DottHolliday It might have been a good movie, but Hollywood's kowtowing to actors with recent success ensured that it soundly disappointed those who watched the movie. Marlon Brando's "eccentric" performance proves that as great and magnificent an actor as he was, he was equally as bad when he was not reined in by a director and script. Arthur Penn must bear a lot of the guilt for allowing Brando such a free hand in trashing the movie. I doubt that Marlon's antics went without negative comments and complaints from his fellow actors. Here he was given free rein and ruined what might have been a good movie. Nicholson, Lloyd, Quaid, Forrest, Stanton and other gave good performances, but they are inundated by Marlon Brando's absurdly bad "eccentric" performance. He wasn't eccentric, just BAD! If you skip this one, you will be ahead.

SnoopyStyle Rancher David Braxton has a horse rustling problem and he deals with it ruthlessly. His daughter Jane (Kathleen Lloyd) struggles with his father's cruelty. Tom Logan (Jack Nicholson) leads a band of horse thieves and one of his men just got hung by Braxton. The gang decides to rob a train since they're getting hung anyways but it's a comedic adventure when Logan almost falls off a bridge. Logan decides to take revenge on Braxton by flirting with his innocent daughter Jane, buying a small neighboring property, and stealing his stock. Logan's men kill the Braxton foreman and Braxton hires regulator Lee Clayton (Marlon Brando) to hunt down the thieves. Clayton is an odd man who quickly zeroes in on Logan. Meanwhile Logan's men goes to Canada to steal horses from the RCMP.It's a comedic revisionist western taking apart some of the iconic western characters. The comedic part is light and unfunny. This is a worthwhile watch simply for Marlon Brando's crazy performance. It is much derided at the time and I can see why. His problematic actor style is legendary now. His wildly unique character overshadows everyone else including a popular Jack Nicholson right after 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'. This movie must have built up unbearable hype and the disappointment is easy to imagine. The movie doesn't really hold together as a whole. The jokes aren't funny. Brando is all by himself. Nicholson tries his best but nobody can be expected to pull this off. At least he and Kathleen Lloyd have some fun flirty scenes together.

acebros-1 You know how things seem So Cool when you're stoned, and then you find them later and shake your head? I think that's what happened to this movie, or, rather, to the people who made this movie: a giant giddy collective lapse of judgment. Many many fine elements, exceptional, sometimes brilliant, but, ungrounded, and wildly self-indulgent. So, doesn't quite work, though you certainly come away (and it's been 20 years since I've seen it) with some indelible images.Not the only film of the Seventies with this problem, by any means - one that comes to mind is Le Voyou (The Crook) with Trintignant by C Lelouch from 1970 -- it's easy to imagine them watching the rushes through a cloud of smoke and saying "Wow...." Another case of Homer on the nod.

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!