Nothing original, and what was made little or no sense.

Running Time: 1 hour and 41 minutes (36 without the credits)

CAST:
Antonio Banderas El Mariachi
Salma Hayek Carolina
Johnny Depp CIA Agent Sands
Rubén Blades Jorge, FBI
Eva Mendes Special Agent Ajedrez
Willem Dafoe Barillo
Mickey Rourke Billy
Danny Trejo Cucuy
Enrique Iglesias Lorenzo (Mariachi #2)
Marco Leonardi Fideo (Mariachi #3)
Cheech Marin Belini

I don’t know why this movie was made. Maybe it’s because, after a popular series of kid’s movies, Robert Rodriguez wanted to remind people that he’s the one responsible for El Mariachi and Desperado, and felt like cutting loose with something more violent and sexy than he’s done in several years. Maybe he wanted to be able to work with Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek as leads. Maybe Johnny Depp got together with him and expressed an interest in working with him. Maybe there was some demand to revisit the cult favorites that were responsible for Rodriguez hitting it big, and they thought a boxed set of the Mariachi series would look better if it were a trilogy. Maybe they just wanted an excuse to see Salma Hayek in a shirt and midriff-baring top. Maybe all of the above. Whatever the reason, Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a one hour and forty-one minute excuse for constantly finding new and different ways to film gratuitous amounts of ammunition being pumped into Mexicans, with too many major characters to keep track of, dialogue and metaphors that are at times unintentionally laughable, and a barely a comprehensible plot to hold it together, involving revenge, a presidential assassination, a CIA plot, and reconstructive surgery thrown in for no reason I can see.

Johnny Depp, who both makes the movie somewhat watchable with screen time that rivals Antonio Banderas’, and yet dumbs down the movie with some of his dialogue and characterization, plays Sands, a CIA agent who hires the mysterious El Mariachi (or “El,” as he’s called in casual conversation) for an imminent assassination of the President of Mexico. He doesn’t want El to kill the President, but rather, he wants El to kill Barillo (Willem Dafoe), the man who’s going to assassinate him, because, he says, he doesn’t want Barillo to come to power, and allowing both the President and Barillo to die will bring “balance back.” If you think that makes no sense because I abridged the explanation, don’t. Going into it further with the ridiculous metaphor about well-cooked pork that Sands uses only makes it sound more stupid, and when he demonstrates this metaphor at the end of the scene in question my friend Nick inexplicably laughed out loud, but I was just appalled. To be fair, Depp is the breakout character of this installment, and he does somewhat steal the movie. But whereas some of his dialogue and humor is indulgently cute, some of it is just plain retarded. When his henchman Cucuy (Danny Trejo) balks at a particular assignment, Sands retorts with one of the all-time worst movie lines ever (and I’m not making this up here):

“Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican’t?”

Ugh. Where’s the closest theater showing Gigli when you really need it?

And the rest of the movie just made no sense to me. Maybe it was me. Maybe it was the movie. Questions kept popping up, which doesn’t usually happen when I watch films, even bad ones. Why, if Sands hired El to kill Barillo, does he also try to set up Jorge to do it as well? Was this a backup plan? Whatever was, it slipped by me. What was Ajedrez’s motivation for her actions? What purpose did Barillo undergoing reconstructive surgery serve the plot? Nothing from this ever seemed to come to fruition. Was Sands’ use of the quip “Savvy?” meant to be some tip of the hat to his Pirates of the Caribbean character? Was this gratuitous “not-so-in” in-joke really needed? Couldn’t the beginning of El’s first dream sequence have been a bit more clear? Why were El and Carolina chained at the wrist together? And what the hell was Mickey Rourke doing in this movie???

The aspect of the plot I found most disturbing is how the movie seems to want the audience to sympathize with Sands by the end of the movie, in part because of the rapport he forms with a young Mexican boy. Why is this? This piece of dirt spent an hour and a half doing some absolutely despicable things to several people, some of which were innocent strangers, and when he takes out the last of his adversaries, the audience is actually rooting for him? I was disgusted by this reaction by the audience. He murdered some innocent people, and now I’m supposed to act like he’s a good guy? Uh-uh, no way, sorry, I don’t think so. (Conversely, I somewhat pleased when, earlier in the movie, a matador is sabotaged so that a bull can kill him, a moment that may have been intended to shock or horrify the audience. My feeling was, “Good.” The bulls are tortured mercilessly in bullfights—a point the movie acknowledges, so if one of the scumbags participating in this animal cruelty is allowed to be gored to death by one of them, so much the better. Funny how was I found morally repulsive and what the movie’s writers or the rest of the audience found morally repulsive were so much at odds.)

Mind you, this isn’t a horrible film. If you don’t expect logic or clarity, it’s moderately watchable, if the constant gunplay is a bit repetitive, and the bad guys, much as in the previous film, can’t seem to hit the broad side of a piñata with shotguns. No doubt Robert Rodriguez fans will flock to it, if the huge line for the screening was any indication (though I wonder how many will go if they learn ahead of time that Salma Hayek doesn’t get naked in the film). There are some nice action scenes. The visuals were pretty good. The incorporation of Latino music into the film was nicely done, and fans of the genre will probably enjoy watching Enrique Iglesias in a supporting role as one of El’s allies.

But this hour and forty-one minutes of nonstop gunfights, too many different characters with their different motivations and convoluted plots threads to keep straight just bored me after a while. About half way or so into it, my friend Nick actually got up out of his seat and leaned over to me and said, “Is it me, or does this movie kinda $uck?”

No, Nick. It wasn’t just you.

