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.

I liked this film because it I think it was an accurate portrayal of how Pancho led his folks against the evils of the American government. I believe that Pancho was a hero because he fought for the rights and freedoms of the Mexican people. You can say that he was like a first class freedom fighter. That's just putting it lightly but the point is that he stood up and fought the United States tooth and nail because he hated what was happening to the Mexicans! I believe that Uncle Sam was trying to turn Mexico into another state but Pancho would have NO PART OF THAT! As far as I know, he simply wanted Mexico to be remain free, on its own and as far away from American influence as possible. Of course, that was a daunting task, even for Pancho. Others who've seen this film may beg to differ. They may look at Pancho as a villain who betrayed the Mexican people. But since I can only speak for myself, I think he fought FOR the people and NOT against them. If he fought against them, then trust me, the Americans wouldn't have gone after him to kill him. Furthermore he wouldn't have made so many enemies like the way he did throughout his tenure.But..... however........ this is why I gave this one a 7 out of 10.

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.

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.