5/10
Intriguing but same old Hollywood trap
13 September 2003
Pancho Villa was one of Mexico revolution heroes in early 20th century, and his story is certainly fascinating. However, to paraphrase one of the lines in the movie, "the truth is always the first casualty behind the lens." Since this is Pancho Villa's story, they had to make him THE MAN, good or bad.

In fact, Villa had been in revolution under Francisco Madero, a highly educated reformer, before 1914 and won the revolution in 1911. He only went back to revolution after his mentor was murdered and General Huerta took over after a coup. That background was never mentioned. In the 1914 companion (the setting of this movie), he's only one of the leaders. Actually, General Venustiano Carranza, another leader, had a more prominent role and defeated him when they split after Huerta was toppled. It was under President Carranza that Mexico Constitution of 1917 was passed, starting the landmark government and land reforms. You certainly won't know that if you watch this movie. Also conspicuously absent was any mention of Villa's raids into US and killing of 16 Americans around 1916, in an attempt to arouse US to be in conflict with the Mexico government under Carranza.

Instead, we saw Banderas swaggered and cursed, putting on a show of Mexican Robin Hood, a fierce peasant rebel almost single-handedly won the revolution and so honest and noble in his intention that he could only exist in myth. Overall, not a bad movie, but it could have been much better had it not fallen into the same Hollywood trap of changing history to fit THE MAN.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed