Customer Reviews

And Starring Pancho Villa As Himself [VHS]

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Maybe it's all true, maybe it's partially true; but in any case, And Starring Pancho Villa... is a very satisfying movie. But the difference between a 2 star rating and a 4 star rating here is solely due to the presence of Antonio Banderas in the lead role.

It sounds like such a cartoonish idea, moviemakers tagging along with an army of revolutionaries. But then in the silent movie era of 1914, New Jersey actually was the movie making capital of the world.

The subtext to all of this is that through his experience and relationship with General Villa, his erstwhile film producer Frank Thayer matures from young gofer to influential executive. But that is nothing more than a plot device. When Banderas is not on screen, the movie loses a step or two. He gives a superlative performance that is worthy of such a controversial (and underrated) historical figure.

Viva Villa! Viva Banderas!

Antonio, my hat is off to you. Who could have guessed how good you really can be? I have been watching movies for over 50 years, and never have I seen a better job of portraying a multifaceted character while never for one second letting go of his true identity. Bravo! As to the movie itself, it exhibits production values and attention to detail far beyond the Hollywood norm, and unheard of in television studio production. The history, the hardware and the costumes, were all excellent. Unfortunately as one of my fellow reviewers has already pointed out, Senior Banderas' inspired performance, the highly polished production, the good presentation of factual history and the stellar performances of many of the minor supporting actors carried the entire production. The script was poorly conceived and crafted. The plot line was confused, confusing and lack luster. The direction was safe and adequate, but not nothing more. Worst of all, the other lead actors were either uninspired or just not really all that good at what they do. Next time, HBO, spend a buck or two on a director who knows the wide screed and on supporting leads who can carry their weight. Still, this is not a horrible picture. Senior Banderas' Tour-de-force performance and the highly polished accuracy of the production make it well worthwhile. I don't think that the movie's intent of showing an accurate picture of the early days of Hollywood was fulfilled. However, they got the history right, not always an easy thin to do.

I've just watched this movie and was curious to see what others had thought about it. I was so suprised to see how low the star ratings were that I felt compelled to comment. I can't say much for it's historical value, but the movie itself is thoroughly entertaining - which is why I watch movies in the first place.
Though I was never a fan of his - Antonio Banderas was awesome in this! The production value was on par with the major motion picture industry, this isn't your low budget 'made for tv' flick.
If you like westerns, this is a good, solid film that will fit nicely in that genre.

When making this kind of historical fiction, too many people expect that it is going to be a documentary; it isn't anything like that. This film is an interesting, ambiguous study of how perceptions can change by being validated by something bigger than they: something like the movies, which in itself is an absurd premise, but something that we live with every day. I wish the characters in the flim were better referenced, as I know D.W. Griffith, Charles Rosher, Christy Cabanne, and others are part of the plot as in real life, but I couldn't tell you who they were in the production, as their attributions went by so fast. Villa as a villain and charismatic leader of the masses has a built-in paradox to it, as does the documentary format in film in any case. It is a pity that the original film doesn't exist any longer (along with 90% of silent film that was made, unfortunately), especially as it was under D.W. Griffith's auspices, when the rest of his oeuvre exists down to the last reel.

I watched this movie with my friend who was raised and still lives in Torreon, we loved it. My friend has many stories, told to him by his grandmother, who was from Chihuahua. Whether or not a movie by D.W Griffith ever existed, this one was certainly well done. Antonio Banderas did a wonderful job as Pancho Villa. Villa was the epitome of good and evil. He believed in Mexico and wanted to be the Robin Hood of his time, by the same token, it was too a heavy burden for any man to bear. If you don't see this movie you are cheating yourself out of a wonderful piece of history.

In reply to 'Not Real' -- I'm not for certain where or if any copies of "The Life of General Villa" (1914) still exist (it was made for American not Mexican auidiences at the time afterall), but I have seen at least one behind the scenes photo of a cameraman with bodyguards with Villas forces.
If you can find a back issue (August/September 2003) of True West magazine you will find an article about both the HBO movie & the true story behind it, which doesnt differ much from the film starring Banderas.
You will also find an article with timeline & photos about Villa, including a famous picture of he & Zapata riding into Mexico City on Dec. 16,1914; in which Villa is wearing a full military uniform which is thought to be the same costume Hollywood had him in their film.

