User Reviews

Pancho Villa is a Mexican general who makes a deal with a movie studio where he will get $25,000 in gold, in exchange for the rights to film his battles. This is quite an absurd idea, especially as it leads to certain battles being 'made to measure' for the camera, and it becomes even more absurd when you realize that this is actually a true story. Yes, that's right; And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself is actually a film about the making of another film from 1914, known as 'The Life of General Villa'. The film is a little like Shadow of the Vampire, in that it depicts the making of an old film, using today's actors to play the people involved in the making of the old film. This film was made for American TV, and to me this seems a great injustice and a commentary on what the American film industry thinks of it's audience. Like 1995's Citizen X, the only reason that I can think of as to why this wasn't given a cinema release is that it would be lost on it's potential audience.

The film features a number of familiar faces. People that you often see in films, but don't know their names. Here we have the excellent Alan Arkin, who's one of my favourite 'smaller' stars without a doubt, Jim Broadbent, Eion Bailey and Anthony Head from the rubbish 'Buffy' program also makes an appearance. The real acting plaudits, however, go to Antonio Banderas for his complete embodiment of the title character. I've heard a number of people say bad things about Antonio in this movie, but I have no idea why; here he gives what is probably the best performance of his career. In fact, he is so good that after a while you forget that you're watching an actor and it actually seems like Pancho Villa really is starring as himself. This does the movie no end of favours on the reality front as it continually switches between the movie that they're making and the reality of Pancho Villa's revolution. This movie does an excellent job of catching an authentic Mexican atmosphere, and this is made even finer by way of an excellent, subtle, score.

The battles in the film are excellently staged, and also quite violent and bloody; which is always nice to see. That came as something of a surprise to me as, with this being a TV movie, I wasn't expecting the battles to be particularly well done. The message that this film has seems to be that people can be made to believe anything. As one character professes at one point in the film, "the lens is mightier than the sword", and through the way that the film shows the difference between what the film that the characters are making shows and what the truth is; this message comes across loud and clear.

Please don't miss this movie because it is cursed with '(TV)' after it's title; as although it isn't a masterpiece, it most definitely is well worth seeing.

As the blurb puts it - a story so improbable.....it must be true.... Set during the Mexican revolution of 1914 its the story of revolutionary hero Pancho Villa and his rather shrewd manipulation of the media - the Mutual Film Company led by the ever marvellous Jim Broadbent are contacted by Villa and offered to film the struggle.Star director DW Griffiths thinks its a great idea and Broadbent's nephew Frank Thayer(Eion Bailey) is dispatched south of the border with a bag containing $25 000 in gold as payment.Villa(Antonio Banderas) soon has them filming during actual battles and inspiring Frank with his dreams of a free Mexico. They return with the film but its fairly amateurish and gets laughed off screen - Frank somehow persuades his uncle to part with even more money and this time use actors like Raoul Walsh to play Villa and add some artistic licence to proceedings. There follows a very funny scene where Boradbent gets Villa to agree to only fight during the day(when they can film) and if they miss any battles to re-enact them for the cameras - Villa is appalled at the liberties taken with his lifes story but Frank explains its what the audience wants to see and will help his cause no end - something he needs as William Randolph Hearst's press empire is starting a campaign to get the US to invade Mexico to protect America's lifeblood - Oil.

Its a great little movie - made by HBO its a TV movie but Bruce Beresford directs as if its for the big screen - epic adventure,lavish battles and romance all intermingle to great effect - Banderas is excellent as Villa - a bit of a ham who is far more savvy than he lets on - the scene where he plays himself as the aged El Presidente is priceless - it doesn't shy away from the cruelties of both sides either - in fact this cruelty is what finally drives the friendship between Frank and Villa apart - although the way its used in the final film is a more than ironic touch. Fine support from Broadbent and Alan Arkin as a machine-gunning Brooklyn Jew add to the rounded cast and its picked up a really good reputation on DVD and its easy to see why......

The film chronicles about the title role,the Mexican bandit and guerrilla leader, with broadened focus on the filming his life and actual war.Mexican revolutionary urges funds to finance the battles against the Huertas government.Great director D.W.Griffith(Colm Feore)sends Frank Thayer(Eion Bailey)and crew as Raoul Walsh(Kyle Chandler) pull off the shooting the events around Pancho Villa.Thayer converts annoyed and disappointed by the rebel.

