Change Your Image
zkot-839-452731
Reviews
The Post (2017)
Streep on the one hand, Spielberg & Co. on the other
Beginning with my criteria for movies:
Do I believe the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat
Do I care about the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat
Do I believe the story? Somewhat
Do I care about the story? Yes
Meryl Streep shows herself to be in an entirely different league than the rest of the production of "The Post". Her performance as Katherine Graham was nothing short of excellent, in contrast to an otherwise "OK" film. In particular, I appreciated the subtlety with which she showed Kay Graham's struggles in such a pivotal moment in her life, artfully displaying that character's attributes, strengths, and weaknesses as a person.
As for the rest of the production, what annoyed me most was the flagrant contemporary feel of the film, with little or no attempt to capture the spirit of the 70s. The other closely related films, "All the President's Men"; "Frost/Nixon"; and "Mark Felt" all had a 70s feel, by contrast.
In contrast with Streep's excellent, subtle performance, the Spielberg production was superficial, obvious, pretentious, and probably just a bit too much, with all the clever trivia that produces a visceral reaction, as opposed to a deeper reflection evoked by Streep.
Still, I did go back and watch All the President's Men again -- Tom Hanks's portrayal of Ben Bradlee is not bad, but I just couldn't stop thinking I was watching Tom Hanks play Ben Bradlee. Jason Robards, on the other hand, made me feel like I was actually watching Bradlee himself.
Young people in "The Post" had the strong look and feel of millennials, not boomers. In particular, the protest scenes looked and felt like mise en scène, with neo-hippies playacting, anxious for breaks in filming so they could run to their smart phones. By contrast, I did not have such feelings while watching another 2017 film, "Mark Felt".
In summary, Meryl Streep is clearly in another league than her contemporaries in The Post. I do like Spielberg & Hanks, but the former is so visceral, obvious, and pop -- perhaps I like him a bit less than I did before watching The Post.
And while Tom Hanks is likable, for years I've felt he was just a notch below such greats as Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Scarlett Johannson, and Denzel Washington. I consider Tom Hanks to be a very good actor, capable of some great performances, with the right story, script, direction, and supporting cast. With that in mind, I hope Hanks and Spielberg never work together again, as I feel their best collaboration is behind them.
England Is Mine (2017)
Tedious... as it should be!
My criteria for movies:
Do I believe the characters? Yes.
Do I care about the characters? Yes
Do I believe the story? Yes
Do I care about the story? Absolutely
I struggled a little through the first half of the movie, finding it tedious, slow, and a little difficult to become engaged in. As I watched, however, I realized that this is Morrissey we're talking about -- someone whom one of the indie/alternative radio stations in America constantly referred to as "Miserable Morrissey". Very slowly, but surely, everything began to make sense in Morrissey's environment and how his experience shaped him into one of the great lyricists of pop music: No way out of the drab working class existence, with a local music scene that says nothing to anybody about their lives, and simply a unique person trying to fit in to a type-cast world. From that backdrop, Morrissey finds some semblance of salvation in poetry and music, friends and family.
I suspect the low IMDB score -- currently 6.1 out of 10 -- may in part be due to the slow pace and the fact that Morrissey almost never smiles. But that's what's so good about the movie -- in the final analysis, it makes me a believer.
The Smiths-less soundtrack is excellent as is the cinematography, the latter adding to the gloomy, grey, drab feel of life in Manchester and its working class. The poetic element, where Morrissey and his friend frequently practice their poetic chops together complements the soundtrack perfectly well.
"England is mine" has its flaws here and there, but nothing so significant as to tarnish a very good, captivating movie. 8 of 10.
The Legend of Ben Hall (2017)
Impeccable Intent: Bio-pic that feels like a documentary
Getting right into my movie/art criteria:
Do I believe the characters? Yes! Right down to the supporting cast and minor characters -- I can't think of one I thought was acting a part in a movie.
Do I care about the characters? 100% -- absolutely.
Do I believe the story? Without a doubt. So believable, I felt I was watching a documentary, that I was secretly following Ben Hall's bushrangers around, from the comfort & safety of my modern home.
Do I care about the story? Yes! I was sad that the movie ended.
I wanted to keep following the gang around -- I wanted to see even more, but the story ended; there was no more to be seen.
