The Missouri Breaks (1976) - Drama, Western

Hohum Score



Tom Logan is a horse thief. Rancher David Braxton has horses, and a daughter, worth stealing. But Braxton has just hired Lee Clayton, an infamous "regulator", to hunt down the horse thieves; one at a time.

IMDB: 6.6
Director: Arthur Penn
Stars: Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson
Length: 126 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 13 out of 75 found boring (17.33%)

One-line Reviews (54)

Jane suspects that Logan is an outlaw, which makes him only more appealing to her, as she has grown to resent her father's tyranny, particularly after witnessing the slow death of the young horse thief from Logan's gang.

During this period Brando was creating a number of absolutely ridiculous but downright entertaining characters ("The Godfather", "Burn!

'The Missouri Breaks' is all about Brando, and is well-worth watching just for his scenes.

Brando's performance is so self indulgent that it destroys what could have been at least a mediocre western.

The one thing that bothers me however, is the way movies are made today- they are just as trite, except now you can tell the good guys wear the black hats, and good guys wear black hats.

Maybe he thought the script was too dull so he added some color so the audience wouldn't fall asleep.

Other than that, don't waste your money.

Well he's Brando and can bore and insult us without consequences.

This film has great acting, scenery and is a relief from the "cowboy and Indian movies" I grew up watching which were trite and predictable.

The throwing weapon that he used, helping Randy Quaid swim, and his dressing up as a woman was entertaining.

All in all this film is a major western as it has elements that never surfaced in most others—women who were not mere attractions, the effect of carbines on those shot by them, and of course the slow death by hanging, in contrast to the lovely countryside (stated by the leading lady).

Brando's portrayal is so wonderfully eccentric it gets more and more enjoyable with repeated viewings.

This is the most self-indulgent performance have seen since Zero Mostel.

I found the story engaging and gritty, wondering what was going to happen next to Nicholson's gang as each one of them gets killed off.

The plot is fairly predictable once Lee Clayton arrives and starts hunting the horse rustlers, and so the film's main pleasure is in the acting performances, of which only Brando's is truly exceptional.

Unfortunately, the mulling over what to do is written in an extensively tiresome scene with dull dialog and clichéd remarks, just a hint of things to come.

He wanted something low-key, slow and human; to capture the tempo and tone of the "real" West.

Thank you, Mr. Penn and all those that contributed to making this deceptively interesting film so enjoyable.

If you appreciate the genre, this is entertaining and worth owning.

Don't forget, it was just 2 movies earlier that he mesmerized the entertainment world with his riveting role as the "Godfather".

not the violent, intense Brando here.

This is an intriguing character, to say the least.

My initial take on this film, given the period it was made, was to wonder who was taking what drugs and how often; Nicholson had recently finished the brilliant Chinatown, Brando had Last Tango In Paris under his belt, and director Penn, the epic Little Big Man; they all got together for this--and it's a haphazard mess; each time the plot starts to evolve in some meaningful way, it comes to a halt for Brando's extravagant lisping Irishman, a self-indulgent performance that poor Arthur Penn had to deal with, or for the romance Nicholson kindles with the magnetic Kathleen Lloyd--and whatever happened to her?

The music and screenplay are in many ways a tribute to the rising fame of the spaghetti Western and therefore quite stunning—also because of the very interesting and intelligent use of sound editing.

Having said that.. well worth watching.

Dull, Mean-Spirited, Western .

There are at least a dozen scenes in this movie that are fascinating, memorable and stunningly original, causing me to wonder how a mediocrity like Leonard Maltin could give the film a "bomb" rating in his best-selling reference work.

The chemistry between Lloyd and Nicholson is intriguing and it would be interesting to see them act together in a different movie.

the only thing worth watching the movie is for the humorously unclimatic finale between brando and nicholson.

The 70s was an intriguing decade for the Oater, with many of them veering between traditional and revisionist.

Honestly, anything Brando did after Ultimo Tango a Parigi, a stunning film, was strictly for the paycheck –take a look at his track record.

Don't forget, it was just 2 movies earlier that he mesmerized the entertainment world with his riveting role as the "Godfather".

It's not the best western out there, but it is very entertaining.

Nicholson is pretty much by-the-numbers but he's at least entertaining and it's fun seeing the two actors working together even if it's obvious that many of their scenes together were shot at different times.

This movie may initially seem slow and meandering.

Randy Quaid's role is fascinating for being so early in his career.

On the negative side, the film is "revisionist" and "subversive" in only the most trite and banal ways, Nicholson never convinces as a man of the period and the film is far too long for such thin material, even if its length does lend a strong, portentous weight to its climax.

Nicholson can do no wrong, but Tom Logan is a relatively bland, inarticulate character, and, hidden behind an unruly beard, Nicholson's facial expressions can't compensate for the minimalistic dialogue to create a more distinct character.

There are exciting sequences within the piece and if anyone holds it together, it's legend Brando.

It has everything: suspenseful plot, interesting action sequences, and terrific performances.

Yes, it is 'quirky;' yes, Brando uses a different accent in nearly every scene; and yes, his performance seems at times almost improvised, shooting off in unexpected and rewarding directions.

Even though Brando is the most overrated actor in the history of movies, he is entertaining in "Missouri Breaks".

THE MISSOURI BREAKS was released to some incredibly negative reviews and even today many people consider this one of the worst movies ever made.

It exceeds the unpredictable and reaches for the bizarre.

Brando hardly seems to be trying, yet gives a riveting, eccentric performance.

This movie must have built up unbearable hype and the disappointment is easy to imagine.

"The Missouri Breaks" features numerous such intriguing contradictions and points to ponder.

Dialogue is mostly fresh and original for a 70s era western, and cliché avoided.

And at least Mostel was entertaining.

Marlon Brando starred in two other Westerns in his notable career: The 1961 masterpiece "One-Eyed Jacks," the prototype to Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns (only far more compelling storywise) and the less impressive "The Appaloosa" from 1966.

Many many fine elements, exceptional, sometimes brilliant, but, ungrounded, and wildly self-indulgent.

The twists that Marlon Brando brings are very entertaining.

Slow talking Nicholson is great as the laid back and likable horse thief while Brando gives a totally off the wall, but very entertaining performance.

A waste of talent and money .