's Performances
There's not much to write about.  Brando's role in  The Brave is an extended cameo. Playing a wheelchair-bound eccentric, he offers Depp money to die on film. In Free Money Brando gives an over-the-top.  unfunny, slapstick performance as a sadistic Prison warden.  Brando loved comedy - but comedy didn't love him  His headlong fall into a toilet is the highlight.  Rating *

The Movies 
Two extremely bad movies. There's nothing worse than an unfunny comedy, and the 91 minute Free Money has very few laughs.  Upon release, it went direct to video. As for The Brave, it received such critical reviews, it was only released overseas.  Words that come to mind? Turgid, badly written, and slow-paced.  Its sad that Brando decided to end his career with such terrible movies, but also fitting since he had such contempt for acting. Rating *