The Lengend of Ben Hall has joined my group of favorite outlaw movies, along with Unforgiven, American Gangster, and Josey Wales.
The difference between Ben Hall and those others, beyond the obvious change of scene is, it evokes a different feeling. The classic outlaw pics have a decidedly familiar feel and context. As such they are not too much of a stretch for the emotions. With Ben Hall, the people, the landscapes, the music -- it's all unusual, a bit strange, a bit of a challenge to relate to. Something new and unusual can be a bit unsettling, even daunting. I find it refreshing.
Ben Hall is a slow paced film. Scenes and situations have ample time to evolve. I find the slow pace appropriate to the intent of the film.
Finally, loved Jack Martin's rendition of an introverted Aussie Bandit -- I look forward to seeing his evolution as an actor.
The Founder (2016)
Hate McDonald's -- Love "The Founder"
Getting right into my subjective criteria for movies (and all art):
Do I believe the characters?
Yes.
Do I care about the characters?
Yes.
Do I believe the story?
Yes.
Do I care about the story?
Most certainly!
"The Founder" is all about the story. Everybody in the world knows McDonald's; many or most people know who Ray Kroc is; but few know the story behind it all -- Quelle mystère!
I began this review giving "The Founder" 8/10 after watching the movie. I believe it was my general dislike of McDonald's -- the fast food, junk food makers; the destroyers of human bodies, minds, and souls that made me tend to downplay the quality of cinema on display.
But I found myself bumping the score up to 9/10 after deeper reflection over the course of the following day, for 3 reasons:
1. What a story. By the time the movie was over, I didn't want it to end. I was so engrossed in the story, I just wanted to see more. It's such a treasure to have the mystery revealed -- a little sad when that revelation is over.
2. Brilliant acting, directing, photography, sound, script. All the elements of cinema, beautifully and elegantly produced.
3. Michael Keaton's performance was excellent, allowing me to seamlessly enter into the world of such a colorful, controversial figure. I felt the entire cast performed admirably. Keaton was absolutely on-point, from beginning to end.
Nobody Walks in L.A. (2016)
"Who decides what's good art & what's bad art?"
That's the point at which I tuned out of "Nobody Walks in L.A."
Do I believe the story?
Sure. Why not?
Do I care about the story?
Nope.
Do I believe the characters?
Yeah, sure. What's not to believe?
Do I care about the characters?
I couldn't care any less about them.
I will address the question Miles asks about 20 minutes into the movie. Good art, music, literature -- sure, it's all subjective. For me, I've got to believe it, and I've got to care. An indie film made by people I've never heard of before, in the Rom- Com-Dram genre -- few votes on IMDb, average is 6.8 -- that piques my interest. Might be interesting. I like Rom-Coms, anyway.
Now that I've decided to watch your movie, you've got to reach inside and grab my heart and soul. A pretty blonde is fun to look at, but she's not going to keep my interest for an hour and a half. My heart and soul begged for freedom from the contrived walk in LA, so I liberated them by opting out when I heard the question quoted in my summary.
I don't know about how others decide what's good art & what's bad art, but that's how I decide. I use the 4 questions above, which all must be answered "yes", and my heart and soul command me to pay attention. Any piece of art that does all of that, is what I consider "good art".
"Bad art", on the other hand, for me, might be a 93 minute movie of which I can't even bear to watch 21 minutes, because I just don't care.
Silence (2016)
Millennials posing as 17th Century Jesuit Priests
Jumping right into my criteria for movies:
Do I believe the story?
Absolutely not!
Do I care about the story?
Impossible.
Do I believe the characters?
Even less than I believe the story.
Do I care about the characters?
Not a chance.
I wanted to like "Silence" -- 7.5 on IMDb, Liam Neeson's in it, and parallels have been drawn to "The Mission", right? Scene 1, I was OK. Unfortunately, from the moment I saw the millennials posing with their token superior, arguing their need to rush off to Japan to save their inspiration in some of the most preposterous accents I've heard in cinema, as though they were somehow entitled to make this dangerous journey, I knew the whole movie was on dangerous ground. When they arrive in Japan & meet the clandestine Christians from the local village, they are surprised that the locals, living under iron-fisted feudal Japanese conditions, do not travel around to the nearby villages to share their ideas about Christianity with their fellow countrymen & women -- right, thought I, they'll just grab their Lonely Planet & backpack and take a little tour of the countryside, eh? The best of the ridiculous is when our "Jesuit Padres" are in hiding in the hills & the Driver shouts out, that he can't take being cooped up in their little cabin, hidden away under these conditions any more -- I'm finishing his cry: "I can't take being cooped up in here without my smart phone!"
