Gringo Velho

Although the story had a great potential, although the production was supporting and although the trio in the leading roles performed honorably, this film was ultimately betrayed by the director and notably the editor. It frequently looks incoherent, the scenes do not tie with each other and the result is so superficial (and superfluous at times) it looks like tv and soap opera. I remember the other historical drama N&S from the '80s - although it was done for tv it was ambitious and had quality. Not this one though - the few good moments (especially between Gregory Peck and Fonda) are abandoned and almost suffocated by the mediocrity of the entire. Maybe the director should have worked with Mexicans.

Mexico in the teen years of the last century was no place to be, not even for Mexicans as the country broke down completely after the overthrow of dictator Porfirio Diaz. A lot of people grabbed for power, including one Pancho Villa who got emboldened enough to cross the U.S. border and shoot up Columbus, New Mexico. That got Woodrow Wilson to sending the army to capture Villa without success.

But that's getting way ahead of this story. It concerns American writer Ambrose Bierce who went to revolutionary Mexico and disappeared into obscurity much in the manner of the French poet Francois Villon. The plot of this film offers a theory as to what could have happened to Bierce.

Dominating the film is Gregory Peck in the title role. He captures Bierce in all of his sardonic cynicism for which his writing lives on. This Bierce has all the reason to just want to leave his world behind, his wife had recently died, but not after being discovered to be involved with another man. Two of his three children, both of his sons died violent deaths. Bierce was a man who felt he had no reason to live on.

Peck gets involved with two other people in a romantic triangle, Jane Fonda as a spinster who gets hired to tutor some landowner children and Jimmy Smits who's using the revolution to settle some personal scores with that same landowner family. In fact Smits gets himself rather caught up in the whole ambiance of being to the manor born with what he feels are good reasons.

All though all three of the leads have been in much better product, Old Gringo still is a good piece of cinema and does capture some of the anarchy that was revolutionary Mexico.

There is more soul in this film than in 50 'modern' films.

While there is a lot of bad acting, and many other flaws in this movie, there are some GREAT scenes, great dialog, great characters, and great performances. Gregory Peck has some very memorable, outstanding monologues, there are many interesting and complex relationships, and there are no simple resolutions to conflicts.

Again- there are many areas of the film that do not work: doesn't matter, ignore them. There is tremendous depth here, and a lot of value to draw from the good parts of this movie. Peck and Smits are great, and even Fonda has some excellent moments.

They don't make 'em like this any more, and they don't make actors like Peck.

Opulent mess that died at the box office and with critics alike in 1989. In early-20th Century Mexico an American school teacher (Jane Fonda) is kidnapped by a desperado (Jimmy Smits) and his rebellious gang. The titled character (Gregory Peck) is slowly dying of an illness and tries to get himself killed by Smits on numerous occasions as he also tries to get Fonda to safety. Strangely a bond develops between Smits and Peck just as Fonda becomes Smits' lover and then surprisingly Fonda learns who Peck really is and falls in love with him as well (and also tries to fulfill his dying wish). "Old Gringo" is a lot of smoke and sand that tries to become the "Dr. Zhivago" of its time, but falls completely. The big-name performers cannot make it through a story that drags along and never gets to a suitable pay-off. The direction is disastrous too and we are left with a huh? movie that really means nothing at all. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Old Gringo is perhaps not as bad as has been made out by other reviewers, but it is not without its problems. The basic plot (generic war movie) is sufficient, but casting three headliners and trying to make sure they all get their stories and screen time in hollows out all three characters. All three characters were actually worthy of being portrayed as the lead, but it seems that none of the trio actually was. The movie would actually have been better with slightly lesser actors in two of the roles and more emphasis on just one of them.

I'm sure being a "Fonda Film" there was some thinly veiled commentary about something or another, but I either didn't catch it or didn't care enough to pay attention. I'd say it's an OK watch if you can find it for free, but maybe not worth paying for.