Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Fantastic!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Blistering performances.

A tourist's eye view of a Mexican city, but a beautiful view nonetheless. No squatter's settlements. The churches are rococo, ordinary buildings seem to glow in the golden hour, and inside it's all salmon pink and pale green.That's it. That's the good part.The performances aren't that bad either, as far as that goes, and the cast is professional. Some performers have substantial roles, like the agreeable Antonio Banderas. Others appear to have shown up for one day's work, like Salma Hayek.The plot and direction are a convoluted mess. We are treated to a shoot out or high speed pursuit every few minutes. The stunts are literally incredible. A shotgun blast throws the victim through an arc that, at its apex, is about ten feet from the ground. You'll find more depth in a comic book or a Betty Boop cartoon.

In the third movie of Rodriguez's "Mariachi" trilogy, a Mexican drug lord pretends to overthrow the Mexican government, and is connected to a corrupt CIA agent who at that time, demands retribution from his worst enemy to carry out the drug lord's uprising against the government

The last chapter of Robert Rodriguez's Mariachi trilogy has poor connections to the previous films, but has arguably the best storyline. This has everything that makes a movie enjoyable and ownable.In the most complex premise of the series, General Marquez has been hired by the Barillio Cartel drug family to assassinate the Mexican government. Crooked CIA Agent Sands (Depp) hires El Mariachi (Banderas) and retired FBI agent (Blades) to make sure Marquez and Barillio don't consume power. We get an insight with El's relationship to the bad guys: Carolina (Hayak) was Marquez's girl and she put a bullet through his heart, but he survived. He shoots her, her daughter and El, with El surviving. Two reasons why this doesn't work: first, our central character seek vengeance for the death of his loved one again, rehashing Desperado's storyline. The next reason this doesn't work is Marquez: where does he fit? In Desperado, Carolina is a young woman who works under drug lord Bucho and is one of his groupies. Did she know Marquez before Bucho? Carolina's death takes place several years after Desperado and the movie itself takes place a few years after that. Given the time frame and Carolina's relationship with Marquez and Bucho in both movies, it is hard to tell how it all fits. A similar problem was encountered in Desperado with El avenging Domino's death by trying to kill Bucho, who had nothing to do with her death. Anyway, throughout the movie characters are introduced and swerves happen all over the place in all subplots. There's too many to keep track of and they become confusing. I had to watch this movie a few times before fully understanding it. In a way, complexity like this is good. Many people criticized this for all the swerves and subplots, but I thought it was great. El isn't pushed down to a minor role like people say, other subplots just build later on in the film. Aside from the story, the acting by all is good. Johnny Depp steals the show, giving one of his best performances ever. He plays a charismatic CIA agent who plays by his own rules. He is totally awesome. I think they should have given him his own spin off. This was before he started playing the same dumb characters in Tim Burton movies. Depp is best known for a wide variety of odd characters, all of which are easy to play. As an actor myself, I can assure that the weirder and funnier and character is, the easier it is to play. When Depp plays Sands, he is a realistic foul-mouthed smart-alec. The more realistic a character is, the harder it is to play. Ironic.Another bit of criticism I'd give is the action. All three movies are best-known for having heavy violence, but this seems to take a back seat to Desperado. Desperado had phenomenal shootouts. This also has great action, but it lacked in the same raw and artistic action that Desperado had. it did not lose its edge, it just softened a bit. This rules!

Great Directors all have a stigma of stature that is inherent to all that excel in their craft. That is, the comparisons to one's own work as opposed to the comparison of one's peers.This is not the Director's best film. It is too derivative and the accentuation of his signature style only dilutes and dismisses its ability to arouse the senses and in effect numb the audience with over kill. More is less sometimes, especially when working from an already stimulated synapses. In this film it is the odd things that work the best. Not the familiar. The reputation for excess need not be pushed further to attain an attractive and more enjoyable ride. The roller-coaster can go off the track if pushed passed the event's horizon.As far as edgy action flick's go, this is better then most. But the Director has his own reputation to live up to. P.S. The best film of 2005...Sin City...Congratulations