Add a Review

  • I think everything's already said on all other comments, but its all true: This movie sucks; the script sucks; the actors suck; has awful historical flaws; is totally unrealistic; its nonsense; its absolutely wrong made; its lame; its an offense to a national hero, to Mexican culture, and to Mexican film industry!

    In my opinion it has 2 major flaws:

    1) It tried so hard to be an 'American style' epic movie... with 10% of an American movie budget. I would say its Mexican wannabe-Hollywood at its lowest.

    2) I bet much of the budget spent on this production is obviously on hiring "Known" actors to be on the movie. Even if just for a couple of seconds. That's how we can see cameos of people like Angélica Aragón and Carmen Salinas, and the main characters are stared by well known icons of Mexican pop culture, who sing pretty well, but can't act. Even Jaime Camil (Emiliano Zapata's brother) looks more like the actual Emiliano Zapata. Just because Alejandro Fernandez its a famous singer doesn't mean its gonna be a blockbuster! And he SUCKS acting!!!

    So, by spending money in hiring celebrities, renting thousands of horses, and some explosive material, they left out things like a good story, or the backgrounds; Anybody noticed how all the interior shots where in ruins of old haciendas? People where living inside great ruins, with expensive furniture... but no ceilings or windows and walls that are about to fall. Who is this guy trying to imitate, Fellini?

    I don't know how or why do this movie happened. How does it actually was made? Who allowed it? I'm afraid that it could go around the world and People from every country would think that this is Mexico, and this is how Mexican movies are, and Mexican actors, and Mexican scripts and stories... I'm afraid of this happening. Quoting the main character of the movie: 'The guy who made this film, Arau, "Is not a real Mexican"'. A real Mexican would not let an important issue like this, become such a shame! Its a big bad joke; A ridicule waste of time.

    I lost 2 hours of my life forever, by watching this "film". Save your eyes!
  • This Film betrays the very cause that is supposed to honor.

    When I saw Alfonso Arau's "Zapata" I expected a film that may not only expose the American natives as a great, noble and highly organized and intellectual cultures, specially the Aztec Empire, but also to bring the well deserved pride to this humiliated, discriminated people in Latin America.

    Instead what I saw is a disrespectful MOCK of the accounts of the history, in short:

    -Zapata (Fernandez) denies every time he is a leader, a liberator, he is actually annoyed when he is asked for guide from his devoted followers, seems that he got stuck in that position for pure luck.

    -Zapata (Fernandez) doesn't in any point of the movie prove that indeed he is a leader or that he deserves that title.

    -Zapata's brother dies in this film in the vilest situation, a betrayal, having sex with the wife of a fellow Indian. Any honorable Aztec man knew that this sole act in the Aztec law will get death as punishment.

    -Zapata in this movie claims that his struggle is to defend their traditions, self-respect, history, beliefs and way of life but several times in the film he leaves his Indian wife to go after the beautiful blonde European mistress, betraying the very own cause he is fighting for, is this the leader his people deserve?

    -A witch, (sometimes naked) keeps appearing in his dreams, I believe she is some kind of guide in Zapata's life, how come she never told him that he was going to be lied by the enemy and killed in the lamest way?

    I can easily keep writing about how bad this film is, but I will need about four hours for that, basically the time it took to write the screenplay of "Zapata, El Sueno del Heroe", (Sad, very Sad)

    LPortillo
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Screw you Alfonso Arau. Really, screw you. This is one of the most horrible, pretentious, boring, mediocre, movie from the new Mexican cinema.

    How the hell could they destroy Zapata's image in a poor taste movie?! What do a fairy has to do? What is Lucerito doing? The fact that Alejandro Fernandez plays the leading role is an insult to Emiliano Zapata.

    This is a big budget mess that once again demonstrates that money does not means quality. This is pure trash and a story that will leave people insulted. People who have studied Zapata will really feel angry. Zapata a shaman? Really? Get your facts straight. The fact that fantasy and sci-fi were added to the movie is plain pathetic.

