Long only available in the very occasional revival-house screening, or in public domain versions (which I decidedly avoided over the years despite being a fan of the good Brando films), now that Criterion has put out a remastered version (thanks Spielberg/Scorsese for being movie heroes again!) we can try and see the movie for what it is as opposed to it being some curio or other: the only film Brando directed in his long but peak-and-valley career. What I think this is is... quite good, and maybe a full third of it is truly magnificent. I have my criticisms of it, but the short of it I can say is that if you like westerns with an edge, or like Brando or Karl Malden or any of the cast - and I'll get to them next paragraph - you should see it, despite its flaws.It's nearly impossible to write about this without mentioning the traces of Sam Peckinpah, who wrote the first approved draft of the adaptation of the book by Charles Neider, and especially Stanley Kubrick, who was hired as director and had even signed a contract and was perhaps just weeks away from a start date to shoot before leaving. I don't know how much of Kubrick one can detect, though there are a few key cast members that leave a trace of his casting - future Kubrick icon Slim Pickens relishes a potentially one-note role, and from The Killing Elisha Cooke Jr has a great moment as a bank teller and the wonderfully deranged Timothy Carey as a real slime-ball townie in Monterrey - but I think that for what Brando was really after, it may have been a good idea to not have Kubrick around. As for Peckinpah... um... it sure isn't shy in its violence and supporting cast full of outlaws.According to a special feature on the Criterion DVD, the script wasn't finished at the start of production, and considering how Kubrick operated this would not do, leading Brando to a long but probably more fruitful improvisational method (the kind that isn't uncommon with those who can do it, like Scorsese). The clearest sign that this is Brando's show is that he lets scenes go on for a while, longer than many studio directors would've allowed at the time, and there's also an attention for actors to explore a scene or a moment. Brando in particular as the title character Rio, who's in this story out to get payback at his former best friend who left him for dead in the desert following a (highly entertaining/thrilling bank robbery), is all about using his hands; one might recall Brando doing things with his hands in a lot of films - it may just be an actor's trick to keep a scene from being too stiff or constrained (i.e. the glove as Brando and Saint walk along in on the Waterfront, or of course the cat in Godfather) - but here it reaches a sort of intentionally poetic peak.The core of the story with these two guys, Rio as the unruly anti-hero who is planning to rob the bank in the town of Monterrey with Ben Johnson (he is especially conniving in the film, playing every moment as both realistic/naturalistic and menacing, without seeming to do much except smile), and Dad Longworth, the guy who decided to "leave the life behind" as the cliché might go in certain crime stories outside of Westerns, and how their moral values come into play in this story. Does Rio move on with this girl who happens to be the (step)-daughter of Dad as he's married a Mexican? Or does Dad let go of his past, which seems to have not really left him when one looks at the 'other' side? Dad sells out being the Sheriff, which is a way of basically being a politician, is a nasty way to go about it, and though it is obvious how his betrayal is complete to Rio simply by continuing to lie about it (interesting this moment, which seems crucial to me for the film and is acted so well with so much with little said between the actors, was forced on Brando by the studio), while many other characters like Johnson and Pickens and even Carey in his irredeemable ways, are more honest as villains than 'Dad' (even that name is suggestive of a lot).There's so much rich material here that it pains me that the other part that Brando is betting on with this story - whether Kubrick did too I'm not sure, maybe, I'd wager, he butt heads the most with the star over this - is the relationship with the Mexican girl. It's not that the actress is bad, far from it, she ends up being believable, but the writing never sold me on why she falls for Rio, and why especially a particular revelation happens later on (sure, for 1961 we can't see much, but come on). Because of this, despite all the dramatic magnetism Brando can do as an actor with her, and he does quite a bit like in his description of what prison was like, the very end rings hollow (also a studio re-shoot). It's the main thing that keeps this from achieving its fuller potential as not only subversive western, but a great one too.Still, this has a lot of excitement, terrific shoot-outs, memorable characters, and dialog that, written or not, gives the actors a lot to do. I don't know if it completely points the way towards New Hollywood, but it does paint a picture for where Westerns, or crime films in general, could go following years of having totally black and white morality. Some of that's forced on the film, but not enough that one can't see why such a difficult but strikingly original artist as Brando wanted to do this in the first place.

Other reviews give good background on the making of "One Eyed Jacks." And, others discuss the plot and cast in detail. Judging from the problems with Marlon Brando's directing, it's clear to see why he never directed another film. I was curious why IMDb didn't have the usual budget and box office figures for "Jacks" that it has for most films. According to the Turner Classic Movies Web site, this film ran almost four times over its $1.6 million budget. It finished with a cost of $6 million. The box office was just $4.3 million.This is a good Western, with a different flair that builds audience empathy for Brando's character, Rio. Some critics say this is some sort of a "breakthrough" or turning point in Westerns. The claim is that the audience identifies with one of the bad guys. Judging from some of the reviews, they may be right – at least for some. As a viewer, I naturally sympathized with Rio for his betrayal by Dad Longworth, played by Karl Malden. At the same time, I clearly understood Rio's capture and imprisonment as just punishment for a criminal. Rio's escape and search for vengeance against Dad is a familiar plot in movies of various genres. But, his redemption toward the end, albeit for the sake of his love for Louisa (played by Pina Pellicer), is a nice twist. I think Karl Malden turns in the best acting in this movie. He nails his character hands down, with a variety of mood swings. He is pleasing and sweet, affable and friendly, angry and determined, matter of fact and all business. It's not a coincidence that Malden won an Oscar and was nominated for another (and perhaps should have been one or two more times). Malden was an excellent actor, who could play a variety of roles with great depth. He won his Oscar for best supporting actor in another film with Brando – "A Streetcar Named Desire." Malden and Brando also starred together in "On the Waterfront," in which Brando earned his first of two Oscars as best actor. Malden was nominated for best supporting actor in that film, as were two other stars – Lee J. Cobb and Rod Steiger. "Waterfront" had three of the five nominees that year for supporting actor, and it went to Edmond O'Brien, for his role in "The Barefoot Contessa."A couple of the weak aspects of this film were in Rio's character and the story. In the beginning, we clearly see that Rio is a Romeo. The difference between him, Dad and other gang members, is that Rio has taste and manners. While the others go for the bar girls and prostitutes, Rio pursues "good" girls. But, clearly, with the same purpose in mind. So, with that and even after five years in prison, it's a stretch to have Rio fall in love now. Especially with Dad's "new" stepdaughter, Louisa. I think the film was heavy in its efforts to build sympathy for Rio, by the number of times he was wrongly blamed or punished for something. Pellicer was a leading actress from Mexico. She had a promising career ahead of her, but ended it at age 30 when she committed suicide in 1964. Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Ben Johnson and Larry Duran were all very good in their roles. The scenery and cinematography were excellent. And, the technical aspects were all very good – even with a couple of noticeable jumps or skips in film cutting. The final editors must have had a real chore cutting back from the 5 ½-hours of film Brando had edited.This is a very good Western that many should find entertaining. But I can't agree with those who think it is the best Western ever. I can only think that they haven't seen some very great Westerns. "One Eyed Jacks" is not in the top rung of my list, nor is it there in other lists I've seen. Although some spaghetti Westerns were quite good and entertaining, I don't include them among the best of Westerns, primarily for the acting and stories. Among the Westerns that are likely to be found on most lists of the best of all time, are the following. "The Searchers" of 1956, "Stagecoach" of 1939, "Shane" of 1953, "Winchester 73" of 1950, "Bend of the River" of 1952, "Hombre" of 1967, "True Grit" of 1969, "The Oxbow Incident" of 1943, "The Cowboys" of 1972, "Gunfight at the OK Coral" of 1957, "High Noon" of 1952, "The Naked Spur" of 1973, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" of 1962, "The Big Country" of 1958, "Will Penny" of 1968, "Destry Rides Again" of 1939, "The Last Train from Gun Hill" of 1959, "Wagon Master" of 1950, "My Darling Clementine" of 1946, "Rio Bravo" of 1959, "Lonesome Dove" of 1989, "Open Range" of 2003, and "Dances with Wolves" of 1990. James Stewart, John Wayne, Charlton Heston and Randolph Scott were in a number of other Westerns that rank among the best. Several other stars were in one or more outstanding Westerns. And, as for the best film about vengeance, revenge and reform, I recommend movie buffs to check out "Nevada Smith" of 1966. Steve McQueen is outstanding in his role. And, for real coincidence, a supporting actor in that one is Karl Malden. I wonder if it might not be a Malden touch that brings greatness to many films. Or at least helps bring out the best of others in their roles.

It's 1880 in Sonara, Mexico. Rio (Marlon Brando) is a bank robber on the run from the authorities. His partner Dad Longworth (Karl Malden) double-crosses him and escapes leaving Rio behind. Rio is captured but he escapes from Sonora prison 5 years later. He hunts down Dad who is now a sheriff in California.This is most notable for being Marlon Brando's one and only directing effort. It's a simple western with some competent scenes. However there are a lot of amateurish camera work too. There's a reason Brando never became a director. Eventually he lost his overly long movie to be recut by the studio.The movie as it is cut by the studio is a slow disjointed western. It's not anything original or special. Karl Malden and Marlon Brando are both great actors in their prime. Neither characters are simple and the movie is compelling enough to watch. Mostly just to see what these great actors are going to do. There is a couple of nice performances from Pina Pellicer and Katy Jurado.

It is is Blu-Ray. Not perfect, but 80% superior to the umpteen USA DVD VERSIONS. I own two of those which like all goo were inexpensive, but not free..In the USA "public domain" means BS. That is why Criterion Collection has very few Americam films, but to be fair nor the main reason... I ignore and prefer not to refer to this version. Just tell you that the source was "Paramount France". Do your navigation...It is is Blu-Ray. Not perfect, but 80% superior to the umpteen USA DVD VERSIONS. I own two of those which like all goo were inexpensive, but not free..In the USA "public domain" means BS. That is why Criterion Collection has very few Americam films, but to be fair nor the main reason... I ignore and prefer not to refer to this version. Just tell