• WARNING: Spoilers

    This movie is a failure, despite intending to compliment Pancho. In a word, because Pancho's greatness had less to do with his chicano heritage than with his being the GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER of all time. So he dated white movie stars? How many chicano movie stars were around? So Jack Kramer snookered him? Kramer was the smartest tennis person of his time, and would YOU have hired a lawyer if you'd been Pancho?

    Jimmy Conners is the only character from the last 30 years who says Pancho was great; and it was in the course of Jimmy-the-seventeen-year-old admitting the old man beat him. Alex Olmedo, the victim of Pancho's big misbehavior (which was rule-complying compared to McEnroe's childishness) in the Wimbledon finals, is the biggest Gonzalez fan Haro shows in an interview.

    Benjamin Bratt would certainly do a great job with a modern movie instead of this outdated documentary basically appealing to chicano motercycle gangs in Southern California. I hasten to add that the footage of the Gonzalez family is wonderful, as is the footage of all the Mexican scenes in L.A. up to and including Pancho's going on the Kramer tour. Pancho's brother was... Pancho's brother. And his mother was his mother. And his father was, you get the picture. It's the poor last half of Haro's documentary that stings. How many watchers of Direct TV know that Pancho married Andre Agassi's sister before he died? Or wonder why his coach is a chicano?

    I posted a similar critique a few years ago, and it disappeared. Hopefully I won't have to post this one again.

    • glrowsey