UnowPriceless
hyped garbage
Aedonerre
I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.
Plustown
A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
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 ****
danldhatu
Present day Republicans decry the so-called "liberal" Hollywood community. They should read the novel that this movie was based on and then contrast it to the movie to see just how Hollywood sucked up to a political position that would be considered "right-wing" today.The story was a scathing political screed that had been put into the form of a novel. I wish that persons such as Robert MacNamera, Dean Rusk, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, et al had read and understood the novel. If they had, then perhaps America wouldn't have become mired in the Vietnam conflict.The screenwriters understood all too well the power of the story and its likelihood of offending the conservative point of view. Simply put, the scriptwriters cut the political guts out of the novel when they turned it into a screenplay, giving us merely a sub-standard political thriller.Read the novel. I just wish that George W. Bush had done so.
peter-1527
I read the book by the same name and was somewhat disappointed by the startling differences in the two. But I was more disappointed in how they made up the country name. What kind of political change is going to occur with a bogus name like "Sarkan"? Any chance of making a political statement is gone. When I first read the book and watched the film about 15 years ago , I was interested in our country's involvement in the Vietnam war. Now , I am interested in why we were there in the first place. And the lies that surround the answer. If one of the many reasons JFK was killed was his idea "it is their war, they must fight it on their own", then he understood the premise of the Ugly American. I read the book once, but I have watched this movie over and over again.
x_hydra
Years ago, I loved reading "The Ugly American," so when I saw this film at the video store, I had high hopes. Unfortunately there is little similar between Lederer and Burdick's work and this cinematic dreck.The book is a story of the complexity of diplomacy, and of the multiple ways some people get it right and some people get it wrong, set it a fictional Indo-Chinese country.The total sum of the movie's attempt to represent complexity are people with different opinions about the state of affairs in the country. And in the end we find out exactly how they were all along. This is not complexity, this is not the ambiguity present in the wonderful book. The screenwriters have taken a plot about fundamental errors in approach, empathy, and understanding, and made it into a movie about people who have minor disagreements on the facts (and eventually are shown the 'correct' interpretation).The book follows a multitude of characters. The movie follows one character, a very hammy Brando, and barely even references anybody else as being significant.The ugly engineer from the book has a total of about 5 minutes screenplay in the movie! The sleazy, foolish newspaper man the same! These were CRITICAL and CRUCIAL characters in the book, and they are given barely a mention in the movie! The title of the book/movie was in part referring to these characters as well! It is a bad sign when a movie practically eliminates the title characters from the book it is based on.The book was a tremendous statement about the difficulties of diplomacy and the errors made in Indo-China just before the outbreak of the Vietnam war. The movie is an hour and a half of barely watchable crap. This is perhaps one of Brando's worst performances -- he is practically a parody of himself with eyebrow raised, head titled musings and statements about the lessons his characters learns.The book was complicated, subtle, and had incredible depth. The movie is simple, base, and shallow. If you liked the book, you'll hate it. If you haven't read the book, you'll still get nothing out of it. There are far too many better films out there on this topic to waste time with this one.