    The sci-fi elements are uncalled for for a supposedly biographical movie. Ugh. I truly hate this movie and I recommend to everyone to avoid it all costs.

    Seems that Arau, Fernandez, and Camil spent the budget on prostitutes and cheap booze because the f/x, art direction, and production values overall are nowhere to be seen.

    Mr. Arau, if you made this movie just to impress audiences from USA, and Europe well you failed miserably and now the joke's on you. Many people make jokes at your cost for making this crap.
  • I have a little understanding of what happened to this movie, having been hired as the VFX supervisor, but not completing any of the visual effects. This was originally a Canadian / Mexican co-production, with a smaller percentage of investment supposed to come from Canada, and certain crew (editor, sound dept., visual effects) being supplied by Canadian companies. When I arrived on set there were already problems both with budget overrun and also, I understand, with funds being transferred from Canada. I completed supervising the 'raw plates' on location, but not a single frame ended up going to the original post production house that hired me. There was some beautiful footage shot by Vittorio Storraro, but already before I left some disagreement between Alfonso Arau and the Canadian editor, over the cutting style. The editor left soon after me. I later heard a rumour that the negative was held up at the lab in L.A. over unpaid invoices. I have never seen the 'finished' movie but I can speculate that there was a desperate scramble to put this film together in some way at least for a DVD release. The investors must have been screaming for a way to return some of their capital.

    So please don't be quite so hard on this movie. It is basically unfinished. I cannot comment on acting, direction and other aspects that I have not seen, but some of the scenes which I saw uncut in Mexico had more promise than was realized. Jeery Andrews VFX Supervisor (shoot only!)
  • As a mexican, it pains me terribly to see dead and gone the prestige acquired by Arau with "Como agua para chocolate", but it pains me even more to see this awful and disrespectful portrayal of a national hero in the hands of Arau. Terrible actors, worse screenplay, unforgivable historical lies and a total waste of ten million dollars.

    Lame high-school-level effects, and so many ridiculous supposedly mystic references (all mixed up and wrong) that make this movie an involuntary comedy, promising to turn a macarena-dancing nahuatl old witch character into a sad, sad stain in a previously good Arau's resumé.

    I would have preferred Arau to publicize his movie as a satyre... That might have (and I repeat, MIGHT HAVE) saved his reputation, but it is unadmissible to let him play with the image of a national hero, and make a long, very bad videoclip for Alejandro Fernández out of this "movie", and make us mexicans be sorry for it to be seen overseas.
  • As other users commented, I knew it was bad before watching it but I entered hoping to find something all right and with the idea of supporting Mexica Cinema, but oh surprise, I was dissapointed because of the terrible story, the director, the characters, Too bad ´cause Arau has done some OK work, but this was terribly out of the line.

    What the hell with the images of the magic indians?, the old lady who is her guide?, I know the director wanted to use "magic realism", used by novelists like Garcia Marquez, but it is not appropiate for this movie. Besides that, half of the movie is based on invention and away from real history, too bad because the real story of Zapata has great things to write about and to make a great film.

    The character Victoriano Huerta (Jesus Ochoa), is kind of the only worth watching, he´s always been a great actor.

    The script is terrible, the acting is bad, the images ..well, really you better read a biography of this great revolutionary and get some good history instead of paying $40 pesos to get nothing.
  • el_master13 May 2004
    That's what this "movie" is.

    I can't even start explaining on details of what's wrong about this piece of crap, it is everything.

    It made me laugh at some point, but it was sorrow laughter, but the worst of all is the screenplay, miscasting and directing.

    Dumb fiction characters and weak based on real life character. You just can't respect a director such as Arau that the only thing he did on pre-production and therefore was going along where the wind blew.

    You just can't have any kind of respect, avoid it at any cost...

    what a shame...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After I read a summary of this movie, and taken a look to my wallet (Oh, $36 Mexican pesos, enough for a movie... :D ) I decided to go to the nearest movie theater to watch this "movie?", and that was a terrible psychological shock.

