This is Brando's 'spaghetti Western,' released at the height of that sub-genre's popularity in 1966, but only in terms of style since the film was shot in California and Utah rather than Spain. The Southwestern scenery is spectacular and worth the price of admission. Imagine one of Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns but with gritty realism rather than goofiness and you'd have a good idea of what the film's like."The Appaloosa" is essentially a revenge tale entailing Brando's trip to Mexico to get his horse back. John Saxon stars as the villain who steals Brando's horse after beating him up while in a drunken stupor. Ajanette Comer plays the babe.I wasn't all that impressed with the story the first time I saw it, especially since I compared it with Brando's Western masterpiece "One-Eyed Jacks" (a powerful precursor to the spaghetti Western and the only film Marlon directed). The story in "The Appaloosa" is rather slow-paced with few action scenes. I saw it again recently and it dawned on me that the director and writer were not shooting for a run-of-the-mill Western. In the mid-to-late 60's it became fashionable to make films as gritty and realistic as possible. (Brando's "The Night of the Following Day" from 1968 is a good example). What would happen in REAL life if a man went to Mexico in the late 1800's and tried to retrieve his stolen horse? This picture shows you. Consider the confrontation-in-a-saloon scene; we naturally expect it to end in a clichéd brawl or shoot-out. It doesn't. In other words, it sneers at Western conventions. Or how about the final shoot-out? Some have complained that it's uneventful and quick, yet isn't this the way such death-duels end in real life most of the time? In short, don't expect "The Appaloosa" to play like a Hollywood blockbuster or typical spaghetti Western with corny one-liners and goofy action scenes.Another thing I like about the film is the Brando Character's relationship with his adopted Mexican family, which shows genuine kinship and warmth that transcends blood ties. Same thing with his relationship with an old man in Mexico.So "The Appaloosa" is worthwhile, but the story drags and holds it back from greatness. Still, if you're in the mood for a Mexican Western with slow-moving realism, look no further.GRADE: C+ or B- Brando made two other Westerns and both are masterpieces, albeit totally different: The aforementioned "One-Eyed Jacks" from 1961 and "The Missouri Breaks", which was released 15 years later and co-stars Jack Nicholson. Brando played one of his most fascinating characters in the latter, an eccentric loner who takes jobs killing horse thieves.

For decades, Marlon Brando has been considered one of the foremost actors of the age. There was a real aura about him and his later performances were real events--as securing his services for films had become very expensive and fraught with difficulties. Brando had become VERY difficult to direct and he regularly refused to learn his scripts or prepare--preferring to work as little as possible and use cue cards (this is according to directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Arthur Penn). Yet, despite this, he still was adored by critics. As for me, I just never understood all the hubbub about his acting. However, recently I decided to watch a few more of his films--and give him a second chance. As my wife pointed out, after seeing about 10 of his films recently, his performances seemed to either be very, very subdued or rather 'out there' and over-the-top."The Appaloosa" begins with a Mexican bandit (John Saxon) and his men stealing Brando's prize horse. And, for the rest of the film, Brando tracks down the guy to retrieve his animal. How all this transpired was a bit odd--but that really is the plot--along with a subplot involving a woman who hated Saxon and wanted to leave him.The film comes off very much like a Spaghetti Western version of the plot for "Winchester '73"--though not as good as the original film. There are a few neat elements in the film but also some very silly ones (such as the scorpion scene and the use of too many spurs' sound effects). Overall, the film isn't bad and Brando underplays the part a bit. He wasn't bad--but his character did seem curiously muted considering the role.

I'm being nice and giving it an even five stars just because the women and scenery are so beautiful. In Chicago there used to be a movie theater that ran Mexican produced westerns every weekend. They came out of a sardine can for the most part, when you got really lucky they had a special three banger like, "The Horsethief", "The Man Who Stole Horses" and finally, "That Man Stole My Horse!" Granted they were different movies but...Appaloosa seems to be an American adaptation of of of these movies but it's anybodies guess which one. These movies are fun though, I guess thats why they made so many of them. This one however should have been put in a tuna can. Marlon Brando is bored out of his mind. He perks up when he visits a married couple who are his friends. He flirts with the woman, lovely Mexican MILF Miriam Colon, but he's clearly more interested in her husband Emilio Fernandez.I can't pick on John Saxon, he's not the greatest actor but he earns his paycheck every time like the pro he is.Anjanette Comer is gorgeous but not in a steamy Mexican kind of way. She was perfect in The Loved One. Born to do campy sexy roles in short dresses. She's miscast here.Unless you can't get enough of your favorite actor, watch something else.

Today I have seen for the first time THE APPALOOSA and it is some western, bizarre and oblique and striking, played by one the very few extraordinary actors ever, and a strange hallmark as well—made in '66, I believe, it looks like an original, rough, sharp and uncanny revisionist western taken over by Brando once more ;it reminded me of that western directed by Brando himself, several years before Appaloosa. Which one is better? I can not say that, as it's long since I have seen ONE EYED …. And can they truly be compared? These movies exists only around Brando; and Hopkins explained well that they are iconic movies, movies enlivened by Brando's iconic presence (--and whims, and antics, if you like …--), egotistical performances meant to startle and to amaze. The script is smashed, and if Appaloosa is indeed powerfully dramatic, it's because of Brando's guts. Acts of courage, of egotism, a narcissistic cinema unfortunately sabotaged or denied by the '60s Hollywood industry; come to think of it, Gabin, Grant and others were accorded what Brando needed too—a celebratory cinema intended to exploit an actor's unusual energy and iconic glow. This is Brando exploitation. Movies like this one are designed as cult—films, and this seems their primary significance. On a large scale, this was done in the generous era of cinema—the era of true stardom. Gabin, Bogart, Garbo—and, before them, the true stars of the silent cinema, fully benefited from this. Brando, like Newman, came too late, when the cult meant a rather small niche and such a strategy was possible only in the B cinema (see the Bronson file, or the Italian genre actors …).Here, as the gringo ,Brando is (again) larger—than—life; the theme of the humiliated and wronged man can be superficially traced through some famous westerns, like LARAMIE and that already mentioned above ONE EYED …,but is it any good? I think not; aside from a superficial resemblance, the scene is new each time it's used by another director from a different movie.Another aspect—Brando's role as Matteo, the gringo, is a stand—out because of Brando's own line of rough and fancy realism—if you will only accept such an expression. In the final duel, Brando uses with the same delighted nonchalance his obvious clumsiness—he used his hands in a bizarre way, and this somehow boosts his character, enhances if not the realism, then the attractiveness of a scene.When we avidly watch Brando are we really in for realism (performing credibly average unobtrusive people)? Brando always strives—if he did it at all—to play interesting, dashing, intriguing characters—not pedestrians. First of all, a realist performance presupposes a realist script and realist intentions. Brando naturally enjoys to fascinate and to startle. He offers high—voltage fancy. Of course his beautifully made characters are real—because he created them, not because they are realistic to a grand degree. Was he ever required realism? Whose realism, or, realism according to whom? In his westerns too, he is not trying to give realistic performances (the way Duvall, Costner, Eastwood, Hackman, Caan, with the adequate scripts and parts, tried—and largely succeeded too). Dean, Nicholson, De Niro and maybe even Clift aimed sometimes at achieving realist performances; not Brando, not Pacino, who characteristically subordinate the parts to their energies and personalities and even playfulness.Gabin was seldom realist in his performances; and he was seldom solicited, required to be realist.Some mistake a certain intensity for realism; but, first of all, let us inquire if a certain movie or script requires or at least admits realism, and to what degree.