Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

peqdavid5 It's unbelievable how everything can be art when you look through the eyes of a genius. Sergei Eisenstein: the master of editing, the great father of Russian cinema, a role model for other famous directors like Charlie Chaplin or Andrei Tarkovski; author of cinematic masterpieces like Battleship Potemkin, Ivan the Terrible and Alexander Nevsky. Now we have his version of his Mexican adventure: "Que Viva Mexico!" an epic semi-documentary lost in time. Why was it lost in time for decades? Because no one in Russia or in the USA trusted this film enough to show it. Eisenstein was a nobody when he arrived in the USA to plan another project, the soviet authorities didn't want him in the USSR due to his polemic point of views of the October Revolution and the czarism. Sergei adored Mexico because of its beauty and its hospitality. Famous Mexican painters like Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo and David Alfaro Siqueiros, along with his Russian partner Trotsky, helped him to inspire. Eisenstein filmed his version of the Mexican traditions and he was very close. As a Mexican, I didn't realized how magical these traditions were until I watched this film. A really good film maker knows how to show the real life in a fantastic way. Now, do I have to say the name of this really good film maker? I don't think so, I think you already know. "Que Viva Mexico!" highly recommendable, Mexican fellows: watch it, this is your real country.

Lee Eisenberg If you know about Sergei Eisenstein's "Que Viva Mexico! - Da zdravstvuyet Meksika!", you probably know that Eisenstein ran out of money and left the movie incomplete, so collaborator Grigoriy Aleksandrov organized the footage as close to how Eisenstein envisioned it. I personally thought that it was a fascinating movie, but one of many films where they throw so much at you that it's really hard to digest.Knowing that Eisenstein met with the execs at Paramount Pictures but didn't see eye to eye with them, I get the feeling that he may have made this movie in part to indict US involvement in Latin America. As we Americans were supposed to view our southern neighbor as the land of sombreros and senoritas, he wanted to show that there was a more serious-intellectual side, and of course the indigenous aspect.In my opinion, the combination of the Day of the Dead sequence and the rebellion at the end really constitute the movie's strength, sort of like the rebellion in "Battleship Potemkin". Much of the rest of the film consists of very exaggerated facial expressions (the Russians love those, don't they?). But either way, I still recommend the movie as an important installation in cinematic history, exactly the sort of thing to show in film classes. If anything surprised me, it was that they were allowed to show nudity; I always sort of assume that no major movie in any country was allowed to back then (but don't get me wrong: some of those women were really hot!).

Claudio Carvalho 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!

zetes 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?