Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths

I went into this movie with high expectations. Birdman is my favorite movie so it was tough to fight. This movie gave even birdman a run for it's money. I have seen this film 3 times in the theaters as it is endlessly filled with meaning and expression. Alejandro delivers the most personal film ive ever seen. He discusses his own strange feeling of finding place within Limbo. This Mexican director who left and found renowned success in American entertainment returns home after 20 years and battles with the complex emotions of it. It is an incredibly meta film, even at times criticizing itself within the writing. You feel that you are watching not just actors but Alejandro speaking his own feelings and experiences. This film breaks our typical 3 act structure in the most incredible way. Piecing together all these surreal scenes and visuals to consistently discuss a theme and an a place. This is one of the best films ive ever seen, but i dont think it is for everyone. To anyone watching it i highly recommend go in with an open mind. Like a psychedelic trip the best way to appreciate this film is to succumb to it. Dont try to force it to be one thing, just let the journey take you. Many will not like the fluid nature of the film and that's okay, but for those who can accept a bit of a pretentious artsy movie you will love this masterclass in writing and visual expression. I recommend this movie to all, even if you hate it i think it's an important watch for any movie lover, at least for the expansion of the mind it will give. PS if you can, i highly suggest seeing it in a theater if you can. I know it's on netflix but this was an experience made to be seen on the biggest screen you can find.

This long and painful turd of a movie, is by far the worst film I have seen this year(2022) and quite possibly one of the worst to be released in the decade, I am sad that the acclaimed director has come to become a disgrace to what cinema stands for. The direction shines, of course, Alejandro González Iñárritu is a master of his craft, skilled in every aspect of filmmaking, but it seems he forgot how to craft a coherent story, there is no plot, no continuity, no context, no explanation, it is just an endless parade of visual noise, with no cohesion from one scene to the next, a parody of what an incredible director once was.

This movie is just painfully long and dull whenever you think is about to end the director finds another stupid thing to talk about. This is a movie that is based on the directors personality, dreams and issues. Well I think he should've reserved those thought to his personal diary instead of portraying them in an almost 3hr movie. I don't have issues with 3hr movie I love long movies but as long as they are interesting or have a logical premise or somewhat interesting. But no... this movie is just boring and it goes on and goes on until eternity. I mean you can fall asleep and trust me if you wake up the movie will be in the same stuff you left it whenever you fell sleep. Avoid.

Cinema is still capable of provoking great surprises. I had low expectations for this film. Even in other Iñarritu's works, I can see some of his "artistic arrogance", so I thought that a markedly surrealist semi-biographical work could only result in an enormous masturbatory exercise that at every corner felt superior to its spectator. It was not the case. For several minutes I wasn't sure if I was enjoying what I was watching or not, but I was always intrigued. The concept borrows heavily from classics like Fellini 8 ½, but Iñarritu adds high doses of surrealism that demonstrate other influences. Some of these influences can come from very close, with Buñuel at the head. For you to understand what kind of surrealism this is, suffice it to say that the opening scene of the film is that of a birth in which the doctors realize that the baby does not intend to leave and then they do the reverse process of birth so that the baby comes back to where it came from. Of course, this is metaphorical and of course, there is a less comic and much more dramatic explanation for the real events, but you couldn't ask for a more out-of-the-ordinary scene that would immediately alienate anyone who likes works based solely on reality and on a well-defined and classic narrative. These types of scenes are repeated throughout several episodes of the film - and, perhaps, the lack of connection between them is a negative aspect of the film -, but what at first seems to be just black humour through surrealist expressiveness quickly turns into what are the main themes of the film. This is mainly about finding your identity, so the themes are very personal for Iñarritu - who, incidentally, speaks of this film as something semi-biographical... - and are for many more people. When Silverio (Daniel Cacho), the main character, talks about imposter syndrome, he knows he is talking to artists. When he talks about living between two countries, wanting to feel at home in both, but not feeling at home in either of them, he speaks to the millions of emigrants around the world. When he talks about Amazon buying a Mexican state, he knows what he means about capitalism and corporatism. As he knows when he has a fascinating conversation with a colonizer - yes, from the distant past! - or when he addresses the luxury within the misery in which many live in Mexico or... when he also criticizes North American society and its lack of empathy. All this is done very smartly by Iñarritu. Everything is brutally aggressive, but everything is also done through that layer of a living dream that could make everything easier to swallow. Still, I don't think this movie is for everyone. It is not. In a film by an artist about an artist - very much about himself - it is not surprising that the Mexican filmmaker has gone overboard here and there, whether in the length of the scenes (and to think that this was already heavily edited and cut after the festivals circuit!) or in some visual exaggerations that seem to be there just for shock effect. In any case, the positives largely outweigh the negatives, with a whole range of good technical arguments to highlight, from fantastic cinematography - brutal open shots, warm colours, a living camera - to a strong and very characteristic score that perfectly fits the tone of the film. This is a film destined to be misunderstood as are all those who live between two worlds. Living between two countries and two cultures. Living between the real world and the imaginary (artistic). Inãrritu, at times, abuses from a certain pretentiousness in the way he uses surrealism, but in the end, he won me over through unique and original scenes and, above all, through what he has to say and how he says it.

