A classic documentary about the classic culture of Mexico. The film has lavish cinematography, with iconic images such as Mexicans with cacti strapped to their arms and the candy skulls of Day of the dead. This movie is visually striking, and not like anything else Eisenstein has ever made.
2 Reviews
the emperor's clothes
drystyx3 October 2011
Eisenstein is hailed as one of the great directors by the establishment critics.
But a look at movies like this prove that the emperor's clothes are not there.
Loosely, this is a story of revolt in Mexico.
However, one could never figure out what is going on without a scorecard.
Eisenstein provides no logical vision here. What we see looks like a twelve year old rich kid with a movie camera.
There is no story line, although we are told one exists. You really do have to read the plot summary to know what is going on.
Eisenstein tries too hard to deliver what he thinks are "clever" camera shots. He tries too hard to be "convincing", to "prove a point". He tries too hard to be "hateful", and loses a grip on reality.
One wouldn't want to be an underling to what appears to be a raving lunatic. That is the only thing Eisenstein accomplishes. To look like a raving maniac. No, one wouldn't want to even turn one's back on someone like this. Only the most naive would trust him.
But people were more naive in the 1930s. They didn't have the sort of information we have today.
And if the establishment proclaimed a man a genius, he had no opposition.
It is much the same today, only now the more scholarly at least can sift through information to at least let them know they're being had. You still can't beat the establishment, and all the idiots who cling to it, but at least today you can know why you are suffering.
For this movie, we get some violent images, none of which can be linked together, in a muddled mess.
But a look at movies like this prove that the emperor's clothes are not there.
Loosely, this is a story of revolt in Mexico.
However, one could never figure out what is going on without a scorecard.
Eisenstein provides no logical vision here. What we see looks like a twelve year old rich kid with a movie camera.
There is no story line, although we are told one exists. You really do have to read the plot summary to know what is going on.
Eisenstein tries too hard to deliver what he thinks are "clever" camera shots. He tries too hard to be "convincing", to "prove a point". He tries too hard to be "hateful", and loses a grip on reality.
One wouldn't want to be an underling to what appears to be a raving lunatic. That is the only thing Eisenstein accomplishes. To look like a raving maniac. No, one wouldn't want to even turn one's back on someone like this. Only the most naive would trust him.
But people were more naive in the 1930s. They didn't have the sort of information we have today.
And if the establishment proclaimed a man a genius, he had no opposition.
It is much the same today, only now the more scholarly at least can sift through information to at least let them know they're being had. You still can't beat the establishment, and all the idiots who cling to it, but at least today you can know why you are suffering.
For this movie, we get some violent images, none of which can be linked together, in a muddled mess.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