I was ready to turn the thing off about 20 minutes in, but figured I'd give it a chance to get better -- which seldom happens. I suppose I was waiting for Liam Neeson to come along and save the movie or something. I wasted the next 40 minutes of my life watching & then had an epiphany & left the room around the one hour mark. Who knows? Maybe Mr. Neeson did save the movie. I don't care to find out.
The script is one of the worst I've observed in a very long time for a movie rated 6.5 or above on IMDb. One of the key premises, the invention of some adversarial relationship between "Christian" and "Buddhist" is preposterous. There was no "Christian Brotherhood" just as there was no "Buddhist Brotherhood" in the 17th century. The power brokers of the day used the sects to their advantage, in Europe just as in East Asia. Remember, Queen Elizabeth I lopped off the head of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. Both Christians, to be sure. There was no "Germany" or "Italy" in the 17th century. Even the two dominant Catholic powers hated each other and required Papal intervention to keep each other somewhat in check. The same thing was going on in Japan, with different power brokers manipulating the different sects of Zen, as well as other non-Buddhist beliefs, if they felt they could do so to advantage, with bribery, corruption, violence, and torture occurring when convenient. "Christian vs. Buddhist" was not the issue of the day. The world wide issue was, anybody who's a threat to a power broker is an adversary, "Anybody vs. Anybody Else".
Parallels to "The Mission"? Give me a break! I don't even recall hearing any musical score in this "Paterson Poseur Goes to Taiwan-posing-as-Japan" -- must be what they mean by "Silence". The only parallels are Liam Neeson and the cinematography. "The Mission" contains things like a compelling story, a great script, a fabulous film score -- and extraordinary acting!
On a slight positive note for "Silence", I did like the cinematography -- I have no objection to the Oscar nomination in that category.. Too bad there were a bunch of play-actors in the movie disrupting the fine cinematography!
I will close this review expressing my bitter disappointment with Adam Driver in 2016. I really enjoyed watching his rise in different supporting roles over the past several years & was hoping to see him shine in a lead role. He was pretentious playing poetry-scribbler, Williams wannabe working stiff Paterson from Paterson, and just silly in Silence.
As for Garfield, I had Hacksaw Ridge on my list of films to see, but I think I'll opt for the orange cat instead. Come to think of it, I've also got a film with Orangey as the star on my list... think I'll watch that and opt out of "Garfield" altogether!
The Escort (2015)
Edgy Rom-Com / Fairy tale for grown-ups
Getting right into it:
1. Do I believe the story?
Sure. Sex addicted guy struggling with self esteem, work & family issues meets kind, pretty girl with the perfect resume struggling to overcome an infamously tarnished adolescence who finds herself working as a high end escort to achieve her dreams while she's still young & pretty. What's not to believe?
2. Do I care about the story?
Absolutely. In fact, the story is what made me rate this movie 7/10.
3. Do I believe the characters?
Mostly. The only major flaw in The Escort was that I didn't believe Michael Doneger's Mitch to be a journalist. I believed all of the other characters, certainly Lyndsy Fonseca as Natalie, and I believed Mitch's situation and his personal life, but he just didn't convince me he was a budding young journalist, or a writer of any sort for that matter.
4. Do I care about the characters?
Yes. They evoke empathy. I want them to resolve their issues, to figure it out, and live happily ever after.
I found The Escort to be a fun, entertaining romantic comedy, a fairy tale for adults. Flawed, but irresistible in the end. It was a bit melodramatic at times, and supporting cast played limited roles, though they played their parts well.
Regarding what I consider to be the major flaw, Michael Doneger's unconvincing rendition of a journalist, even though someone may be down on their luck and/or lacking self-esteem, I still need to see a hint of aptitude, at the very least. I realize that Mitch's personal problems are affecting his professional life -- I simply need to believe that somewhere deep inside, they have potential in their chosen profession. I need to see their potential, their passion. I never saw that in Mitch.