    First: some errors on the history. Zapata was never an Indian, He never joined the army, He didn't faced off Huerta, He never teased others wives, and mainly HE DIDN'T TAMED HORSES WITH HIS EYES.

    On the other hand, the acting was terrible, the sexual-themed scenes had nothing to do with the movie, and finally, I had to watch it as a homework (that was the worst of all, and it was optional...).

    Definitively, if you want to see this movie, I will give you this warning: Value your sanity, don't watch it.
  • Being totally sincere I spected this movie to be not good, but never thought it was possible to be as terribly bad as it is.

    Based (Is it?) on the life of Mexican hero Emiliano Zapata, the screenplay is a mess. This historic character was maybe the Revolution hero with more social impact, maybe also the only one with true ideals, and actions. But you can see nothing about this in this movie, Instead of that the movie uses all the time to say just that he was the "chosen one" never even trying to figure why. Too much has been said about the inclusion of the Mexican singer Alejandro Fernandez in the main role, and blaming him of all the weakness in the character. I think that this conception is really wrong, cause being not an actor Mr. Fernandez took the responsibility of his character, and studied acting, and Nahuatl (Being the only one who seems fluent in his speaking) and made a big effort that made a good shape for the hero, but even the best actor in the world would be incompetent to fill a character that in this story and screenplay, haves nothing in its soul.

    The photography by renowned photographer Vittorio Storaro is really beautiful, but ruined by the editing and shameful visual effects. The Set design and costumes are great. The musical score is a full mess, and the main love theme is a perfect copy of: Don't cry for me Argentina.

    Meaning all this I have said that the movie haves a lot of good effort by cast and crew, but being the leadership by Arau an empty mess, with not a hint of creativity, all this effort is a complete waste and a shame of movie.
  • juguetemalo28 March 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    Were to start? first of all you cant justify Arau's attempt to make a movie saying that it was about a myth and a legend, since wen the words "myth and legend" means "STUPID and RIDICULOUS"? The worst part about this is that its the first (and only movie) that makes me feel so bad, so ashamed, so... bored, disgraceful, and offended, that i walked out the theater before it makes a permanent damage on my brain.

    (contains spoilers)

    To the point i resisted seeing this "film" there was a lot of stupid historical mistakes on it, the biggest of them i can remember is the scene were the "hero", Zapata, gets hes feet burned like the emperor Moctezuma, a thing that never happened in real history.

    Another thing that was annoying was the old "shaman" woman, that appeared in front of Zapata from time to time, wit an special effect worthy of an old kids show called "odisea burbujas" it just made me feel like... I CANT FIND WORDS FOR IT!!!

    Bad acting, bad script, shameful directing, and a really sad example of what an idiot can do if they give him money to waste.
  • Where to start? This movie is even worse than hitting an old lady in the street. The worst part is that I knew it was bad before going to the theater, but I thought it would be fun to watch. But oh mistake! The acting of everyone there is bad, maybe Camil gets a little of slack. The script is horrible, incoherent, absurd and ridiculous. You laugh at first at how wrong the production is,alas, after a while, you start feeling sick.

    Avoid this movie by all means and someone give Arau a job directing soap operas instead.
  • This is a typical Arau movie, full of surrealism mixed with history and humor. Is not a movie to take it as the real story of Zapata but to enjoy the messages Arau try to send and to fully enjoy the places it was filmed. A lot of people do not understand that Arau didn't want to make an historical movie but to see another aspects of Zapata as a national hero, that's why the full name of the movie could be translated as Zapata a dream of a hero and I will like to underline "dream", that is the key word. The witches in the movie is a great touch of what Mexico really is, a place of surrealism. Please sit down and enjoy this movie and don't try to look for a history lesson!
  • After so many negative comments, I didn't expect much from Arau´s Zapata besides beautiful cinematography. I went to see it with the curiosity to see why it generates so much criticism.

