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.

vincentlynch-moonoi I very much dislike it when entertainers retire long before it is necessary to do so, leaving their fans high and dry (such as Cary Grant). But some entertainers don't quite know when to call it quits (like Sinatra, Como, and Martin). I regret to say it, because I always admired him, but this was one film too many for Gregory Peck. At 73, Peck had gotten too old for a starring role such as this.But that's not the only problem with this film. It's somewhat depressing and, at times, a bit confusing in terms of plot. At least that's how I interpret the film's incredible flop at the box office (it earned $3.5 million, but cost $27 million).About the best thing that I can say about the film is that it is beautifully filmed. The fighting scenes are done very well. The sets are sumptuous.Now there is a plot here -- actually 3 plots. A young woman (Jane Fonda) wants to experience life (although why she would place herself in the middle of the Mexican Revolution is unclear). An old man (Gregory Peck) -- a writer -- is ready to die. And a young Mexican (Jimmy Smits) wants to lead his countrymen to their rightful place in a free Mexico. And the story comes together as all 3 main characters find themselves together in the middle of the Revolution.Jane Fonda, who gets top billing here, is fine in some scenes, but just a little too wide-eyed in other scenes. At least she gets to kiss Gregory Peck and have sex with Jimmy Smits. She has come of age, so to speak.Jimmy Smits probably does the best acting in the film. He's very believable as a local leader of the Revolution.The film lasts just under an hour, but seems much longer. You'll have to decide for yourself. For me, I won't want to watch it again.

brefane Mix a sexually repressed teacher(Fonda),a fiery revolutionary(Smits), and a dying author(Peck) with hundreds of Mexican extras, mariachi's, romance, pretty photography and you've got Old Stinko: a boring, lackluster cliché ridden waste of time for all involved. Essentially, it's The Rainmaker(56) set against the background of the Mexican Revolution. This misbegotten project lacks a purpose for being and never really involves the audience. Smits is cliché but less ridiculous than the other 2 characters who suck the life out of the movie and get in the way of the background which while pretty and pleasing to the eye is too pretty and overblown for the sketchy story being told. Peck plays Ambrose Bierce like Atticus Finch, and the scenes between he and Fonda recall Atticus and Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird. As the wide eyed pupil/teacher Fonda is unconvincing and embarrassing, and Peck is a hollow bore. The people involved in this project should have asked themselves Why will audiences care? They didn't, and the film was a box office and critical disappointment. Just ignore it, and it will go away.

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.