Zapata - El sueño del héroe

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.

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!)

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...

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

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!