If it weren't for yet another weird casting decision, I might have scored this film even higher. Who else but Hollywood would not cast a charismatic half-Mexican-American (Anthony Quinn) in the supporting role instead of in the lead? And who would cast a white bread guy like Marlon Brando as a Mexican revolutionary?! Remember--this is the same group of folks who cast a man of Swedish descent (Warner Oland),Mickey Rooney AND Marlon Brando all as Asians?! Now I am not saying Brando did a bad job--he was quite good. But why not cast a Hispanic man in the role?!

If you can ignore the odd casting, the rest of the film is pretty good and a decent overview of part of the Mexican Revolution. I say part because Emeliano Zapata only led part of the revolutionary forces--other leaders like Huerta and Villa are barely mentioned in this film. Now this is no complaint--just letting the viewer know it's only a portion of what happened in the war. But as far as Zapata's career as a revolutionary goes, it is pretty good--sticking reasonably close to the facts and explaining his peasants' campaign for land reform reasonably well. And, with writing by John Steinbeck and direction by Elia Kazan (a great director, by the way),it's not surprising this film is far better than average. Well worth seeing and quite inspiring.

'Viva Zapata!' appealed to me straight away upon hearing about it. A great director in Elia Kazan ('On the Waterfront', 'A Streetcar Named Desire'). An acting legend in Marlon Brando ('The Godfather', 'A Streetcar Named Desire'),despite his casting on paper sounding strange. Music by Alex North ('A Streetcar Named Desire', 'Spartacus'). That it was based on the fascinating story of a fascinating man. And a script by John Steinbeck (' Of Mice of Men', 'The Grapes of Wrath').

While 'Viva Zapata!' has so much working in its favour, including all of its interest points and some, there are some things that it could have done better. It is a case of it being pretty excellent for most of its length and then petering out later on in my view, slightly frustrating because it was so close. It is not the best work of most involved, apart from perhaps Anthony Quinn, but nobody here is disgraced either and overall it is a very good film if not quite a great one.

There is actually not an awful lot wrong with 'Viva Zapata!' Its only major problem is some of the pacing, a component that is somewhat uneven throughout. Some parts are drawn out and a bit too talk-heavy. More problematic though is the final third, which for my tastes was on the jumpy and over-stuffed side which made it feel rushed.

Occasionally the script could have done with a little more trimming and subtlety.

However, 'Viva Zapata!' is a brilliantly made film. Then again it is a Kazan film, and apart from 'The Visitors' all his films look great. 'Viva Zapata!' though is up there as one of the best-looking, at its best the cinematography was quite jaw-dropping and really enhanced the locations. Kazan's direction is vintage Kazan. Neaning a lot of intimacy without being cold, a methodical manner without being mannered or indifferent (which with a few film exceptions one mostly could not accuse him of being either),a visual mastery with a mix of sweeping and intimate without being too heavy and typically adept direction of the actors.

North's score sweeps, haunts and thrills, loved the atmosphere, the vitality of the rhythms and clever orchestration. He also had a distinctive style, without ever being more of the same, and really liked how authentic the motifs were to the period and setting. While the script has occasional longeurs, Steinbeck scripts the film very powerfully and intelligently. Anybody that loved the prose for 'Of Mice and Men' and 'The Grapes of Wrath', both considered literary classics for good reason (the former especially is very relatable to me),will find those same qualities here. The story is often exciting, with the first act especially being colourfully staged and having vitality.

Despite the moustache, in the top 10 of film moustaches that are like characters of their own, and perhaps not convincing quite as a Mexican bandit, Brando does show a lot of charisma and intensity in the lead role. The role is a meaty one and Brando doesn't seem taxed, to me he didn't overact and wasn't too methodical. Jean Peters is alluring and fits with the period nicely and Joseph Wiseman is also strong. The acting honours goes to the complex powerhouse that is Quinn.

Concluding, very good and nearly excellent. Which it would have been if the pace was more consistent and the writing tightened up slightly occasionally. 8/10

The history of Mexico, our southern neighbor (and sometimes victim) is better known to American movie goers than the history of most countries.

You begin with the Maya (KINGS OF THE SUN),the conquest of Mexico (THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE),then to the founding of Father Serra's missions in California (SEVEN CITIES OF GOLD),and then the Spanish in the southwest and California (THE MARK OF ZORRO). Mexican - American history begins with the Texas War for Independence (THE ALAMO, THE LAST TEXAN, etc.). We skip to the French "intervention": JUAREZ and VERA CRUZ. Then we tend to skip the long reign of Porfirio Diaz.

Then comes the Mexican Revolution. The number of films that deal with the revolution is vast. But here are just a few titles: VIVA ZAPATA, VIVA VILLA, VILLA RIDES, THE OLD GRINGO (about Ambrose Bierce's probable death in Mexico's revolution),VIVA MARIA (a spoof but it touches on some issues),THE THREE AMIGOS, THEY CAME TO CORDURA (regarding the American Intervention under General Pershing in 1916),THE FUGITIVE (dealing with the anti-Catholic policies of the 1920s and 1930s),and even THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES (when you see the business with Alfonso Badoya's bandit gang against the Federales).

The Mexican Revolution had many heroes. Many were heroes for one group but devils to another. Madero and Carranza stressed the need to have a nation that was loyal to a written constitution. Zapata would be one of the leaders of the land reform movement. Starting with Francisco Madero, going through Pancho Villa and Eufremio Zapata, going to their enemy Venusiano Carranza, to Obregon, Calles, and the great land reformer Lazaro Cardenas - the leadership was varied. The largest concentration of films is on the colorful (and murderous) Villa (a recent cable television movie was about Villa and his contract with D. W. Griffith to shoot a movie, AND STARRING PANCHO VILLA). But historians usually feel that while Villa tended to be on the side of the peasants, he had too much of the bandit in him to be a leader of the revolution's reforms. Zapata, on the other hand actually tried to reform the division of land. His work never got as far as he wanted before he was assassinated, but it was burned into the souls of the people from his region of Mexico (who still call themselves Zapatistas when involved in political protests to this day),and it did help set the stage for Cardenas' reforms in the late 1930s.

With direction by Elia Kazan and screenplay by John Steinbeck, VIVA ZAPATA is a wonderful, if simplistic view of the Revolution for American audiences. Brando underplays the lead for the most part - Zapata was not an explosive personality like Villa. Anthony Quinn is the explosive brother, whose more selfish attitudes leads to his own disaster. Of the supporting players, Alan Reed is good in his scene as Villa, where he discusses the future of Mexico with Zapata. Joseph Wiseman is properly sinister as an constant malcontent agent provocateur, insinuating each leader is too weak or unreliable to lead.

There are great set pieces - like Kazan's symbolic assassination of Madero by General Huerta's goons who drown out the little reformer/orator's voice as he tries to scream with a siren (but it makes the screams of the unheard martyr like a clarion call to Mexico).

Is it real Mexican history? Not quite - it is a version of it. But it is a really well done version of it.