To her credit, the supporting actress who plays the female head journalist interviewing Mitch for the magazine job executes her role perfectly, particularly in the last suggestion she gives Mitch, to find his passion as a journalist.
That flaw almost made me score The Escort 6/10, more in line with its average rating on IMDb, but as you can see, I gave it a higher score. Why? I really liked the story, and in the final analysis, story matters most.
7 out of 10
7 Men from Now (1956)
So what? Not worthy of 7.5 out of 10 on IMDb!
I'm going to jump right into my criteria for watching any movie:
1. Do I believe the story?
Not really, kinda, maybe, if I'm suspending disbelief as I do for animation, perhaps? So many unbelievable elements to it -- the token Indian threat; screaming Hollywood from the Joshua Tree National Park (or nearby) in the first 5 minutes; one minute we're in the desert, next minute we're in a torrential downpour, and more. The whole setup was so rigged, I actually found myself paying close attention to sunlight & shadows on the cardboard characters' faces. Questions such as: How can that guy see in the desert with the sun in his eyes? Are they really travelling south, based on which way the shadows are cast?
2. Do I care about the story?
No way! I don't think I had ever seen a Randolph Scott movie before, unless in childhood. But that song has been with me all my life, "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott, ridin' them trails alone?..." So I figured I'd check out Randolph Scott hunting down 7 bad guys, just for a look. Otherwise, I wouldn't have lasted more than 15-20 minutes. By the end of the film, I didn't really care how things turned out. Without spoiling, I will say I was mostly engaged in predicting what would happen (as opposed to simply watching what happened) -- I got 100% of my predictions right!
3. Do I believe the characters?
Not really, with one exception: Lee Marvin's character, Masters. I hated him -- and since he was the villain, that's exactly the way I was supposed to feel about him. A nasty old scoundrel from the Wild West. Yep, I believed Lee Marvin!
4. Do I care about the characters?
No. I wanted to care about Randolph Scott, 'cause he does seem like a cool dude type, right from the start, and his mission was righteous. Naturally, Mrs. Greer is pleasing to the eye, and Gail Russell did the job she was hired to do, but nothing more. On a positive note, I did care about Lee Marvin's Masters. He was the villain, and I was rooting against him, as I was supposed to. A pretty straightforward villain, but very well played, nonetheless.
Overall, I'm disappointed, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance -- the only reason I scored this movie 4/10 and not lower. I strongly disagree with the 7.5 out of 10 rating which enabled me to watch the movie. I believe that average rating to be exaggerated sentimentalism. Indeed, even I began by giving this movie 6 out of 10 -- but realized I had done so for two reasons: (1) I almost felt duty-bound not to give it a lower rating, given its status as a "classic western"; and (2) I know IMDb applies a weight to ratings -- which works in the case of Bollywood and such -- but I honestly felt that giving "Seven Men From Now" the rating I truly felt would somehow diminish the value of my vote. The more I think about it -- even the title is contrived. Most or all negative connotations of "Hollywood" as being a contrived industrial production of cinema as opposed to art, are present in this movie, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance.
My recommendation: Don't waste your time with this one!
Man of the West (1958)
Terrible -- one reason why the "golden age" had to end!
What a disappointing film! I only watched it for 2 reasons: (1) Gary Cooper; and (2) IMDb score >7. Getting right into my basic criteria for movie watching:
1. Do I believe the story?
What story? What kind of story could you expect from a title "Man of the West". May as well have been called "Generic Western Studio Prodution #27,586". Is there a story in all of this? Famous guy under contract (to the studio), sexy lady with some revealing shots (for the "golden age"). A goofball, a foil, some recollections of a past that was thrown together -- reformed bad guy unexpectedly reunited with his old gang, led by his "uncle" who has a soft spot for him? How convenient that the train robbery -- supposedly "in the middle of nowhere" -- occurred so close to home!
This is the worst of the "golden age": Just throw something together with a sexy lady and make the tall famous actor appear in it. Let's see -- some guns, a robbery, a secret past -- just throw that in a pot, turn up the heat, stir --
2. Do I care about the story?
No story to care about, so -- ABSOLUTELY NOT!
3. Do I believe the characters?
A bunch of characters, none of which is particularly interesting or compelling.