    I was surprised that I liked and enjoyed parts of the movie. I disagree with the people that say it was a waste of time, I didn't think that it was the worst movie I have seen (like some others in imdb comments have said) - there are so many movies worse than this one in México. Jaime Camil was interesting as Eufemio, maybe a little more than Alejandro Fernandez as Emiliano, but I don't think that was all his fault. Jesus Ochoa was good as Huerta, but I think the villain is usually interesting and stands out in movies any ways. I think the script could have been more interesting but it seemed that the film was badly chopped and jumped from one scene to the next in the first half in particular, like we didn't really see what it was supposed to be. Some of the special effects were fine, the explosions and rain of petals was interesting but the CG in some cases were disappointing, for the chamana and the final of the film were from twenty years ago or more.

    Maybe it was good that I saw it with low expectations - overall I liked it more than I thought I would but I would have liked to see more depth and explanation. As a mexican I understand what it was planned to be about, I wanted it to be good, to explain about our hero and I liked the mystical idea but some things were missing that I thought could have made it better. Now that I have seen the movie, I wish they would go back and fix it, make a better edition, add some flavor. It was like going to a dinner where the food looks so good but doesn't satisfy you. I hope someone makes a better one.

    I know some persons will say nothing can help the film and don't like it anyway. Other people in the theater with me said they like most of the film, but didn't like the poor visual quality of the ending scene.

    I don't blame the actors or crew, but the director or editors under his direction I imagine or whoever damaged a good idea. I think a good director should see the obvious faults in the film and fix them before it is released.
  • Please, please, seriously, don't waste your money and your precious time watching this pathetic piece of trash. I like to watch mexican movies and support the poor industry but there are times like these that I feel ashamed. I really don't want this movie to be watched in other countries, it will be such a shame. I accept that Arau has done some decent works but this was his worst movie. It gives Zapata and Mexico a bad name. The acting is really horrible; the plot, just absurd and incoherent; the production, very poor and discredited; shameful visual effects. Save yourselves from mediocrity. 1/10 stars
  • I have seen this Spanish language film which focuses on the famed Mexican revolutionary, Emilano Zapata. My knowledge about it's hero and the revolution is extensive. Also, I recall Elia Kazan's biopic of Zapata, which starred Marlon Brando. It is not difficult to follow the story. 14 of the 16 comments (so far) are singularly disappointing, making me wonder if they saw the same movie. The 14 negatives are vile, cowardly attempts to assassinate Arau's movie and his talents. So cowardly, in fact, they don't dare sign their real names.

    I found the film engrossing, beautifully photographed by Victorio Storaro and masterfully directed by Arau -- one of the few truly great filmmaker's of our time. He isn't interested to portray car crashes, sadism, murders and allied subject matter.

    He is a very humane man -- who is able to invest that humanity in his films. They have great charm, a quality which has virtually disappeared from movies. (See his: "Like Water For Chocolate", "A Walk In The Clouds",etc.)

    For me, Arau is the Vittorio De Sica of modern film-making and we are indeed fortunate he is still making films.

    Robert Dorff
  • trash junkies enjoy!... this movie is so bad in every level that you will dig every minute of this so called movie. destroyed by critics & audience, this was an instant flop & with good reasons.

    the acting is awful, as well as the dialog. & what about those crappy special effects???.... totally hilarious! the mystic approach to Zapata is just plain stupid. Also, the story makes no sense whatsoever. Poor Alfonso Arau, he thought this was a movie for the ages. Well guess what? I don't think so!

    that said i just 'recomend' this movie to those who (like me) enjoy in some kind of wicked way trashy movies.

    PS. the three mystic old women are for the time capsule!!
  • This film is the worst movie I have ever seen, It doesn't follow the real story about Zapata, I don't know what the hell the director smoked or ate, he tried to show us a Magic Hero, or something like that, with derisive "special" effects and with a very bad development in the events.