Not Real!!, May 14, 2004
Reviewer: Everardo Hern?ndez Sagarnaga (Delicias, Chihuahua, M?xico) -
I am from Chihuahua, M?xico, Pancho Villa's land. I have taken history of my country and especially of the Mexican Revolution because Chihuahua and "Los Dorados de Villa" were the protagonists of that war. When I saw this movie I just could not see it as a movie based on the real history. I want to ask this questions: Where is the original movie that supposedly was taken in the Torreon's battle? Where is the movie that was exhibited in Nex York? Where is the copy of the movie that was given to Pancho Villa? Why is not there any Mexican or international researcher able to prove the existence of that film?

Antonio Banderas turns in a very strong performance as Pancho Villa, in this HBO movie. The production values are excellent for a made-for-TV movie. There are no heroes here. Pancho Villa was a bandit and murderer long before he became a revolutionary general. This movie accurately depicts that Villa was a cold-blooded killer as well as an incredibly charismatic leader of men. The moviemakers were pretty cynical as well, insisting that all battles be fought in daylight so that they could be filmed. Studio execs in New Jersey (where the movie industry was based in 1914, before it moved to Hollywood) edited the movie to delete Villa's criminal side and build up the idea that he was a folk hero - a sort of Mexican George Washington.

There's nothing in this movie about Villa's raid on Columbus, New Mexico, in which 26 American civilians were killed, or his murder of 16 American mining engineers captured on a train, or Gen. Pershing chasing him around Mexico for several months. Those events occurred later, a year after the filming of the movie in which he played himself.

All-in-all, it is a good little movie, considering the modest budget it probably had.

It is fair to say that we do not remember Noah for his drunkeness but for the Ark that he built to save many....

Pancho Villa was trully guilty of fighting against a corrupt Mexican Dictatorship and attacking Americans who had illegally settled on Mexican soil. It is easy to undermine such histories when making a film that reads like a one page synopsys of a man who struggled to change his country for the better. Antonio Banderas attempt at portraying Pancho Villa as a charismatic, self determined leader comes off well but falls short due to the limitations in script and budget. This film should be seen as an introduction to versed films like "Pancho Villa" or "The lost Reels of Pancho Villa." Only then might the true complexity of his life and struggles be understood.

"learning without wisdom is like a bunch of books on a donkeys back"
-ZNHurtson

Banderas is superb and captures the contradictions of Pancho Villa perfectly. Arkin is also excellent. The rest of the film is highly uneven. The first half is the most solid part. It's a charming tongue in cheek historical adventure and Banderas and Arkin shine. Things crumble as the film moves towards social commentary, heavy drama, and Hollywod insider stuff. This 'film within a film' film tries so many different angles that it loses it's focus and the whole thing unravels. It's really a shame this didn't end up being better.

Three stars for a solid start, Banderas, and Arkin.

I am grateful for this film. It introduced me to a remarkable if not astonishing incident in film history and history in general -- but one that has become unknown. This film is quite adequate or solid in its acting and production values.

The writer/producer's commentary is in the top 10% with plenty of appropriate and thoughtful information on the subject itself instead of the usual hype and self congratulations and ha-ha-ha remember this and that.

On the other hand, if you are not intrerested very much in the history or Mexico or film making beyond the technical aspects then this may not grab you. It does not follow tightly the usual formula for suspense and drama in action storytelling. It is not an ordinary action flick or western.

The actual silent film that was made during the revolution about and including Villa, the most expensive film ever made up to that time, has been lost, as have been so many early films. So if you have a serious interest in history you will understand that the details in the film cannot stand for a documentary. There has to be a lot of fill-in and interpretation. Anyone with a serious interest in history will want to use the film as a yeast starter and go out and gather their own ingredients from academic sources and come up with their own best approximation of how this astonishing project back during the revolution might have played out in detail. There are a lot of good leads in the commentary as to the actual detailed facts of the project. For me this was a must.

If you happen to be interested in how films distort reality and heros, this is a very interesting back story that the film develops and this includes some moral dilemmas.Again, the commentary is very interesting here.