zimbo_the_donkey_boy of watching this, that is. I figured I was going to end up dragging the average down by pegging this as simply average but now I see that most people quite disliked it, while I simply did not care. I gave this flick a higher vote than the other DVDs I borrowed this weekend, as it's at least different. I'm tired of seeing tons of purely mediocre films getting high marks on IMDb due to all the teenage girls swooning over the hunks in them.I pretty much agree with all of the previous comments. This movie makes no sense, and, while it was meant to be mystical (as was said), that's no excuse for the thing making NO sense (as was said.) It sure would have been useful for them to have added a commentary track to the DVD, wouldn't it? But they did not. They did add short interviews with three of the actors. One of the three was Dafoe, believe it or not. And he seemed to think that his role in this project was important, even though (as was said) his part is minor.From viewers' reactions, I'd say they very much mismarketed this. They obviously should not have lulled average viewers into seeing this. I'm sure this would go over better after a night of heavy drinking or to groups of pseudo-intellectuals looking for a novel way to interpret this goofiness.I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful but do roman catholics believe in this stuff? I know little about catholicism but everyone in this story is one and it seems to play a major part in what happens. Do Mexicans (who are most of the characters, the extras anyway) or catholic Americans enjoy this film more than the rest of us? Or maybe do such hate this film because it presents stuff they do NOT believe in? I'd like to know.

voyageur0713 I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these. I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.

iheartdoingyourmom I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.

Comeuppance Reviews "Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects.Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most.For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com