From the very first scene of a shadow leaping into the desert air, you know that you are in for something extraordinarily fantastic. At its core it is the fantastically surreal retrospective of fictional Mexican journalist Silverio on the verge of receiving American and Mexican awards for his latest documentary. Every professional and personal interaction he has with family, friends and coworkers is eventually deconstructed as his story adds and peels away layers of humanity. Much like Forrest Gump, Cinema Paradiso, or even the Little Prince, there is no task or goal to achieve, no plot device or macguffin to chase... it's the nostalgic tale of one man's life experience. It is impossible to convey how effortlessly each scene blends to the next with calculated disregard for the passage of time and the spacial relationships of people and objects. Iñárritu has one-upped Fellini and two-upped Terry Gilliam as every set piece, every camera composition and every performance creates amazing visuals that will stay with you long after you've left the theater.

I suggest you all to avoid this film. The movie is long, full of enigmatic scenes, a mixture of reality and fiction as if it was told by a crazy narrator, maybe trying to show artistic pictures and ideas but making it nonsense and exhausting. The main character is depressing and the story is far from being interesting. As a Mexican, it made me feel ashamed of the reality pointed out without a purpose. I guess they had a lot of fun making this movie, but it is not funny or entertaining at all. It is one of those movies made to confuse the spectators or try to tell a very short uncomplicated story as if it was a huge espectacular case. It feels like experimental theater, a complete nightmare. I will never have this 2 and a half hours back.

Bardo, Falsa Crônica de Algumas Verdades (2022) 1080p WEBRip [Dublado Portugues] MOSTBET

This movie is just painfully long and dull whenever you think is about to end the director finds another stupid thing to talk about. This is a movie that is based on the directors personality, dreams and issues. Well I think he should've reserved those thought to his personal diary instead of portraying them in an almost 3hr movie. I don't have issues with 3hr movie I love long movies but as long as they are interesting or have a logical premise or somewhat interesting. But no... this movie is just boring and it goes on and goes on until eternity. I mean you can fall asleep and trust me if you wake up the movie will be in the same stuff you left it whenever you fell sleep. Avoid.

I don't want to comment on how successful or not as a film Bardo is so soon after having seen it. Instead, I just want to assert the truism that calling a film too long is not a valid criticism, and I find it regrettable that Inarritu cut his film by 25 minutes following its reception at the Venice film festival. I think that since Bardo debuted as a 3 hour film, it was intended and designed as a 3 hour film, and what we have now in a 25 minute shorter cut must feel truncated in some places, deficient in some story or character development where it wouldn't need to be, not to mention just general integrity in terms of flow and narrative shape. Inarritu is capable of delivering a high level of moment-to-moment enjoyableness--ex. The Revenant is not a plot heavy movie for its length. Bardo is not an exception in this regard. Capsule review: Bardo is not a Roma-inspired Hand of God, Belfast, The Fabelmans, Armageddon Time; nor is it a case, like that of Joanna Hogg's The Souvenir movies, of an artist making a splash belatedly with a polished gem of honed autobiographical reflection. It is, rather, a fairly spontaneous 'dispatch from the psyche' autofiction by Alejandro G. Inarritu--and also a dispatch from Mexico. The film actually resembles Birdman a lot in the manner of the storytelling. While Bardo's Inarritu stand-in, Silverio Gama, played by Daniel Gimenez Cacho, is not engaged in an all-or-nothing career reinvention in the film in the way that Bridman's Riggan Thomson is on Broadway, Inarritu himself, in returning to Mexico to make a Mexican film for the first time in twenty years (for much of which he has also not lived there), is in fact engaged on a project of similar stakes. As an emigrant, does he still know his country in the granular detail required to tell a representative, authentically Mexican story? But Inarritu is himself a kind of conquering hero. A certain scale is expected. And in saying that, it's already clear that autofiction--putting himself and his own most subjective experiences front and centre--is the inevitable means of approach.

Iñárritu is a filmmaker of great skill and aesthetic attention, clearly an admirer of the work of great masters such as Fellini, Buñuel, and Jodorowsky. Indeed, Bardo is a movie shot with great competence and aesthetic attention, clearly homage of the work of great masters such as Fellini, Buñuel and Jodorowsky. So, absolutely, it can be considered representative of the director himself, as it is partially autobiographical (or introspective, as he says). Too bad, however, that it is made only for him. The whole journey is heavy, alienating and discouraging. At most the entertainment is to approach it as an intellectual challenge, if you are not part of the niche lover of surrealist and predominantly visual cinema. It is commendable that the director still managed to pull off this ambitious project, but, for those who love cinema as a language, one can point out how Iñárritu has chosen hermeticism. 4/10.