Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Wuchak Gillo Pontecorvo, the acclaimed director of 1966's "The Battle of Algiers" released his next film "Queimada" -- aka "Burn!" -- three years later in 1969. "Burn!" stars Marlon Brando as William Walker, a British agent sent to a fictional Caribbean island, Queimada, to spark a revolution amongst the black slaves who work the sugar cane fields. But Walker isn't really interested in freedom for the slaves, he just wants to procure the sugar trade for England. It doesn't take long for the freed slaves, led by Jose Dolores (Evaristo Márquez), to realize that their freedom is in name only. The film's called "Burn!" because fire is the European's preferred method of putting down slave insurrections, as in burning the whole freakin' island if necessary! Shot in beautiful Cartagena, Bolívar, Colombia, "Burn!" explores the nature of imperialism and insurrection. Add the most captivating actor in history and Ennio Morricone's memorable score and you have what should be a great film. While it is an impressive and unique film like "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", and had potential to be spoken in the same breath as "Apocalypse Now", this unfortunately isn't the case. "Burn!" is certainly educational and somewhat compelling in the second half, but it lacks flow and characterization. As a result, the viewer doesn't know the characters and therefore isn't drawn into their story.I've watched "Burn!" three times now and it's left me with the same feeling each time: It's worthwhile, but don't expect to be entertained or to care about the characters and their story. Brando cited "Burn!" as one of his best performances, but his portrayal of Walker is actually unmoving because he's never fleshed out as a human being, not to mention his lack of character becomes clearer as the film progresses.The film runs 112 minutes, which is the version originally released in the USA in 1969, but there's supposed to be a restored version that runs 132 minutes. I doubt the extra 20 minutes can turn such an un-involving film into an engrossing one, but I'd be interested in seeing it some day.GRADE: C+

dougdoepke Seldom has a movie set in an earlier century displayed such contemporary relevance. Brando plays a British version of the CIA sent to wrest a Carribbean island away from the Portuguese empire and its slave-holding planters. It all seems rather noble, until we discover that he is to deliver the emancipated Africans into a fresh form of slavery: the wage slavery of the global sugar market. The machinations fly fast and furious as Brando double-deals a British company into the reins of power. His character proves a sometimes fascinating study in professional pride versus grudging respect for the darkskinned foe. Film-maker Pontecorvo (Battle of Algiers) is particularly alert to the many subtle and not-so-subtle modes of European domination, and I like the way he lingers over African crowd scenes, neither romanticizing nor denigrating their presence. Small wonder this film disappeared quickly from American screens. It's a no-punches-pulled, heady stuff even for the rebellious 1960's. Brando was always an anti-imperialist, and I suspect this film amounted to the one he long hoped to make, despite many years of bad choices. The movie itself remains an insight into the ugly realities behind the dressed-up facade of history books, proxy armies, and cosmetic governments. And although, not Brando's best performance (dialects never brought out his best), the screenplay stands as a testament to a political conviction which, despite the early years of McCarthy red-baiting, never wavered and even smouldered to artistic heights during that same period. ( Disregard Leonard Maltin's characterization of the film as "muddled"-- his staff apparently failed to follow the twists and turns of the power struggle, which, despite Maltin's myopia, pursues a reasoned course on all sides.) Then too, catch up with the uncut European version if you can.

epat Seeing Queimada (Burn!) again after all these years & just having re-read the book, I find the film a bit lacking in clarity. The frenetic editing doesn't leave quite enough time for the full import of each incident to sink in before racing off ahead to the next scene. This gives the plot line a somewhat disjointed sensation that robs it of its overall power. In addition, the Jose Dolores character needed a bigger bolder actor to really carry it off — Ving Rhames would have been ideal. Brando played his William Walker role to the hilt — doesn't he always? — but I find the film doesn't quite do justice to Norman Gant's fine book.

fedor8 Some call this a Marxist view of colonialism and history, but I'd only partly agree. American liberals, Marxists, and Europe's Left-wingers will surely want to claim ANY revolution or revolt in history as their own, i.e. fitting in neatly with Karl Marx's deluded little theories. Same with movies: they basically watch a film and see what they want to see. However, the revolt in Queimada isn't portrayed in such simplistic, idiotic, black-and-white terms, as we find them in that pitiful Bible of the Left. Once Dolores wins his first revolt, there is the realization that he and his rebels are light-years away from being capable of maintaining a functioning economy. While Marx, in his endless arrogance and ignorance, saw the proletariat as the proper force to guide a country and even all of mankind itself, even Dolores - "formerly a nothing", as Brando called him - himself realizes that the working class/the oppressed lower class/the proletariat/the lowest cast/whatever does not have the necessary education or abilities to achieve anything beyond a successful armed resistance. It is easy to destroy; building a society is quite another matter...This brings us to the more left-wing aspect of the movie: the overly simplistic portrayal of Dolores. The fact is that nearly every black revolutionary established a dictatorship in which the people lived far worse off than under the colonial power in question. Africa is a failed continent today (the only one with minus growth!) not because of white influence but because of a lack of it. The African continent has been far too quickly abandoned in the name of "equality, justice" and other notions, leaving the as-yet-unready and too uneducated black populace to find their own path in a world which was marching off, progressing at a rapid speed. Nearly every African/black country sports a tyranny in which the elections - when there are any - are a mere joke, more like a pathetic circus set up to fool those in the West who really think that the transition from tribal life or slave to modern capitalism is achievable overnight. Hence to portray Dolores as such a self-sacrificing idealist in the William Wallace "Braveheart" vein is utterly absurd and infinitely naive. In fact, William Wallace himself was no squeaky-clean individual. There is no such thing as a "revolutionary saint", the way Marxists, aided greatly by their sympathizers in the Western media, have tried and mostly succeeded in propagandizing mass murderers like Che Guevara into. People who lead the desperate into revolt very often have their own agendas, and aren't rarely intelligent psychopaths (Castro) who see a clever opportunity to get wealthy and powerful by riding on waves of the populace's desperation and genuine idealism and hope. The Marxist notion of the "noble proletariat", who have very little education, yet march bravely and with success toward a prosperous new modern world is just as fantasy-based as the idea of someone like Jose Dolores actually existing in the past or present. Marxists are all ultra-idealists, and what else is idealism but an over-simplification of truth, and an escape into flights of fancy that are nearly always based on wishful thinking rather than a sobering nose-dive into harsh reality."Queimada" is less black-and-white than that, fortunately. It shows the cold realities of economics and human development: one race dominates another, a nation dominates another, a class dominates another class. Empirically, objectively, there is nothing evil, immoral or despicable about this - it's just the way humans are, just the way human psychology coupled with biology works. Animals kill each other in the trillions every single day: it may seem cruel and pointless to us "civilized" Westerners, but only because we have become too soft in our cozy, comparatively luxurious existence. Reality is never what idealists tell you it is - or can be. Besides, the struggle isn't merely one of black against white (now, wouldn't have Hollywood's Oscar voters just loved that...) but there are different interest groups on the island, all with their own problems and enemies.The movie is visually interesting, having that grimy late 60s/early 70s look. I was not bothered by some oddities, such as there being no scenes of the bank robbery, or scenes showing the first clash between Dolores's men and the Portuguese. Good, unusual soundtrack.