    The director have done good movies like "Como agua para chocolate" and "Un paseo por las nubes", but this film is worse than a movie of Britney Spears or Scooby Doo, or the disgusting movies about Singers and Musical Groups from Mexico. It is REALLY a BAD movie.

    The worst thing, is that the Director Alfonzo Arau will try to show the movie out of Mexico, what a shame!!!.

    If you hate someone, you could make him feel bad taking him to see this disgusting movie, Even I think that could be very draconian. Really!!!.

    If Zapata were alive, he surely would kill himself......
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I wanna see this movie. I am interested in watching, since I am new in this account I don't know how to put this message in one single line. So just only read the first line. I am interested in the movie. It had been mention that there is a rose falling effect, but I am not sure. So Anybody that would like to tell how to get the movie here in the US, or would like to sell it on E-BAY and let me know when you guys have it. I will promise to pay you as soon as possible. thank you I have another comment from the Telemundo's version. I loved it even it was made as Telenovela format and the historical accounts are accurate. Damian makes a good performance as Zapata. And the end is cool. The music is not from a big orchestra, but the natural scenes are beautiful. I wonder where they filmed it.
  • Arau is crazy. If just based on the cast was enough to cause goose bumps out of fright, to the cavalcade of so called actors adds an insane plot that goes nowhere. This film tries to enhance the patriot feeling the caudillo from Morelos wore proudly, but in the end is pretentious, with bad structure and an even worst labor from the actors. The plot is incoherent even to its "magixc realism" standards, with nahuales (beings half animal half human from the ancient cultures), prehispanic references, some nuts theories and even a Zapata with more care for "fashion" than revolution itself (he's played by a popular Mexican singer); if at least this movie was entertaining all those things won't even matter, but is not, and to make it worse it has a rush feeling, as if Arau was in a hurry to end it. You can tell by the people involved that it has a doom fate, but you just can't imagine how much.
  • alexcor-12 June 2004
    The movie is about the myth of Zapata, not a biography or a history tale. The myth was created after his death and seems to be growing in the passing of the years. I will cited only two movement that idealize him. Cesar Chavez choose it as one of his heroes and the EZLN movement also, despite they fought isn't in the original zapatista territory. But the beauty of this allegory created by Arrau isn't of easy understanding of the great public. The film made of Zapata a predesignated with a mision in his life, a mision that obliged him to fight against injustice. His objective is against the power man (always represented by Huerta, Gonzalez and Gallardo representing a not his real life papers), his objective is to give some to the people that doesn't have any, people identified plenty with the mother land. So he rise as symbol of agrarian fights in all epoques and he is considered as descendant of a aztec divinity, Quetzalcoatl and also from the aztec emperors, Cuauhtemoc in special. Visually, the film is a beauty, the instrumental music splendid and the scenography always in the ruins of a Hacienda (Coahuixtla) fantastic. A truly masterpiece.
  • The key to enjoying this one is the word DREAM. I admire Arau for coming up with this great idea and going against everything and everybody to take it to the screen. I am happy this was not a Zapata biography. We've got several of those and they do a good job at telling the story and portraying that very important chapter of Mexican history. A biography was never Arau's intent. He took a historical character, added the myth that developed from the man and then mixed in his VERY PERSONAL idea. It didn't have to be Zapata. It could have been Moctezuma or Pancho Villa for that matter. What's important and groundbreaking about this movie IS NOT the fact that he picked Emiliano Zapata, but rather what Arau does with the personae of Zapata as he fictionalizes it to a point so surreal, so surreal indeed that Bunuel would have been proud. So people, get over the fact that it's not a biography and enjoy it for what it is: an entertaining adventure into Arau's creative mind. Oh, and for the record, both Alejandro Fernandez and Lucero do a good job. Lucero is an acquired taste, I'll admit that much, and I would have enjoyed her more if she had made an effort to BE in character as opposed to merely PLAY the character. Still, I liked her. I heard comments that she hadn't mastered the Iberian accent and, well, those comments are wrong. Lucero speaks as Iberian as they come. It would have been better if the script -her actual lines- had been better tailored to the time in which this story is supposed to take place. Her lines were too 21st century, and that part did suck. Arau, next time less "tu" and more "vosotros" will do the trick. And Alejandro shines. Who knew the hunk could act? But he does. I was VERY VERY VERY (get my point?) surprised. I was totally prepared to see a cardboardy performance and boy, was I ever mistaken! Alejandro is quite a treat. Camil is adequate as Eusebio and Ochoa as Huerta is just what you would expect evil Huerta to be. And the beautiful Patricia Velazquez manages to give her badly-written character some depth. I want to see her playing Frida some day. So anyway, all in all this movie will not be memorable, but it's an enjoyable hour and a half. In no way is this a waste of time and it most certainly is not the worst movie ever made. Those who gave this movie a bad review simply didn't get it. They wanted a history lesson, and they got an intelligent attempt at surreal cinema, no wonder they were unhappy! So go ahead and watch it if you can find it. Watch it with an open mind a welcoming heart and an art-hungry eye. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
