Plot
This movie is about how life used to be in Mexico. It is a love story between Pedro and Tita, and why...

Release Year: 1992

Rating: 7.1/10 (8,236 voted)

Director: Alfonso Arau

Stars: Marco Leonardi, Lumi Cavazos, Regina Torné

Storyline
This movie is about how life used to be in Mexico. It is a love story between Pedro and Tita, and why they coudn't get married because Tita's mother wanted her oldest daughter to get married first, and have Tita to stay and take care of her. It shows how marriage was imposed on those times, and how a love between two people can change everything. This picture set a new epoch in Mexican movies all over the world.

Writers: Laura Esquivel, Laura Esquivel

Cast:
Marco Leonardi - Pedro Muzquiz
Lumi Cavazos - Tita
Regina Torné - Mamá Elena
Mario Iván Martínez - Doctor John Brown
Ada Carrasco - Nacha
Yareli Arizmendi - Rosaura
Claudette Maillé - Gertrudis
Pilar Aranda - Chencha
Farnesio de Bernal - Cura
Joaquín Garrido - Sargento Treviño
Rodolfo Arias - Juan Alejándrez
Margarita Isabel - Paquita Lobo
Sandra Arau - Esperanza Muzquiz
Andrés García Jr. - Alex Brown
Regino Herrera - Nicolás

Taglines: A feast for the senses!

Release Date: 17 February 1993

Filming Locations: Ciudad Acuña, Coahuíla, Mexico

Gross: $21,665,500 (USA)

Runtime: 105 min  | Mexico: 113 min (R Rated NTSC Version)

Trivia:
An aspiring filmmaker from Texas, who was not involved with the project, was able to spend time on set, because he was in town shooting a small budget ($5,000) full-length feature film for the Spanish home video market. That young filmmaker was Robert Rodriguez, and the film was El Mariachi, which would go on to become a hit at Sundance and launch his career.

Goofs:
Anachronisms: Background music while Tita and Nacha are cooking in the kitchen tells the story of a car breakdown.

Quotes:
Tita: [to Mama Elena] Roberto's death is your fault!

Rich and satisfying

Rating: 8/10

Years ago, in California, I walked into a gas station convenience store to buy some consumable or other. The man who took my money was a Mexican emigre, and he saw that I was carrying a copy of the book Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel. He asked how I liked it, and I told him I was loving it. He told me not to miss the movie.

"Oh," I answered, "but I always worry that the movie will never be as good as the book."

"It doesn't matter," he told me. "This is a very great film. And it is the first real Mexican film I have ever seen shown in this country. You know, to everybody, not just the Mexican community."

I smiled and told him I would check it out, but honestly, I had no idea what he was talking about. After all, I knew who Dolores Del Rio and Cantinflas were, and the movies with them that I had seen were shown in L.A., to everybody.

But now, at last, I have seen this movie, and now, at last, I know what this guy was talking about. Like, wow! This really is a real Mexican film! Art! Cinema! More than just a bit of popular fluff!

Tender, compassionate and very witty, like the book on which it is based, this movie celebrates Mexican culture -- not just on the food, the preparation of which forms the premise of the story, but as kind of a rollicking take on the history of the young country at the turn of the century. It celebrates the music, the style of life on a ranch, the strength of the extended family, the beauty of the land, and the ethnic mixing pot that is every Mexican.

There is so much reckless joy and passionate love in this film, even when it portrays pain. It openly depicts female eroticism. (Plus, for a big change from US cinema, we get to see beautiful men and women of many shapes, sizes and colors all on the same screen.) The acting is flawless, and the star, Lumi Cavazos, is absolutely charming, full of life and credibility.

The only flaws I found in this film were minor and had to do with timing. For example, the final ascent to the climax seems to have been shortchanged a little bit. I would have liked to reach through this scene a little more slowly.

To judge Mexican cinema by the type of films I had seen before this one would be like judging U.S. cinema on the basis of Jerry Lewis or some cheesy melodramas from the '40s and '50s, but not taking into account any of our real film art. I'd love to know what else I've missed. Can't wait to find out.

Comments: