mark.waltz We don't understand the philosophy of "too much", whether it be too much love, too much passion, too much anger, too much hate. That's what old gringo Gregory Peck (as an aging writer) and middle aged gringa Jane Fonda learn in this study of life going on during a revolution in Mexico during the early part of the 20th century. Thanks to revolution leader Jimmy Smits, they learn quite a bit, although I wonder if Fonda needed to learn to stop gaping at Peck in awe and remind herself to get back in character.Fonda is a bored wealthy American who runs out on society and ends up in Mexico where she is a first hand witness to the violence at hand. Even the hotel staff are involved, replacing her belongings with weapons and using her room as a base of operations. Smits, initially ridiculing both Fonda and Peck, slowly begins to understand and trust them, and through him, they begin to learn what the Mexicans are fighting for, and through them, he learns that there's more than just national pride in living your life. Beautifully filmed, this was touted as a triumph for Peck even before it came out, with Oscar buzz for possibly his last film. (It wasn't.) But pre- release buzz is often disappointing, and while Peck was praised, the film wasn't. Fonda isn't as much bad in this as she is unmemorable, certainly no "Julia" or "Coming Home" in her impressive career. Smits gives a very layered performance that goes beyond the lothario and the fighter. This should have been his pass to a successful film career as it was a wind down in Peck's. The other Hispanic actors in Smit's circle also are very diverse, from the young paper boy trained from birth to fight to the prostitute who gives Peck a freebee to the other young women who laugh at gringa Fonda's foreign ways but secretly envy her. This isn't the disaster it's been made out to be, just a missed opportunity with the lack of passion that the on screen characters live whether fighting, partying or loving.

Nazi_Fighter_David The time of the film is 1913, when the American frontier was closing fast… Mexico, on the other hand, was still in a romantic era, the time of Pancho Villa and the Mexican Revolution… Luis Puenzo presented the violent scenes passionately and it is his passion that makes the picture interesting… His use of slow motion to prolong dying remembered me the great Sam Peckinpah in his great Western "The Wild Bunch." The film begins with Harriet Winslow (Jane Fonda), a repressed American spinster caught in the middle of the Mexican Revolution, when Pancho Villa's revolutionary army was moving against important families in Mexico, declaring them enemies of the Revolution and confiscating all their property… The state of Chihuahua was in that moment revolutionary country, and Winslow was seen heading to the Miranda hacienda controlled by Federales…At first, Harriet (who accepted a job as a governess) saw herself caught in a shoot-out and asked for help to return to the border… but later on, she starts to see that something in her face has begun to open… Her clear blue eyes were sweeter than before… And since she never felt in love for being always afraid of the unknown, it was here where her life begins, in a land where death was not the end, but only the beginning… Jimmy Smits had his moments when he told our heroine that the battles have made him general… The land that he fought for and the people he has killed, starting with the old landowner who raped his mother and made him a bastard… His mother was an Indian peasant while his father was a rich aristocrat… This wasn't just his history… It was the history of everybody in Mexico… Peck does a fine job in his touching portrait of the intolerable gringo old enough to be an observer… He had dared to say farewell to a world, where he wrote every day of his life without exception… He wrote when his youth drifted by, and while love betrayed him… Ambrose Bierce grows fond of the young general, considering him too much like him, capable of fighting for words written on pieces of paper… In an especially poignant scene, his best moments come long before the end, when not knowing if this might perhaps be Harriet's ' first time' he requested that she participates with him in what will undoubtedly be his 'last time…' "Old Gringo" depicts the Mexican music, life of the Mexican people, their special cult to the death, their drunken fiesta, their cheerful whores trading sex for books, the faces of the children, sometimes observers, sometimes participating in the whole twisted ethic of violence…There is some nice cinematography in the film, and the Mexican countryside is well taken… Most of the film's action takes place in a fine hacienda

ennyman I had already read the book when I discovered this film. I think Peck is great in nearly everything he does, and this film is no exception. Both the novel and the film have detractors. For me personally, having lived in Mexico a year, I may have had more background understanding that helped me see what Fuentes was doing with this story.Bierce was a curmudgeon and an aging one at that when he slipped south of the border to flirt with his final destiny. The themes of the book are dimly reflected in the film, but having the book inside you makes you understand the significance of the story, what "the revolution" was really all about, and the tragedy that is Mexico. It was a collision course: Bierce and the Revolution. But Bierce is more akin to the Mexican tragic spirit than our American happy-go-lucky silliness and superficial fake depth.For a $1.50 you can find the Fuentes book used at Amazon.com. It might be worthwhile to read the book, then watch the movie again to see why those who appreciate the film actually get something out of it.

dedwardloftin I watched this movie a few times trying to figure out why it left me feeling slightly let down. I couldn't figure it out. All the right elements are there. The dramatic situation is terrific, the overall story line good, the actors top-flight. The technical work is good, but somehow the movie never finds it's story. This is a classic example of a movie that misses the point. Jane Fonda plays an old maid school "marm" who decides to go to Mexico to see the world. She winds up being kidnapped by one Pancho Villa's Generals. Along the way, Ambrose Bierce(played by Gregory Peck), joins them. Mr. Bierce who has a mysterious illness, and is bitterly tired of life, more than anything wants to die a glorious death on the battlefield instead of dying in bed. He can't succeed at this no matter how hard he tries. Along the way Ms. Winslow has dalliances with both men. Gen Arroyo (Smits) and Ambrose Bierce develop a Father/Son kind of thing. With a situation like this, how could it misfire? Here's how.The story is directed as if it were about Jane Fondas relationships with the two men, when in reality the movie is about the terrible internal strife of Gen. Arroyo, and his love/hate for his father, who comes to be personified by Mr. Bierce. What adds interest is the fact that his conflict encapsulates the overall meaning of the revolution, and in an even larger sense, of Mexico. In some ways the whole scope of the history of Mexico can be seen as a working out of the Father/Son relationship. The Father is represented by Spain, the conqueror, and the Son by the people of the land. Spain, as did most European colonial powers, regarded new people and cultures as basically subhuman. The only problem is that they couldn't kill enough of the original inhabitants. They keep wanting their country back. In some ways the political situation in Mexico today reflects this dynamic. Almost all the ruling class families in Latin America trace their ancestry to Spain. The indigenous people still don't govern themselves. Harriet Winslow (Fonda) is only there to provide viewpoint. She influences none of the action and carries none of the meaning. The ideas of this movie were presented later in the Pancho Villa movie with Antonio Banderas in a much better fashion. This is worth a view, though. It's still an enjoyable movie, just one that never found it's point.