  • The movie "Zapata, El Sueno del Heroe" is the second collaboration of the director Alfonso Arau with the Director of Photography Vittorio Storaro AIC,ASC.The story of the Mexican revolutionary is expressed with different colors, and each one represents a different stage of the evolution of his life and his role in the Mexican history.The different colors refers to the Aristotelian elements:fire, water, earth and air. According to the Aristotle's theory, these are the basic elements from which all the substances are generated. These four elements are forms of energy that Zapata assumes and delivers for completing his mission: the son of a simple mestizo peasant that leads the revolt of the poor farmers to the fall of the dictator Porfidio Diaz, at the cost of his life. The colors that wrap the whole lenght of the movie are astounding, with elegant and sophisticated tones, offering a color dichotomy between the terrorizing coldness of the battle scenes and a comforting warmness of the peacetime scenes.The first image of Zapata shows him dressed in black, and at the end he is dressed in white: the transition from the lightes color (black), to the heaviest color (white), is associated with the evolution of the man and the his spiritual maturity, and this dynamic develops an energy, like the one that Zapata transfers in the Mexican's people, that heartily remains even after his death. The movie hinges on a multitude of Emiliano Zapata's close-ups where initially his eyes are covered from the shadow cast by the sombrero's brim, and slowly disclosing, until the face is fully lit. Shadows hides the one that light shows: the inner man is represented in the shadow, the dark and unrevealed side of the human being, where anxieties and fears lie, but also where courage and ideas are from.The artificial light has been regulated through a dimmer console, in order to carefully adjust in real time luminosity and color, harmonizing it with a subject in a given scene. The subtler sentiments have a photographic transposition in which certain states of soul are associated to particular tonalities of light. Emiliano Zapata is a chaser and a chased, escorted by nightmares and dreams. A very intense experience in the representation of the dream/magic/nightmare lived between light and shadows, darkness and dazzle.The majority of the shots have been shot with a "normal" lens, only battle scenes have been shot with a wider-angle lens in order to amplify the tension. Elegant and smooth camera movements become much more rapid associated to unconventional camera angle during combats, following the frenetic battle pace. It's impressive the frequentness of camera movements: from the elegant dolly shots gliding around a dialog to the crane shots showing the gourgeness of the Mexican landscape or the tragedy of the battlefield, all encomiastically contributing to enhance the film's poetry.In some ways this is a movie about movement: the restless journey that Emiliano Zapata covers to live his dream, and nothing will stop him about pursing it. Zapata has a premonition,he sees himself killed in a cornfield. That moment of perturbation captures the emotion that comes for everyone: you can either choose to live in a imperturbable situation or follow your dreams, even if this will mean to face an undesired destiny.The shooting has been delegated at two cameras: one mostly set at eye-level and the other set on the crane in order to offer a different perspective of a given scene. The visual structure of the shots is irreproachable, with perfect balance, dynamics, alternation of dark and bright tonality. The Director of Photograpy has a fond love for Zapata's close-ups, which has intensely portrayed during punchy speeches or ponderous looks. Using the "Univisium" format (2:1 aspect ratio), that Vittorio Storaro developed a decade ago, which is wider than the "Wide Screen U.S."(1.85 aspect ratio) commonly used, the character is never really alone on the screen, but always surrounded by composite elements. The wider format is very effective, showing a big country like Mexico and a big person like Zapata has been, the first for territorial dimension and the second for the exceptionally of his actions that signed the course of the Mexican history.The movie indulges the love of the director Alfonso Arau, (who also wrote the movie), for the Mexican culture which finds its origins in the Aztec culture, with its natural magic, with alchemical and esoterical foundations. These cultures and disciplines, that influenced Arau's style, seems to be the point of reference that Vittorio Storaro had to keep in consideration to filtrate his vision in order to convey the director's achievements.The marvel about the movie is the way that Arau shows the temper of the different characters playing, and the meticulousness in illustrating the less-known aspects of Mexican folklore.With a distinctive cinematography, Vittorio Storaro captures both Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros artworks: an epoch that comes to life again through the light and colors of the painters of the period, showing a big picture of the early twenty century Mexican history. Every sequence is based on a specific selection of tonality, the different elements are molded in a fantastic scenery, where things are shining in the unreal light of the dream: the dream of the hero.