NITS & NOTES:
Okay, so why were Carolina and El chained together in the flashbacks? Was this supposed to mean something? And why, when El first woke up in the beginning of the first one of his dream sequences, why was he surprised himself to see that they were chained? And why was the chained broken during their wedding ceremony? Even if was meant as symbolic or something, wouldn’t an opposite act have been more appropriate? That is, being chained together, since they were becoming one?

Escaping out the window of their apartment, El and Caroline swing from window to ledge to wire, all the while evading numerous gunmen who can’t seem to fire a single shot at one of them that doesn’t instead hit the fire escape instead. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

El jumps down from a church mezzanine, lands on his feat, and doesn’t break his legs, ankles, or the cartilage in his knees. Sure. No prob.

Is Sands’ use of the quip “Savvy?” more common that I know, and I’ve just been sheltered? Because I find it odd that it was in the film, which was filmed long before Pirates of the Caribbean came out. Did Depp unintentionally use it out of the habit he developed while filming that movie?

The blood running down Sands’ face near the end of the film couldn’t be more obviously fake if they tried.

How can Sands shoot correctly near the end of the film after he suffers a severe injury that would make this impossible?

Not having seen either Pirates... or this latest Depp film, I can't be sure of the context "Savvy?" is used in... I presume he's using it to say "Do you get it?" or "Do you understand?" It's a type of verbal shorthand I've heard used in real life (very occasionally) and even in a film or tv series many years ago. Sorry I can't remember which film or tv series, but I know I've heard it in media.
Anyway, I know it's out there and in use, just not very commonly. The fact that Depp uses it in two "back-to-back" film projects may be coincidence, but it certainly is noticeable to those not familiar with the term. Heck, I'd say it would be noticeable even to those who are familiar with it.

Salma Hayek only teases us straight males in this film? Aw, forget it, I'm not going...

I always think of something else to say after I log off...

I swear the use of "Savvy?" I'd seen years ago was in a war film or a western, and for some reason, I can picture John Wayne saying it, perhaps with that dry sarcasm he'd use as he dispatches a bad guy who'd actually used the term throughout the film. Of course, maybe I'm just projecting a bit there. (Projecting? No film pun intended.)

Sands uses it in the beginning of the film, at the end of the scene in which he explains to El what he wants to hire him to do. I forgot to mention that. In both this case and in Pirates (and I do recommend you go see it while it's still out, Craig), it is indeed used as "Get it?"

CR: Salma Hayek only teases us straight males in this film?
Luigi Novi: Aside from a brief shot of her wearing a nightshirt that is made somewhat transparent by shadows, that's it. Sorry.

Trust me, Pirates is high on my "to see" list!
If I go to see OUaTiM, I'll have to watch the first two again. Or would that cause sensory overload? (I know, depends upon the individual.)

SPOILER!
One comment: anyone else find it ironically funny how Johnny Depp's character told that boy on the bike "I don't want to ever see you again" and by the end, he doesn't "see" him again? (;

First time I've ever left a movie thinking I should demand my money back.

Mine was for Shocker. I've been much more discerning about throwing my money away since then, until I saw Pearl Harbor. Maybe I'll never learn...

First time I've ever left a movie thinking I should demand my money back.

Yeah, don't do that. You'll just make them mad.

Well if you do that make sure the movie is no more than half way over. I used to work at a theater and if someone came out half way though the movie and wanted there money back I'd give it to them. If someone came out at the end of the film and wanted there money back they weren't getting it.

Hey, I liked it somewhat! Course I rented it, instead of going to see it, but it worked.

The film has a sort of silly style to it. Yeah, it didn't make a whole lot of sense (and the cheerfully inane "let's kill the entire cast" at the end is somewhat overblown), but you know what you're getting into when you watch a Robert Rodriguez movie, don't you?

Johnny Depp was excellent. And yeah, he was a loathsome individual. But I dunno--do you want your movie characters to be black and white? To me, he perfectly represented the United States' role in the world.

I am currently watching this film again for the first time in quite a while. Really wishing it could have been better.

El Mariachi was a good low budget action film ($6,000 to shoot) that still looks better than some $1 million dollar direct to video movies that I could name.

Desperado was a great shoot-em-up action film with a great cast, cool one liners, fun action and it showed that Rodriguez could do more with $6 million than most can do with $30 million. Oh and it introduced Salma Hayek to all of us.

As a follow-up to those it could have, and should have, rocked. I think the problem with it is that to was rushed and Rodriguez's reach exceeded his grasp. He was committed to his 2 Spy Kids sequels, and couldn't postpone them as the kids (epically Alexa Vega) were literally growing out of the roles of kids. 1 year at that age can mean the difference between looking like a boy/girl and looking like a young man/woman. They were expecting an screen actors guild strike (which never happened, the negotiations turned out good.)

He had a very short window to try to shoot it, between the assumed strike date and when he signed the deal. Even Columbia Pictures later told him that they did not expect him to finish in time. They only let him start shooting because they had been on him for years to do a desperado sequel and figured he might get it half done before the expected strike and than he could finish it after.

Well to his credit Rodriguez got all of his stuff lined up, including only having Salma Hayek for a week of shooting. He wrote around that, having her character be dead and only appear in flash backs. He created enough plot for an epic movie that could run closer to 3 hours, wrote the script and shot the ENTIRE film (all 1 hours and 45 minutes of it) in 3 weeks.

There in lies the problem. I don't want another movie about him avenging another women who he loved. We've seen that before. Desperado ended with him finding love again. I wanted to see a movie about them kicking ass together, like in the flashbacks. Seems to me that he should have waited 'till Antonio and Salma were both free. As for the script he should have either made a short straight-up shoot-em-up like Desperado OR written a bigger, more epic, more thought out movie that would better use the rogues gallery of characters that he created