User Reviews

I remember first seeing "The Ugly American" upon its initial release in 1963, and I equally remember immediately linking it with what was happening in Viet Nam. I found it absorbing and timely then just as I do today.

As the American ambassador with a total white hat/black hat mentality, Marlon Brando in my opinion gives one of his best performances. There's the shouting and the strutting, but there are also some very, eerily quiet, contrasting moments when he simply lets the frustration of his character all hang out.

As his former best friend and now rebel leader of the fictional Sarkan to which Brando's Ambassador White has been posted, Ejii Okada is every bit Brando's equal. Their sharp exchanges are riveting, as is so much of the dialogue in this film, dialogue-heavy moments that I do not personally find boring because what they are discussing strikes me as being as important today as in 1963 when this film was first released.

I do recognize that some reviewers were terribly disappointed (maybe even offended) that the film was not a recapitulation of an apparently well written, highly complex novel which I haven't read yet but intend to if I can find a copy. However, no matter how great the book, shouldn't a film be judged as a film because it is not a book? For one thing, movies don't have the luxury of an endless running time, a constraint not put upon the number of pages needed to tell a print story. Also, is not the punctuation, grammar and syntax of image quite different than that of print?

Finally, as others have said, it is too bad (a) "The Ugly American" has been mostly forgotten (if it has ever been heard of) and (b) the powerful message that ends this picture is still as relevant today as it was in 1963. Indeed, if anything it is even more (very sadly) spot-on than it was then.

This film is loosely based on the novel of the same name by Burdick and Lederer, but departs from the novel in some significant particulars that I won't get into here. I think it is important to view this film as a period piece. Released in 1963 before the assassination of JFK and the escalation of the war in Viet Nam, the story retains a certain degree of naiveté about the role of the United States in the world and the perceptions of the United States that existed in other countries. This film would have looked quite different had it been shot in 1968 or 1969, by which time the country had long since shed any illusions about the nation's role in the world. In some ways, this provides a kind of still photo of the United States just prior to the Kennedy assassination and the tumultuous sequence of events that unfolded afterward. For that reason, this is a fascinating period piece that survives Brando's chewing on the scenery and a screen play that departs in unfortunate ways from the outstanding novel.

It's 1963 and the United States is getting drawn into the internal affairs of a Southeast Asian country named Sarkan. It's got a Communist north and a western leaning south. It has a king ruling with a prime minister with the habit of employing a lot of his relatives in positions of authority.

What makes it a bit different from Vietnam where we were getting drawn in bit by bit is that Sarkan also has a charismatic leader who retired DeGaulle like after Sarkan won its independence from Japanese occupation. He's the key to solving the country's problems for better or worse.

Because of a past relationship with Eiji Okada who plays the Sarkanese DeGaulle, Marlon Brando has been appointed ambassador to Sarkan. Back during World War II Brando and Okada worked well together doing damage to the Japanese occupiers.

Problem now is that the Sarkanese see the Americans as occupiers and the Communists are exploiting the situation to the fullest. A road called Freedom Road that the USA is constructing has become a flash-point of resentment.

It all ends as badly here as it did for America in Vietnam though I certainly won't go into details. Brando delineates a very good interpretation of a Cold Warrior diplomat. We and the Russians fought for global primacy with competing ideologies for over 40 years. Neither superpower was particularly cognizant of the wishes of the countries that blood was spilled over.

Eiji Okada was a major star in Japanese cinema and this was his only English language film. He's an impassioned Sarkanese patriot who's exploited by some evil forces and only realizes it too late.

Smartest guy in the room and in the film is Pat Hingle who is the boss constructing the road. His wife played by Jocelyn Brando runs a hospital for the natives and is beloved. He offers the only real solution to winning the hearts and minds of the Sarkanese. Build a hospital somewhere where you want your bloody road to run and the Sarkanese will fall all over themselves building a road themselves to it. Too bad no one listens.

Brando and Okada make a fine pair of former friends and now dueling adversaries. Hopefully one day we might get an administration who is more concerned with winning hearts and minds all over the world. We might even realize some cheap oil in the bargain.

The Ugly American is still a fine film with some lessons for today's diplomats and military men.

I was in Viet Nam from June 1963 to March 1964. We saw "The Ugly American" at the American movie theatre in Saigon, the Capitol Kinh Do.