    By Andrea Giachi, Florence, Italy
  • How do you turn a man into a myth? Or worse yet, how do you make 2 hours of pretty terrible viewing? The answer would be this sad attempt at the retelling of one of Mexico's greatest heros. For starters, Alejandro Fernandez doesn't look anything like Emiliano Zapata--he's way too white. And Fernandez looks more like a Mexicano Clive Owen, which was somewhat distracting. The scenes jump with no ryhme or reason as the movie tries to follow the trajectory of Zapata's life. Unless you are completely familiar with the Diaz dictatorship and the land struggles and revolution in Mexico in the early 20th century, you're gonna be completely lost. The film vacillates between grand epic and art film. Zapata/Fernandez is guided by three wise women whose presence in the movie is distracting and just downright goofy. The previous reviewer made mention of several present day Mexican stars who have cameos, including Lucero as Zapata's upper-crust lover(!). I did enjoy the scene where Zapata meets Villa, which re-enacts the famous photograph of the two revolutionary leaders. You do get a sense of the larger than life character that Villa was. However, that short scene is not enough to make up for all the tedious scenes that came before. Really, this movie stinks and doesn't do justice to the memory of a great man who helped led the peasant revolt in Mexico.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    (As you pay hommage to COMO AGUA PARA CHOCOLATE):

    1. Previously enjoy CALZONZÍN INSPECTOR (1974).

    2. As you still hold its parody tone, do not take Arau seriously: as you just presenced he is mostly a Comedian, not a Historian.

    3. The Spanish title means "The Dream of the Hero", so expect it to be dreamlike.

    4. Watch it for Entertainment, such as Lucero showing a nipple, and Ochoa playing himself. Then write yourself a To Do Note to consult History Books later, to quench your thirst of being properly taught.

    5. And last but not least, do not pay attention to the terrible special effects, and even worse editing: it will take your apetite away.
  • I really enjoyed this movie, is fresh, different, maybe Alejandro Fernnandez isn't such a good actor, but Lucero, Jaime Camil, Angelica Aragon, and all the other actors, are really the best, very good photography, I love the movie!!

    try to watch it, don worry, about the other comments, just try and think it's a really different point of view about Zapata's life, really good.

    all the natural environment, i guess it is a very good production you should watch it and build your own opinion, don you think?

    Please before build a point of view, watch all this Mexican work, it's a good production. see you.
An error has occured. Please try again.