This vibrant film an uneven rehash of Pancho Villa legend including strong violence,profanities,epics battles and bloody scenes. Antonio Banderas plays the famous and rowdy bandit,he is perfect in title role.Remainder casting is frankly well:Alan Arkin,Colm Feore(Griffith),Michel McKean,Kyle Chandler..Another films about Villa feats are : the classic ¨Viva Villa¨with Wallace Beery,forever belongs this role;¨Villa¨with Rodolfo Hoyos and Brian Keith; ¨Villa riders¨with Yul Brynner,¨Pancho Villa¨with Telly Savalas and Clint Walker.

The picture is based on true events,thus : Pancho Villa born in Chihuahua with the name Doroteo Arango,from his peasant upbringing he became an outlaw in his youth and adopted the name Francisco Villa from another outlaw.He played a leading role in the Mexican Revolution(1910-1920),winning many victories (as Torreon battle narrated in the film).For a time Villa,who seemed in line for leadership of Mexico,enjoyed the agreeable interest of the United States government;but William Randolph Hearsts media empire's press campaign against him and USA authorities then dropped Villa and supported his rival,Carranza.Villa's resentment resulted in the revenge raid on Columbus(deeds narrated in another films but no here) by General Pershing's column.Unable to suppress Villa by force,the Mexican government purchased his retirement from the political arena as a weary, disillusioned political liability with a handsome pension and large estate.Villa was assassinated in 1923 when gunmen ambushed his car.

This was a film based on true events that you can actually happened between 1912-1916 during the Mexican Revolution. You can check it right here at IMDb just type Pancho Villa and see the results; there four short films were made where Pancho Villa starred as himself, but good luck finding those films. I sure like to see those and see how closeto the truth this film was. Over all this was a very impressive film for an HBO TV film, Antonnio Banderas did a great job, even thought he didn't look anything like Villa who was a short and small stature of a man and he actually looked a lot more like the actor "Damián Alcázar" who plays "Gen. Rodolfo Fierro" in this film; there is a close resemblance if you see the pictures of Villa and after all Alcazar is a real Mexican compare to Banderas who is from Spain.

Both the photography and location of this film was just perfect, especially the photography and the great choice of location to be able to shoot in Mexico with a great cast of real Mexican extras who really added so much authenticity and depth to this film. Its really a pity Hollywood doesn't do more historical films like this, this film was only about the deal Villa made with Hollywood to shoot his revolution and yet there is so much more to be made into a film such as the Mexican revolution and history of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata who changed the course of History in Mexico.

Maybe one day people like Robert Rodriguez who some how gets so much money handed to them to make dumb films like "once upton in Mexico" (which was the most dumbest and awful film I have ever seen) decide to look into their own history and find there is so much more to be depicted for the younger generation of Mexicans who have never even heard of Pancho Villa.

I did not expect the premise of the movie to work but it did. This story line and the wonderful way it was developed and portrayed on screen is so much missing in the fare presented by the major studios any more. I had to put my book down! Antonio Banderas so thoroughly submerges himself into the character that after awhile he BECAME Pancho Villa. He made Pancho Villa at once hero and villain; resolute and uncertain; stoic and tender. Best of all, there was no attempt to wrap the feature up in a tidy bow at the end.

I have my TIVO permanently locked on HBO.

I am curious about the original film - The Life of General Villa (1914) - in which IMDB shows only two performers, Pancho Villa and Raoul Walsh.

I don't know how historically accurate this film is, although I know the basic plot is correct. This was an entertaining look at Villa's Hollywood escapade, and Banderas' performance is, as usual, believable, funny, horrifying, likable, and despicable. Sometimes all within just a few minutes.

Highly recommended to film history buffs and Antonio Banderas fans!

That the movies are a perfect way of making propaganda isn't new. The Germans used it very often during the Second World War and even in more recent times it has been used to make publicity for the army (remember the boom of young men who wanted to join the US Air Force after seeing "Top Gun"). But that Pancho Villa already used it during his Mexican Revolution between 1912-1916 is something special. And don't think that this has been made up by some smart Hollywood wise guys who thought that this might be a nice story and an easy way to make a lot of money. No, this actually happened. If you don't believe me: just type Pancho Villa in the IMDb search box and check his filmography. You'll see that there have been several movies made with him in a leading role. Too bad that they are all lost.

