Watch Zapata: The dream of a hero For Free

Let's be realistic.

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Were to start? first of all you cant justify Arau's attempt to make a movie saying that it was about a myth and a legend, since wen the words "myth and legend" means "STUPID and RIDICULOUS"? The worst part about this is that its the first (and only movie) that makes me feel so bad, so ashamed, so... bored, disgraceful, and offended, that i walked out the theater before it makes a permanent damage on my brain.(contains spoilers)To the point i resisted seeing this "film" there was a lot of stupid historical mistakes on it, the biggest of them i can remember is the scene were the "hero", Zapata, gets hes feet burned like the emperor Moctezuma, a thing that never happened in real history.Another thing that was annoying was the old "shaman" woman, that appeared in front of Zapata from time to time, wit an special effect worthy of an old kids show called "odisea burbujas" it just made me feel like... I CANT FIND WORDS FOR IT!!!Bad acting, bad script, shameful directing, and a really sad example of what an idiot can do if they give him money to waste.

The key to enjoying this one is the word DREAM. I admire Arau for coming up with this great idea and going against everything and everybody to take it to the screen. I am happy this was not a Zapata biography. We've got several of those and they do a good job at telling the story and portraying that very important chapter of Mexican history. A biography was never Arau's intent. He took a historical character, added the myth that developed from the man and then mixed in his VERY PERSONAL idea. It didn't have to be Zapata. It could have been Moctezuma or Pancho Villa for that matter. What's important and groundbreaking about this movie IS NOT the fact that he picked Emiliano Zapata, but rather what Arau does with the personae of Zapata as he fictionalizes it to a point so surreal, so surreal indeed that Bunuel would have been proud. So people, get over the fact that it's not a biography and enjoy it for what it is: an entertaining adventure into Arau's creative mind. Oh, and for the record, both Alejandro Fernandez and Lucero do a good job. Lucero is an acquired taste, I'll admit that much, and I would have enjoyed her more if she had made an effort to BE in character as opposed to merely PLAY the character. Still, I liked her. I heard comments that she hadn't mastered the Iberian accent and, well, those comments are wrong. Lucero speaks as Iberian as they come. It would have been better if the script -her actual lines- had been better tailored to the time in which this story is supposed to take place. Her lines were too 21st century, and that part did suck. Arau, next time less "tu" and more "vosotros" will do the trick. And Alejandro shines. Who knew the hunk could act? But he does. I was VERY VERY VERY (get my point?) surprised. I was totally prepared to see a cardboardy performance and boy, was I ever mistaken! Alejandro is quite a treat. Camil is adequate as Eusebio and Ochoa as Huerta is just what you would expect evil Huerta to be. And the beautiful Patricia Velazquez manages to give her badly-written character some depth. I want to see her playing Frida some day. So anyway, all in all this movie will not be memorable, but it's an enjoyable hour and a half. In no way is this a waste of time and it most certainly is not the worst movie ever made. Those who gave this movie a bad review simply didn't get it. They wanted a history lesson, and they got an intelligent attempt at surreal cinema, no wonder they were unhappy! So go ahead and watch it if you can find it. Watch it with an open mind a welcoming heart and an art-hungry eye. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

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!

As other users commented, I knew it was bad before watching it but I entered hoping to find something all right and with the idea of supporting Mexica Cinema, but oh surprise, I was dissapointed because of the terrible story, the director, the characters, Too bad ´cause Arau has done some OK work, but this was terribly out of the line.What the hell with the images of the magic indians?, the old lady who is her guide?, I know the director wanted to use "magic realism", used by novelists like Garcia Marquez, but it is not appropiate for this movie. Besides that, half of the movie is based on invention and away from real history, too bad because the real story of Zapata has great things to write about and to make a great film.The character Victoriano Huerta (Jesus Ochoa), is kind of the only worth watching, he´s always been a great actor.The script is terrible, the acting is bad, the images ..well, really you better read a biography of this great revolutionary and get some good history instead of paying $40 pesos to get nothing.