There were many Americans and their dependents in Saigon and in Viet Nam at this time--most were isolated with cocktail parties, teas, and American activities. Most American children went to the American Community School outside of Tan Son Nhut Air Base. Their parents belonged to the exclusive Cercle Sportiff, hobnobbing with the Vietnamese elite who monetarily benefited from the war. There were opportunities for American civilians to teach the Vietnamese English, but I never knew of any opportunities for Americans to learn Vietnamese or national customs.

Many of the children of the diplomatic corps were instructed that if their shirt tails hung out or if they ate with their fingers when eating implements were available, they would be considered "ugly Americans." Nothing was said about the teenage boys drinking, whoring, and racing their motorcycles through the darkened Saigon streets in the early morning hours. Nothing was said about how we knew the way to "win" the war against the popular nationalist freedom fighter known as Ho Chi Minh who organized the successful campaigns against the Japanese and French occupiers.

Perhaps if we had listened a little more, learned the language and customs, and understood that the desire for national freedom is not communism, we wouldn't still be trying to "win" the Vietnam War.

Based on the very famous novel, The Ugly American shows the attempted spread of democracy with a cynical slant. When an intellectual idealist becomes the new American ambassador to a southeast Asian country, he had great hopes for how he can help the people and keep the great American dignity intact. As soon as he debarks from the plane with his wife, he gets a very rude awakening. An angry mob descends on them, and with very little American security, they barely escape with their lives. That's only the beginning. . .

My favorite scene was when Marlon has his first board meeting at the embassy. His coworkers are all lax and blasé, each unwilling to take responsibility for the security breach during the abovementioned crisis. He dresses the men down in a fantastic angry monologue about the importance of protocol. While every word he says is true, the real-world application of his theories don't always turn out. There are betrayals, rebellions, and near-misses around every corner.

I could tell from the overall tone, script, and intensity from the actors that The Ugly American was supposed to be a big mover and shaker. I tried really hard to get into the spirit of things, but I wasn't as moved or shaken as I expected. Since it's still a timeless subject, I think perhaps I just wasn't in the right mood. If this subgenre appeals to you, check it out. It's a classic.

Eugene Burdick's book and this film have a lot in common. I read this book in the 60s, and then saw the film. I still couldn't understand the dynamics of the events unfolding in the film. It was not until years later after I had been to VIetnam and finished my political science degree in college that I finally understood the real meaning of both the book and the film. Vietnam was complicated; too complicated for the average American from either the left or right to understand. The answer was, as most answers are, somewhere in the middle. This film shows the dilemma of Nationalist leaders who want total independence from foreign powers. It is not easy to obtain. National sovereignty is an easy concept to understand, but a very difficult one to achieve. It is not black and white; it is a simple solution. There are three separate forces at work in both this film and were at work in Vietnam (and other countries where we have a military presence). There is the leftist stance, usually communism, the rightest stance, usually a oligarchy combined with military support from the US, and then there is the true will of the people caught in the middle; the desire to not be a colonial outpost, not be militarily tied to one country or another, and, of course, the desire for a country that will be prosperous and make money. These three forces are usually in conflict with each other in several countries in the 21st century. So, this is why this film was not a great success; it was just too sophisticated a topic for the average American to understand. Over 90% saw this film in a black or white mode with no gray area. They were for the American Way, or for America to get out, but less than 10% ever considered what the people of this country really wanted. And we still have this ignorance about Asian Studies in America today. An interesting film; once you know what it is really about.

This film came out in 1963, just when the Kennedy/Johnson administration started to escalate the war in Vietnam. I am terribly dismayed and disappointed that the U.S government learned nothing from this movie.

In the first place, it is utterly and unrealistic to muddle into the political affairs of a country with very different culture and political background. Secondly, while we in the western world deplore communism, it is very silly and idiotic to treat it as a contagious disease, to be repelled and avoided at all costs. With our wealth, freedom of expression and using an open-door policy, we can show the people in the Communist countries or countries about to go Communist that our system is better and in every way offers people more freedom, pleasure and security.

I think this film should be shown whenever and wherever people come to see the Vietnam Monument in Washington

"The Ugly American" was released right before the Vietnam War started (depending on which stage of it), and now it seems more relevant than ever. Harrison MacWhite (Marlon Brando) becomes ambassador to the Southeast Asian nation of Sarkhan, which is on the verge of civil war between the Communists and the pro-US government. In Sarkhan, MacWhite begins to suspect that US intervention in this country might be prompting people to rebel. While he refuses to accept it, the situation becomes more and more tense, and MacWhite's officially neutral position becomes less and less sustainable.