But no problem, we still have HBO, a company that is known for its good quality work when it comes to historical projects (think for instance of "Band of Brothers" and "Citizen X"). This time they have recreated the actual events of the film crews that had an exclusive deal with Pancho Villa and that followed him during the different battles with the federal Mexican army. They show how the studio payed big money (which Villa used to fund his revolution with), so they could introduce Villa (as a good man, but also as a merciless villain), his revolution and the war the way the American public had never seen it before. All this resulted in the very first feature length movie in history.

When you are interested in the history behind the Mexican Revolution, than this is definitely a movie you shouldn't miss. But even when that subject doesn't appeal to you all that much, you should give it a try, because it's also very interesting to see how the movie studio's worked at the time and how a movie was shot. OK, you don't get to see the actual movie from 1912, but you get a very good idea of how it all worked. And the fact that this is a TV movie certainly doesn't mean that the battles don't look real or that the characters seem to be made out of cardboard.

Next to the 'historical' value of this movie and the interesting story, I also want to point out that Antonio Banderas did an excellent job portraying Pancho Villa. There are perhaps people who don't agree with me, but personally I find this his best and most convincing role ever. The other actors did a very good job as well, but in my in my opinion he was the best.

All in all this may not be a masterpiece, but it certainly is worth a watch. Don't be scared off by the label TV that you find behind the title. This isn't a typical, extremely dramatic TV movie, but a very decent and strong historical drama. I reward this movie with a 7.5/10.

Every hero is guilty of some atrocities, and Pancho Villa was no exception. Antonio Banderas delivers a convincing performance as a complicated man who had the brilliance to use the majesty of his own personality to help finance a peasant revolution in Mexico.

As docudramas go, this one is very well balanced ... it reveals the darker side of a legend, the people who tried to manipulate him, and the people he manipulated. Although the original film, the making of which is the heart of this story, has been lost to the ages, it is nonetheless a moving story.

How much is history and how much is Hollywood? Who can say? All I know is that I was more impressed than I expected to be, and more than just being entertained and educated, I was given a lot of food for thought. I sincerely hope that a Spanish language version of this will be available so that the people of Mexico can learn a different version of his story than the one that is in the books in their schools.

This was two hours of my life that I'm glad I spent in front of the screen, and I thank everyone involved for the experience. It is not the best movie I've seen this year, nor will it ever be on my Top Ten list, but it *IS* a very good example of what cinema *SHOULD* be, and all too often is not ... a thought provoking drama that tells a slightly different story than the one we thought we knew.

I was intrigued by the idea that revolutionary Pancho Villa appeared in one of the world's first docu-dramas, but not much was done with the idea. This movie could have been a satire of Hollywood's version of the truth or it could have brought Pancho Villa to life, but the movie does a little of one, a little of the other, but suffers from insisting on focusing on Thayer. Thayer comes across as too nice to fill the role of villain in a satire and too intelligent to play the role of a dupe, and he only sees Villa from the outside, unable to bring any insight to the character. There are interesting moments scattered here and there throughout the movie, and while it's bland it's watchable, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Although I will say, Alan Arkin was terrific in a small but colorful role.

In 1914, the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa (Antonio Banderas) invites studios to shoot his actual battles against Porfírio Diaz army to raise funds for financing guns and ammunition. The Mutual Film Corporation, through producer D.W. Griffith (Colm Feore), interests for the proposition and sends the filmmaker Frank Thayer (Eion Bailey) to negotiate a contract with Pancho Villa himself. They become very close and along months, Frank makes the first feature five reels length movie, "The Life of General Villa", when the usual was two reels only. After edition, another reality about Pancho Villa is screened for the audience.

"And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself" is a surprisingly good made for television movie. The story about the life of Pancho Villa is also homage to a lost movie. In accordance with the legend, the first five reels length movie would be "The Life of General Villa", directed in 1914 by Frank Thayer with Pancho Villa as himself. Truth, or legend, this interesting movie was nominated for Golden Globe, awarded with seven wins and another eighteen nominations. The cast is splendid, highlighting the performance of Antonio Banderas, who gives a great credibility to General Pancho Villa. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "E Estrelando Pancho Villa" ("And Starring Pancho Villa")

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.

