If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

At one level, this film focuses on a much delayed coming of age adventure for Jane Fonda's character, Harriet Winslow, who suddenly decides she has had enough of her mother-dominated spinster school marm life. Yes, we would expect her to be maybe 10-20 years younger than her 50 years, and some have suggested she was thus miscast. However, her relatively advanced age makes her crush on Peck's 70 year old character, Ambrose Bierce, more believable. Peck's characterization of Bierce is somewhat at odds with what I have read of this man. We get the impression that, like Harriet, he has decided to forsake his bookish life, as a sick old man, for a final hands-on adventure, as an aid to the rebels in the Mexican revolution. However, the real Bierce fought in the Civil War and later crossed the continent on another assignment. He was not a one-dimensional bookish writer, by experience.Fonda simultaneously develops a crush on both Bierce and General Arroyo(Jimmy Smits). They are both seen as romantic rebels, though of very different sorts and for different personal reasons. Harriet reminds Bierce of his daughter, whom he hasn't seen for many years, while Bierce reminds Harriet of her father, who abandoned his domineering wife for a new love, and who fought in the Spanish American war to help free Cuba. But after partially destroying the Miranda mansion where he was conceived, Arroyo delays taking his troops to join Villa's, as ordered. Arroyo's bedding of Harriet on the very bed where he was conceived symbolically reverses the power relationship in which his European father raped his native American mother. He finds the original Spanish land grant papers giving the land of this hacienda to the peasants. Since Spain no longer governed Mexico, these papers were not necessarily valid, as Pierce points out, but Arroyo refuses to heed. Arroyo's shooting of his favorite horse and of Bierce reinforces his determination to stay at the hacienda of his birth instead of joining Villa.There are several references accusing Arroyo of having become the new Miranda, and thus betraying the revolution. I don't understand why Arroyo had one of his soldiers shot for doing what he himself was doing. He must have known he would receive the same sentence if he did not soon join Villa's forces. Perhaps this symbolized the near universal tendency of revolutionary leaders to gradually become tyrants as bad or worse than those they topple. So it had been with Porfirio Diaz, the once revolutionary general the revolutionists now fought against. So it would be with various successors to Diaz during these turbulent times.This is an entertaining film, for the most part. There are enough action scenes to complement the philosophizing and other tamer scenes. You will have to pay close attention or see it several times to dig out all the symbolism. I can see why this film was important to Jane Fonda. It is, in a sense, autobiographical, symbolizing her mid-life transformation from an apolitical sex kitten into an anti-establishment political spokeswoman for the powerless of the world.

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.

Don't rent this movie expecting a realistic characterization of Ambrose Bierce. That's a sure recipe for disappointment. Rent it for an interesting look into the lives of a few small and large players in a sweeping political movement.The acting's not Oscar-calibre, but it's more than acceptable for a western that plays a little bit like a documentary. Arroyo is particularly well-played.SLIGHT SPOILER The firing-squad scene is particularly compelling and poignant, mixing gruesomeness with absurdity to create a very surreal portrait.Check it out. There are worse ways to kill ninety minutes.