filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Fulke Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

egodinez 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

la_peluqueria_de_hoy 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.

el_master 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...

martedoc 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......