4. Do I care about the characters?
I must admit, one character is more agreeable to look at than the others. Otherwise, who cares? I can't believe I watched the whole thing.
Thank God the "golden age" ended! Without a doubt, it produced some great films, but the formulaic storyline & script were just too tempting for the good of the art form!
War on Everyone (2016)
Crazy friggin' movie... I loved it!
I agree with the review "Unstructured Mess," by Greg from Ontario.
Except I come to a much different conclusion: This is simply cinema showing us the utter meaninglessness of it all -- not necessarily a point I agree or disagree with. So we must endure it all, strange, bizarre, baffling, stupid, ridiculous, and so on, all in the midst of an utter wasteland. As such, we can only live in the present moment, the best we can.
The soundtrack is over the top, with its Latino/Rock/Glen Campbell mix. The music makes the meaninglessness bearable!
So as Greg from Ontario writes, it's pure, unstructured mess.
In my opinion, that gives you two choices:
Take it or leave it!
View from a Blue Moon (2015)
Mediocre home movie... worst surf movie I've ever seen!
Talk about disappointing!
I haven't watched a surf move since I was a teenager, when I used to watch them during my summers at the beach. Why not take a moment and see what's new?
Ooh, aah... first 4k surf video -- so what? The footage goes on and on and on, aimlessly. Any video editor around here? We've got one tube after another, and another, and... another... ad nauseum. Ditto for the handful of other maneuvers displayed.
Then we travel -- why bother? Did we travel because travel is so cheap in the modern world? Did we make a surf movie because our buddy has a camera with 4k video? Give me a break!
I have 4 criteria for movie viewing:
1. Do I believe the story?
2. Do I care?
3. Do I believe the characters?
4. Do I care about the characters?
I need 4 "Yes" answers to watch a movie. In the case of View from a Blue Moon, the result is horrendous:
1. Do I believe the story? What story? No story in this film!
2. Do I care? I wanted to care, but there's no story to care about.
3. Do I believe the characters. YES! Of course I believe them. The protagonist is a real person.
4. Do I care about the characters? Well, yes, but I care about the characters IN SPITE OF the film, not because of it.
I was going to give this movie 2 out of 10, but I've downshifted to 1 out of 10 - - AWFUL - for two reasons:
First, this movie was so awful, I couldn't even get through half of it. I was out before 30 minutes, and the only reason I lasted that long was because I wanted to like it. I hoped it would get better. Unfortunately, in my experience, if a movie starts out bad, it very rarely gets better.
Second, it seems like populism is the result of all of this social media combined with widely available, easily affordable Audio-Visual toys. North Shore surfer dude whose buddy has a camera with 4k?
That's preposterous -- next thing you know, more of these dude & dude's buddy with 4k-made monstrosities are going to be on IMDb -- and that's truly unfortunate for us film lovers!!!
Bottom line: This is a home movie -- How did it ever get played before my eyes? How did it ever get a page on IMDb?
Cinema is in sad shape until these issues are resolved!
The Accountant (2016)
Ben Affleck is the new Paul Newman
I was so impressed by "The Accountant" on so many levels, I had to watch it a second time 3 days after the first viewing.
On second viewing, I found the movie to be just OK -- perhaps worthy of 6.5 stars, which I might round up to 7. The script is average -- with plenty of interesting bits, but too much cliché and/or formulaic dialog. The story is fairly engaging, with some interesting surprises and developments.
On the more positive side, the cinematography is excellent. In particular, the way in which composition is used to drive home the feeling of Ben Affleck's character, allows the viewer to see the world as does a type of person so often alienated in society. In a post-Rain Man world, we can feel compassion for full-on, dysfunctional people with autism, but the Aspies remain misunderstood pariahs, largely because they are highly functional in society, leaving regular folks to wonder why they are such weirdos, why they can't just "act normal like everybody else," why they always, "say such strange things." Who understands them the least? Their nearest sibling, who thinks, "we share the same DNA -- why is my brother/sister so weird? Can that happen to me? Will my children turn out like him/her?" The populist math peppered throughout the film helps, but it's just arithmetic, something any normal person can relate to. Arithmetic doesn't bring the average person close to seeing the world thru the eyes of an Aspy whose mind is formatted with Diff EQ (Differential Equations). The cinematography, however, with its striking patterns & colors, opens the door to that world for the viewer to have a look; it allows the viewer to empathize.
