paulclaassen I found the film interesting from beginning to end, even during the film's quieter moments. It added great depth and emotion to the overall morbid war theme. (when is a war film ever not morbid themed?). The film also had very likable characters, both as protagonists and antagonists, with the exception of William Miller's character, Conde de Lorencez, who became annoyingly repetitive in his actions and quite bland, actually.It really is a pity about the shaky camerawork, especially during the climatic battle scene. It sometimes makes one loose focus of what is actually happening. Nevertheless, it was a very good film.

Heather I've read quite a bit about the Franco-Mexican Wars and this movie seems like an accurate portrayal. The French conquered Mexico, so of course they're depicted negatively. Conquering entails massacring and torture, not just planting a flag and claiming the land. The movie isn't anti-foreigners because the Americans are painted in a positive light. The cinematography (shaky cam, like you see in The Hunger Games), set design, costumes, and music score are great. The love story advances the plot a little bit, so it doesn't feel forced. The ending has an inspirational tone that gives the movie purpose beyond endless bloodshed.

draciron First the positive. Some excellent period battle scenes. While events seemed to be lost on them, the weaponry, and chaos that is battle was captured beautifully. If you are a re-creationist or just a history buff interested in warfare from that era this is a must see. Forget the rest of the forgettable movie and just watch the battle scenes and enjoy the rich landscape scenes that come at times. Excellent camera work and cinematography. The choreographing of the battles in terms of scale and weapons was first rate, though the hand to hand combat tended to be weak and one sided.Now for the down sides.While they got a few things correct. There was a battle. The French were overconfident. It did rain and this probably saved the Mexican army. Many of the names were correct. Pretty much everything else was wrong, Even for Nationalistic propaganda which this film clearly was, casual research would point out huge historical gaffes.Few of the actors should give up their day jobs.Much moralizing against the French, yet the opening scenes portray acts of brutality by the Mexican army. Ironically I doubt the people who made the film even realized it. Especially given the years of brutality which followed the departure of the French.The French were portrayed overly harshly. While the French were not known for being gentle, especially in that era, they were not all monsters as portrayed. Then again this is a Nationalistic propaganda piece so this is to be expected.

schless74 Cinco de Mayo shows the French intrigue into the Mexican war of independence. First the positive things. The videography is outstanding, in my opinion. The camera work may not please all viewers, but I found it an intriguing yet chaotic portrayal of battle scenes which dominate the movie. The story itself is intriguing, and can enlighten audiences into details of this war and the European powers, especially the French, attempts at interference.Kuno Becker plays the role of the brooding, calculating General Ignacio Zarazoga quite well. Christian Vasquez does a decent job as Juan Osorno, although the character goes through a slightly unrealistic transformation. Liz Gallardo as Citlali shows some depth and promise as an actress.Now the downsides. Too much of the movie is battle scenes- more of the plot could be developed instead. The French are portrayed as excessively sinister and evil which I don't think is accurate, although they may have committed atrocities during this war. And the characters could be developed more with a a little more depth.Overall I'd recommend it and give it seven stars. It's not a perfect movie, but does inform the audience of the turbulent historical period in Mexico. PS it's very violent.