You can't say for certain what the movie's political message is, but we might take MacWhite's speech at the end as a good reminder. Either way, this is one of the many movies that showed how great an actor Marlon Brando was.

Ambassador Harrison Carter MacWhite (Marlon Brando) endures a rigorous and hostile Senate hearing to be assigned to a southeast Asian country, where he fought during World War II and where his old buddy, Deong (Elji Okada), is very influential. Although it's not in the dialogue, MacWhite demonstrates his intellectual acumen by wielding a pipe in the early scenes. He plays the martinet with his subordinates to complete the construction of an engineering project called "Freedom Road," which will bring prosperity. Prosperity for whom? It's a good question, which is best answered eventually in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" (2004) by John Perkins. In the meantime, we'll have to settle for these old worries about communists, typical of that era and prescient about the upcoming war.

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 ****

Southeast Asian freedom fighter is duped by communists and American bumbling into misidentifying his and his people's true enemies. Endlessly fascinating how this straightforward and beautifully told story is misinterpreted decade after decade. The film leaves the viewer with feelings of nostalgia for an America that was once confident of its own decency, while at the same time pointing out how that aspect of the American character (meaning our confidence) could lead to dangerous miscalculations. If you want to see a really disturbing segue, watch the last scene back-to-back with Colonel Kurtz's soliloquy on communists cutting off the arms of inoculated children.

Marlon Brando has been appointed US Ambassador to the East Asian kingdom of Sarkand, based on his experience fighting in the Underground against the Japanese and his friendship with Eiji Okada, who seems to be in charge of the opposition of the government.

Brando shows off his enormous range, enunciating clearly during the Senate confirmation hearing while showing great charm, which carries him through some of the grinchier moments. In the end, the movie is more a matter of criticizing American foreign policy, with its main objections being against communism and not for anything in particular, and the general indifference of Americans to what goes on outside of their own home at the moment. I will agree it is a problem; I won't agree that it is unique to America.

Kukrit Pramoj, who plays the Prime Minister, became Prime Minister of Thailand the following decade. With Pat Hingle, Jocelyn Brando, Arthur Hill, and Carl Benton Reid.

Based on influential 1958 American political novel, "The Ugly American" (1963) is a realistic film, a political drama/thriller featuring Marlon Brando as a new American diplomat in a Vietnam-like Southeast Asian nation that is painfully struggling between capitalist & communist factions. Eiji Okada plays the country's revolutionary leader, a previous best-friend of MacWhite (Brando) who may be brainwashed by the communists. The ending cleverly shows how the average American is unconcerned with the political conflicts of distant nations.

Produced and directed by Marlon's best friend, George Englund, the film has its points of interest, like the political ruminations, Deong's Asian homestead along the water and Kukrit Pramoj as Prime Minister Kwen Sai. Unfortunately, it's too quaint and lacks the pizzazz of previous political-conflict movies, like "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957). Brando does a serviceable job, but he's curiously missing his usual charisma, probably because he didn't contribute much to the story, like he did in his more captivating performances, e.g. "The Young Lions" (1958) and "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961).

The film runs 2 hours, 3 minutes, and was shot in Thailand.

GRADE: C+

Harrison Carter MacWhite (Marlon Brando) is the new American Ambassador in Sarkan, a southeast Asian country hounded by internal strife. He worked with Deong back in the day. Deong is a nationalist leader campaigning for neutrality and shutting down Freedom Road, an American construction with the government. Communist agitators are willing to kill to sabotage it and American influence in the country.

This is filmed in Thailand. Wow, this starts with an amazing stunt. I remember seeing it in a clip show and never knew which movie it is. That guy almost lost his head. Of course, this movie is basically Vietnam. In that way, it is probably ahead of its time and suffered for it. Brando is doing an intellectual Kennedyite. He's a bit too cold to be that compelling. The story hits very hard on the nose. I do keep going back to that stunt.

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.

Like such cinematic oddities as "A Face in the Crowd" or "Johnny Guitar", "The Ugly American" invites for several questionings. Why didn't the film get much more recognition? Why did it fail to reach the same status as a lesser movie like "The Sound of Music"? Why even those who pretend to be movie fans tend to overlook it or didn't even hear about the title? Is it because it's a Marlon Brando picture that is not from the 50's or the 70's? Is it the title? The unknown director: who ever heard of George Englund anyway? The exotic setting that makes it look like another mindless escapist movie?

In fact, the only reasonable answer I could come up with, is that the film was ahead of its time, which is not even meant as a compliment, since the film is not irreproachable. Released in 1963, a year more remembered for its political happenings than its movies' releases, it's prophetic in the sense that it's the closest depiction of the Vietnam War's Eve, and it's brilliant in the way it delivers a sort of anticipated "mea culpa" from the American perspective, by depicting the implication of America in the Vietnam territory at the pinnacle of the Cold War. Naturally, the names are changed, Vietnam becomes a fictionalized country named Sarkhan, but the rest of the film is too explicit to fool us.

The film opens in a construction site, where a 'Freedom Road' is built to ensure the transport of products for the Sarkhanese. More than a road, it's the symbol of American inference against Communism, salutary from one side, unbearable from another. The film opens when an American truck driver who sympathized with a local worker by teaching him a few words of English is brutally murdered and his mouth filled of scotch. His assassins leave the truck tumbling, falling on the other workers, for one of the most spectacular stunts you'll ever see, even more impressive for the 60's and coming from a film of little action. The scene tends to contradict the title, because although the American were undesirable, we're still waiting for the character that'd define the titular 'ugliness'.

If one thing, the opening invites us to feel sympathy toward the American victim, who's no more politically engaged than any other schmuck, he's just doing his job. His case resembles of Jocelyn Brando and Pat Hingle's couple, he's a chief engineer who opened a nursery with his wife and their lives will be spared thanks to the interference of the villagers. The film takes place during the Cold War, but it shows that the core of the conflict was ideological in the emptiest sense of the word. It's a bunch of artificial meanings when you confront them to reality. It's almost funny how the American insist that the national hero Deong, (Eiji Okada) is or is not a Communist as if it was an insult.

Later, it's revealed that he was from an independent Nationalist movement for the people's sovereignty, but happened to be toyed by the Communists. Still, the general consensus which seems to end the film is that Americans are not better allies, because they forgot that these non-aligned movements are motivated by the same revolutionary impulses that gave its independence the USA. And that made me wonder, maybe people weren't ready for such explicit criticism, and that explains why the film was overlooked. Or maybe am I being too indulgent and the film does have some flaws.

I wish they could let Eiji Okada, the actor who played Deong speak with his own accent, the guy seemed to struggle at each goddamn syllabus it wasn't acting, it was pure line's recitation. I even wondered if Brando's desperate look wasn't genuine. I also noticed some dialogs in English while it was spoken between Sarkhanese, and it sort of killed off the intended realism. However, the rest of the film is surprisingly good and entertaining, with some nice performances from Judson Pratt as the obnoxious Joe Bing, Sandra Church as the comprehensive wife and the scene-stealing performance of the prime-minister Kwen Sai who had the best lines of the film, almost stealing the show from Brando. Naturally, it's Marlon Brando's performance that elevates the film to its greatness, he's not only absolutely convincing as the ambassador, fittingly named Mac White, who exudes both charisma, sophistication and authority.

MacWhite's introductory scene is perhaps one of the best tributes to Marlon Brando's natural talent, and the kind of which I would watch and re-watch just for the pleasure to listen to the lines. The film has the script, the acting, the directing from George Englund, yet it didn't get any Oscar nomination, and till now, the film is vaguely remembered, maybe by a fistful of people. Yet, the film is extraordinarily educational about one of the most shameful pages of American history. To understand the Vietnam War through conflict, many movies are must- see, but this one would be on the top of the list. If not the best, it's the best start.

The film also offers an extrapolation of conflicts to come through the obsessive involvement of America in foreign conflicts in the name of ideals while it's more about profits than ideology. 10 years after "The Ugly American", Richard Nixon would prove all the final words of the Ambassador, that's how prophetic the film is, and I didn't even mention George W. Bush and the Iraqi conflict. "The Ugly American" has the intelligence of an Oliver Stone film, and although it's hard not to notice some minor flaws, it's a film that many should see and that deserve more and more recognition, it's daring, intelligent, thought-provoking and prophetic.

I guess this is the kind of film for which the word "underrated' was invented.

Marlon Brando, young, convincing, natural in everything he does. The story is strictly political, unfortunately. I would have wanted to be a strong love story, not just anti-communist propaganda.If I had to describe Brando musically, I would call him Beethoven of the screen, only him and Gian Maria Volontè (to whom Coppola offered first the title role in The Godfather) they had that unique force, woven with infinite abisal sensitivity. The film is only worth seeing for Brando.

Sorry this review is aimed at a more academic influenced audience.

