Redundant and unnecessary.

One of my all time favorites.

Better Late Then Never

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Viva La Riza! The movie portrays Mexican culture in a great way. It show the history of Mexico from pre-Conquest civilization to the Mexican revolutions of the early 20th century. Despite that, the movie is still a flawed masterpiece from Russian avant-garde director Sergei Eisenstein. The production for the film was beset by difficulties that Sergei couldn't stop. First off, shooting for the film was delay, by the Mexican government, due to the fact, that Sergei Eisenstein's films are known for their political subversion. Fearing that, Eisenstein would spark, yet another national revolt, toward communism. The Mexican government would only allow the Soviet filmmakers entry into their country, if they agree to their condition about how the film was going to be portray. In their agreement, the film was not to show or imply anything that could be construed as insulting to or critical of post-Revolution Mexico. This condition meant, that Sergei's original intended to document the mythic struggle of a Mexican people in a perpetual state of unrest, would not happen. If Sergei didn't comply with the agreement, the filmed material would be subject to censorship and taken by the Mexican government. In the end, the movie was never molded into the film that he has intended. Maybe it's a good thing, because Communist Propaganda driven movie, would be a harder film to watch. Another problem that Sergei face, during production was the lack of money, funding the trip. Most of the film's American financiers back off when the filming for the film went a little over budget during shooting. Things got worse for Sergei, when lead financier, Upton Sinclair stop funding the film, due to their disagreement on how the film was going to be shot. Upton Sinclair wanted an artistic travelogue; while Eisenstein wanted a multi-part film, almost like an anthology with each part focused on a different subculture of the Mexican peoples. The movie was supposed to be divide into six parts: Prologue, Sandunga, Conquest, Fiesta, Magey, Soldadera and Epilogue. The film as a whole, would have parts, base on some primal element (stone, water, iron, fire, air), and have a overlooking story of romantic as the movie moves from themes of life and death, culminating in the mockery of death. The soundtrack in each case would feature a different Mexican folk song. Sadly, the movie didn't go that way. After various projects proposed by Charles Chaplin and Paramount Pictures fell through. The studio released him from his contract, leaving the production with little to no budget. It didn't help that his own country, the Soviet Union was turning their back, from him, due to Eisenstein's foray onto the western culture. They saw it, as an act of betrayal. When Eisenstein try to defect to the United States, by entering American border, during production. They decline him, when they found out, that his re-entry visa had expired. With no studio to edit his film, he was forced to return to the Soviet Union, after production, but due to his vision of communism. It brought him into conflict with officials in the ruling regime of Joseph Stalin until Eisenstein's death in 1948. Due to these reasons, the film was shelf for years. In 1979, the Soviet Union government retrieved the fragments of the film, and forced assistant director, Grigori Aleksandrov to edit this movie, based on the notes and storyboard of Eisenstein. The film was divided in three parts. The first one introduction gives a historical panel of Mexico and the Mexican people. This part, was well-shot and felt like a documentary. This part in the film was very much influenced by the works of with Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera as it moves as if the frames were frescoes. The second part doesn't feel like a documentary at all. The second part had a fiction story about a bride kidnap by a powerful farmer on her wedding day, and her fiancé, his brother and two friends trying to rescue her. It was a bit odd to watch. This part is example of avant-garde aesthetics, an exercise in form rather than documentary realism; but indirectly, recreate the Mexican culture atmosphere. Unfortunately, the conclusion of the story was never finish, as Eisenstein had no more money to film, the rest. The last part, called Epilog, tells the celebration of Day of the Dead AKA dia de finados, with the population wearing masks of skull and celebrating death. This part of the film was supposed to be the incarnation of Surrealism, but somehow the message was lost in this version of the film. Overall: It kinda hurts, that the movie was release, a little late. In many ways, the movie looks and feels somewhat dated. While, the film still displays all of Eisenstein's revolutionary techniques. It looks pretty cheap, looking. It didn't do a good job, proving his narrative style nor does it show Mexican in a realistic light. It look good, but just think, if the film didn't have all those roadblocks. It could have been great. In the end, this awe-inspiring film stands as a testament to what might have been.

The pleasure of the film is in the noble vistas of the kind Social Realist (aka Marxist) directors so excel at creating. It is horribly marred, however, by an absolutely puerile view of Mexican society and history. Not only are both viewed from a naive Marxist perspective, but the original material being twisted to fit a Marxist perspective is already twisted by Eisenstein's foolish inventions. His fascination with his own surreal idea of Mexican countrywomen walking around without shirts betrays a leering attitude toward women and an almost unbelievably patronizing attitude toward Mexico, which becomes a sort of south Pacific paradise of sexually liberated and smiling honeys. The purely pagan wedding ceremony in Indian dress including feathers belongs to the Hollywood genre of Shangri-la. The sequence in the maguey plantation is visually very interesting, but the narrative is about as unreal and stupid as was ever seen on film. This film is to be recommended only for its visuals, and even this will be enjoyed by very tolerant viewers.

In 1931, Sergei M. Eisenstein, Grigori Aleksandrov and another crew member moved to USA, to work for Paramount, but the agreement never happened. The team decided to go to Mexico to make a movie about its history and culture. They joined some Mexican intellectuals, traveled around Mexico trying to assimilate the culture of the people, and shot film. However, for some unexplained reason, the laboratory that revealed the films in Hollywood, kept them and sent them to a Museum in New York, and Eisenstein was never able to edit his movie. In 1979, the Soviet Union government retrieved the fragments and Grigori Aleksandrov edited this movie, based on the notes and storyboard of Eisenstein. "¡Que Viva Mexico! - Da zdravstvuyet Meksika!" is divided in three parts. The first one (introduction) gives a historical panel of Mexico and the Mexican people. The second part is a fiction based on the dramatic fate of a bride, submitted to the powerful farmer of the area close to her wedding day, and her fiancé, his brother and two friends trying to rescue her. The conclusion of the story would be called ""Soldadera", the wives of the soldiers, and would be based on the revolution of Mexican people. Unfortunately Eisenstein had no more budgets to film the rest of the story. The last part, called Epilog, is about the celebration of the "memorial day' (day of the dead – "dia de finados"), with the population wearing masks of skull and celebrating death. The footages are amazing, considering they were shot in 1931. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Viva Mexico!

Que Viva Mexico is an interesting (reconstruction of a) film by Sergei Eisenstein, the director of so many masterpieces. In fact, of all that I have seen, this is the only non-masterpiece of the bunch. Even the reconstruction of Beshin Meadow I like more. Que Viva Mexico is a semi-documentary. Most of it is uninteresting and, unlike Eisenstein's other films and Tisse's other cinematography, poorly composed. The only parts of real interest come near the end, with the rebellion, something that Eisenstein was used to creating on screen. There is a great gunfight with a woman participating, a precursor to Alexander Nevsky's Vasilisa, and there is a great scene where some rebels are buried up to the shoulders underground and then trampled by horses (by far the best scene in the film). The Day of the Dead celebration is also very interesting. There is also a bullfight that will demonstrate just how cruel bullfighting is. I do have to complain about the reconstruction that I watched. This was supposed to be a silent film, I believe. The narration I did not mind, for Eisenstein would have had to find a way to communicate what the narrator did anyway. And the music is good, often great. But I object to the insertion of diagetic sound effects, like guns shooting and horses galloping. This is ridiculous. Obviously the only people who are ever going to see this film are Eisenstein enthusiasts, so to try to sell it to the public as a sound movie is ridiculous. Why?