Dealing to be impartial and generous with the last work of Carlos Reygadas, I could recognize its effort to obtain a different film, cradle absolutely in personal convictions and without considerations for the Box office. But that "effort" is also what bothers me: Too many pretensions for so miserable result: 1)Its pretension of veracity like a documented reality or more likely a "cinéma vérité" work, using real people and non-actors, impostors of emotional states for a very diluted script fails resoundingly: A script exists. And it is perceivable that their individuals or "characters" are acting, and as is expected with nonprofessional actors, acting poorly. Their dialogs are unbelievable. And contributing to the feeling of unreal and falsification, the director uses abundant sequences in fixed positions where the characters seemed to be forced dummies, nothing that corresponds with the naturalness of the human body in the plotted situations. Everything is false, artificial and unreal.<br /><br />2)I think questionable that the "authenticity" had some aesthetic merit, or therefore, any "Big Brother" or Real TV would be equal to the last work of Reygadas: In them there is no plot, and the people are real either. I do not believe that Carlos Reygadas finds in "The Real Cancun" some aesthetic merit, nevertheless, this one has the same characteristics that he looks for in "Batalla en el Cielo". Both fulfill with his simplistic belief in "real cinema": not directed by history at all, being something unreachable, similar to music experience, been perceived of different form by each member from the hearing. Semiotics does not come to the case, but considering image and a spoken language similar ways to obtains diffuse effects like the music experience, without considering the implicit qualities of precision of those means, has not hit the target.<br /><br />3)Its pretension of reflection and depth with its long pauses like Tarkovsky did, doing a film totally rate devoid is disturbed, breaking any calm or reflexive feelings, with some real jewels of involuntary humor, as the gross and shocking moves in, any deep feelings or reflections on the human condition moves out. Crazy laughs or repulsion stays.<br /><br />4)When the film has finished, I felt to be the filthy accomplice of a director without scruples, with has so much passion for create, but very little to say. That his work is fundamentally based on the value of ordinary people who were used to expose themselves in cinematographic sessions of explicit sex in a film with many artistic pretensions, but where the only art were the sounds and music of the sound track.