Like few political thrillers since or before, The Ugly American embodies, allegorically, the struggle of international politics and its often-concomitant socio-cultural impasses quite effectively. I further argue that the allegory in this film is so sophisticated, complex that even the informed citizen will wrestle with its multiple meanings upon first view. I suggest that viewers learn more about the early history of the Vietnam War, either before, or immediately after watching this film. The characters in this film fictitiously represent a handful of "actual" major figures during the early period of American's last major war, a whopping failure mind you. Disturbing, to say the least, are the film's quite accurate prognostication of the Vietnam War, and the growing consensus view of the developing world, its often justifiable antipathy towards American imperialism and aggression.

For those reviewers that have diminished the perpetual value of this film with less than 7 stars, you're naive and clearly fastidious. Let's not forget that this film was made in 1963, with the aim of striking mass culture. This mass appeal is clearly suggested in the awful and oriental theatrical trailer located under the "extras" menu of the DVD. By the way, the trailer is the lone, major blemish of this enduring, underrated classic. Thus, expectations for this film to sincerely honor the acclaimed Lederer, Burkin novel of the same name are simply not realistic, nor considerate when considering the release year and target audience. Even in the present, I would argue that mainstream Hollywood is reluctant to release a film on par with the political analysis of this novel without assigning the "indie tag" along with requisite, watered-down editing. So please refrain from critiquing this film along 2007 lines where independent films have a stronger influence than 1963 America. Also, bear in mind that the Cold War, and many of the globe's have-nots, were in the first stage of post-colonial disintegration: a world-wide phenomenon hardly critiqued, known beyond minority opinion. Further, post-colonial disintegration was mired in stubborn arrogance, manic-driven / close-minded policies, brutal wars (often proxy), and select special interests that favored the elites of top-tier nation-states, especially the Eagle and the Bear. Fairly stated, most Americans were detached from world issues at the time, but these same folks would soon lose their innocence and become more active, even revolutionary in the immediate years that followed The Ugly American.

Quite simply, The Ugly American presages the multiple diseases that have constricted American foreign policy the past 45 years. Our hubris, paranoia (Red Scare complex), conniving-cum-meddlesome ways via the omniscient, omnipotent Military Industrial Complex, severe disregard for greater cultural understanding, conscious-unconscious (i.e. our choice to become apathetic), denial, and detached general public are all on fine display throughout this film. Each time I view The Ugly American, several times now, I can't help but wonder why subsequent Presidents and their administrations, educators in general, and claimed foreign policy experts rarely cite this film as a model of "Do's" and "Don'ts" in foreign policy.

The Ugly American may be the only movie where Brando's knack for scene-stealing is quite challenged, perhaps outperformed, by his Asian co-stars: Eiji Okada, who plays revolutionary icon Deong, and Kukrit Pramoj, who plays Prime Minister Kwen Jsai. You will notice my claim in four scenes: two between Brando and Okada, and the other two between Brando and Pramoj. The polemics in these particular scenes are dramatic, impassioned, and seemingly reveal personal philosophy that can only be internally debated, at one time or another, during one's long-term personal struggles with politics and major social issues. You really get the sense that each character firmly believes their high stake positions. Also, the harum-scarum climates throughout The Ugly American reflect how most Americans felt about the the war in Vietnam, and Vietnamese culture in general, both then and now - matter of fact. As for the allegory noted above, the unforgettable scene that closes the Ugly American is just damning against the American mainstream - its sense of detachment from world affairs. Sadly the lessons from this scene firmly remain in the present.

This long, dull and talky film about The Problem Of American Involvement In Southeast Asia looks like its first time director George Englund's graduate thesis for Stanley Kramer University. Absolutely no flow whatsoever, just a lurch from one ponderous scene of talking heads to another with two rather clumsily handled action scenes thrown in to keep the viewer from crying out in utter ennui. That some of the dialogue is intelligent as well as overwrought is due either to the adaptation of Eugene Burdick and William Lederer's novel by Stewart Stern, one of 50 and 60s Hollywood's better scribes, or perhaps to the novel itself (haven't read it so I cannot be sure). In any case, it's a tiresome slog and its ultimate message (like all products of Kramer U, this thing is big on messages) that dictators are more to be trusted than commies is, ironically, exactly what got us into the whole Vietnam morass in the first place. Give it a C.

PS...For the record, the best performance is turned in by Kukrit Pramoj, the future prime minister of Thailand, here playing the shifty PM of the fictional country of Sarkan.