Like almost everyone I heard about the revolutionary freedom fighter Pancho Villa, but I didn't know about this story, about him letting Hollywood shooting a movie from his life and battles. It does sound a bit crazy, but that doesn't make it a dumb story, in fact I did enjoy this movie more than I expected. It took me awhile to get interested in the story but once you're into it it's quite enjoyable. Antonio Banderas is the absolute star of this movie, he did a terrefic job playing Pancho Villa. Although the rest of the cast did a good job too it is his performance what makes this movie worth watching.

Pancho Villa (Antonio Banderas) offers access to film the Mexican revolution for much needed gold to finance his war and counter Hearst's propaganda. Hollywood empresario D.W. Griffith (Colm Feore) is immediately interested. Studio boss Harry Aitken (Jim Broadbent) sends his inexperienced nephew Frank Thayer (Eion Bailey) and a film crew. Sam Drebben (Alan Arkin) is Villa's liaison. After rejecting the initial footage, a new film crew is sent to restage the battles with a younger actor as Villa. The film "The Life of General Villa" would become the first feature film over an hour.

Banderas is solid as Villa. He overshadows Eion Bailey. This needs to be more of a movie about Frank Thayer and his relationship with Villa. This is a fascinating slice of history. It is big enough for a theatrical production despite being a HBO TV movie. Director Bruce Beresford brings his cinematic skills but I would love to have more tension. Thayer has a romance that adds very little to the movie. It should have stayed focus on the Villa Thayer relationship.

For so many reasons than it is enough to see it. Because it is a hommage, a realistic portrait, a good definition of power, an admirable occasion for Antonio Banderas to give a beautiful performance. The mix of nostalgia, humor and recreated lost film , the science to explore the nuances are virtues of this film about idealism and pragmatism, about a young man discovering the true reality, about fiction and rude reality and about a sort of poetry of lost causes. A splendid film who gives not only a reasonable illustration about a legendary figure but a great perspective about politics and choices and adventure and shadows for anonimous history makers.

I was only mildly interested in this movie when it came on HBO, but decided to watch it anyway. I was glad I did. I wouldn't call this a "great film" but it's certainly interesting, and portrayed a person and time that is not often depicted in mainstream movies.

Antonio Banderas is in the tabloids a lot for a variety of reasons, and because of that it's easy to forget that he's actually a very good actor - something he demonstrates well in this film. The casting of "Panch Villa" is critical to the success of this film, and Banderas is able to create a character that is both full of bravado and yet, in certain ways, vulnerable too.

One of the central themes of the movie is the ability of people to look at actual events or history as "entertainment," which makes this film sound like a boring lecture on the bad effects of modernity. However it's not at all.

Parts of "And Starring" were a little draggy, but overall I enjoyed the movie and recommend it.

This film is a highly interesting account of a little-known episode in the Mexican Revolution. It is as historically accurate as almost any other film biography, and better than most. In any case, it is very close to the reports John Reed published as Insurgent México in 1914.

The Spanish actor Antonio Banderas does a creditable job as Mexican Pancho Villa, but for me it was sometimes hard to reconcile the face of that actor with memories of the real man, rather like watching Leonardo de Caprio do a great job playing George Washington. But movies are produced to make money, not as classroom texts, and Banderas undoubtedly sells more tickets than almost anyone else who might essay the role.

Wallace Beery fit the role very well when he played Villa in 1934, but the Mexican accent was a problem and the short, stocky Stuart Erwin was cast as the tall, blond John Reed. Of today's actors, James Gandolfini would physically fit and could certainly play Pancho Villa, but he probably doesn't have the drawing power of Banderas, and the accent would be a bigger problem.

The film had not only good, believable action, but also the thread of underlying concerns in the U.S. at that time of "what might be in it" for the USA. Availability of oil was titillating. The film brought out our country's fascination for the bloody revolution Villa was waging and, at the same time, whether he might be a threat to our own economic interests. The film was about making a film with the backdrop of a genuine revolution going on, and trying to merge some "acting" along with the horrors of live fighting. The "carrot" for Villa was that a film of his efforts, however horrendous, would help make him a hero in the U.S. where some politicians were calling for his pursuit and elimination. D.W. Griffith, the film maker, becomes disillusioned with Villa after his final victory when he shows his viciousness in a blatant manner by personally shooting a grieving widow who tries to physically attack him with her hands. Though this heinous act was caught on film, it is edited in a manner that shows it as an action by the Mexican forces Villa was combating. After all, Villa's "heroism" is at stake here!

It's all true. HBO film about a very 'truth as strange as fiction' bit of history. No doubt details have been 'movied' but this is one astonishing true life adventure story. Antonio Banderas is very good. Too 'pretty boy', but still good. Eion Bailey plays the young director in charge of the production. Alan Arkin is quietly wonderful as always. Jim Broadbent is good as the studio head. The movie is fun; big, elaborate, ambitious, filled with convincing detail and includes several well staged battle sequences sufficiently brutal and bloody. Excellent and appropriate score.

Tough subject matter and too complex for your average Hollywood screenwriter. Big problem here is story focused on a film crew's 2 week experience with Pancho and not on say just Pancho or just the Revolution. This is a huge story with many players and much deception. and intrigue. You could have a series or a much more in depth movie to make it more interesting. Banderas performance was likable but stereotypical and demeaning in the traditional Hollywood attitude towards Mexicans of earlier times. Poncho in the movie was mostly poorly dressed, unshaven and generally dirty and greasy looking and talked like a gravelly uneducated person. This was not necessary and took away from the movie as you lost sympathy for the main character.

Considering that this was made for TV, it is one strange take on the life of a 'man who would be king', and deserves a much wider viewing audience that it may have attracted.

Antonio Banderas is a much underrated actor - partially because he seems to accept any role that comes his way - and this should indicate to the harshest critic that he is most capable! Much as Robin Hood and, here in Australia, Ned Kelly, are revered as 'outlaws with a conscience', Pancho Villa is perceived as a folk hero. I hope this film dispels THAT particular notion. He was a self-serving bandit with a huge ego and, as the film shows, not above killing the 'locals' to further his grandiose schemes.

Banderas makes a fine fist of what is, essentially, a portrait of a seemingly-complex yet simple man seduced by the notion of Hollywood stardom. The irony, of course, is that, these days, anyone who appears on the screen (silver or no) is perceived as a 'star'.

Villa is presented as one in a long line of anti-heroes who find themselves fighting an unjust regime - but essentially just as brutal.

Overall a charmer of a film. Definitely worth more than one viewing.

Set in 1913. Pancho Villa (Antonio Banderas) wants money to finance his Mexican revolution.

So Villa has the idea to invite a film studio to tell his life story and raise funds that way. Villa paints himself as a modern day Robin Hood and tones down his brutishness to counter the negative portrayal from the Hearst publishing empire.

Mutual Film boss Harry Aitken (Jim Broadbent) sends a film crew led by his nephew Frank Thayer (Eion Bailey.) Real life footage is shot including skirmishes with the Mexican army, some battles were restaged.

The silent film 'The Life of General Villa' was eventually released but is now lost.

The HBO film looks great and it has an all star cast. Alan Arkin being the most memorable as the sidekick of Villa from New York. Banderas looks rather pleased that he has more to chew on than just rely on his looks. Banderas is happy to revel on Villa's bravado and also show a darker side to him.

The dialogue is clunky, almost typical of these worthy HBO made for cable movies of that era. Although based on true events I sense it was probably too fictionalised and I would had preferred more focus on Pancho Villa than Thayer.

Five for the entertainment spectacle in this TV movie that idealises Hollywood when it was not even in California and still had its studios in New Jersey, just near the investors in Wall Street. It's a cracking piece of film-making, and the pecuniary motives of the 1914 producers are frankly enough portrayed, plus the cynical motives of Wall Street financiers are mocked, if weakly. The script even admits that the studio sold out the truth in its trashy, commercialised exploitations of the Pancho Villa armed insurgency.

But not another five for the deception that lies within. This film comes with the blithe implication that Hollywood could make such a film today, about insurgents rising up against the property hierarchy, when such a thing is unthinkable. If there existed before World War One a raffish romanticism about remote uprisings, and a willingness to cheek the mainstream media, that spirit is now as departed as the silent picture.

It is as vanished as the archive copies of the original Pancho Villa silent-features, which were doubtless destroyed once the campesinos had been pacified and all trace of Pancho Villa, their hero, could be quietly wiped from the public record, something that happened in Mexico (and doubtless on Wall Street) as the film has the grace to admit.