The soundtrack, "To Leave Something Behind" juxtaposed with Rostropovich's interpretation of the Prélude to Bach's Cello Suite No. 3 in particular, is quite appropriate and highly effective.
So why do I rate "The Accountant" 9 out of 10? Ben Affleck's performance is nothing short of extraordinary. It carries the movie, leaving me in thoughtful contemplation of all the Ben Affleck movies I've seen over the years.
My conclusion? Ben Affleck takes me to the kind of place that Paul Newman does, particularly in terms their unique ability to create instant connection and empathy with complex characters. Three minutes of gesture, movement, and speaking by Affleck or Newman suffice to bring a character in a movie to life for me. I believe "The Accountant" is Affleck's most singular display of that singular ability.
Greater (2016)
Greater than most, but could have been greater still
Greater is a great movie -- greater than most, in my opinion. Christopher Severio, Neal McDonough, and Leslie Easterbrook, as well as the supporting cast playing Brandon's High School & Arkansas coaches achieved resounding success in making this film believable, and its real-life characters empathetic in every sense.
Be that as it may, I couldn't bring myself to give it nine stars, for three reasons in order of importance to me, from least to most:
1. I wanted to see a bit of Brandon overcoming some of his early obstacles. In particular, his growth spurt between high school and college seemed instantaneous, as if somebody had just clicked "supersize" on his body, and he was suddenly one inch taller and 80 pounds heavier. 30-90 seconds would have sufficed to show me, rather than tell me.
2. Some parts of the script were a bit gushing with sentimentality, when there was absolutely no need for any melodrama in this story.
3. In keeping with the bit of melodrama, I felt "The Farmer" who taunted grieving Marty was absolutely unnecessary. Was this person really there, doing that? I don't know, and I don't care. He's inserted into the movie in a way that seems like editorializing, rather than adding to the story. If a character isn't driving home the story, he or she should be eliminated from it, especially given the length of the film.
To close out this criticism sandwich of a review, these minor flaws kept me stuck at 8.3 stars for "Greater," unable to round up to a 9-star rating. It's still a great movie. In particular, the intense sadness of the ending was much deeper than expected. After all, I reckon most viewers know how Brandon's life ends before they watch the movie -- it's explicitly stated in the Storyline for this IMDb page. Even so, the depth of emotion portrayed caused me to recollect the sadness of loss of close loved ones in my own life, and how much better I feel the world would be if they were still around, instead of abruptly removed from it as they were. The ending itself drives home that emotional connection (without requiring an extraneous character to spoon feed it to me).
Eight stars!
Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong (2015)
I also wanted to like this movie...
I'm always up for a romantic comedy that rates 6.5 on IMDb, if I feel the topic is relevant, which is how I managed to suffer Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong to the end.
Unfortunately, the problems with this film are fundamental and irremediable:
1. Cinematography. Was this shot with iPhone? Angles, composition, depth of field, all demonstrate a complete lack of aesthetics, sullying the beauty of Hong Kong that lie right before it in practically every scene. Two points serve to illustrate: (1) Before the first scene even begins, the blurry look with colored bokeh shapes -- I knew I should have turned it off! (2) When they're standing in front of the harbor, talking about the beauty of the sea line -- it looks atrocious, blurred out in the background. Multiply similar observations by every scene.
2. Dialog. Pure cliché. I wanted to be engaged in this interesting story line -- but we're looking at pure cheesy dialog from the 20th century -- old and moldy.
3. Soundtrack. Right on par with cinematography and dialog: Uninspired cliché. Poor music, and badly edited.
Do what I should have done: Don't even bother with Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong, despite the catchy title and interesting story line!!
El field. (2011)
Pristine, Life-Size
A great documentary should document, not persuade or conceptually explain the world to me. It should show me a piece of life I might otherwise not have access to. If it's effective, the vicarious experience will feel real. Ultimately, I, the viewer, will feel more connected to life as a whole.
By this guideline, "El Field" is a surprising, refreshing view of the lives of Mexican migrant workers that allows the viewer to step into their world, to join them on the bus ride from Mexicali to the industrial farm in California where they work, performing their normal, day to day activities, and taking a tour, beholding all the beauty that lies therein, the beauty of the prosaic, the beauty of the bucolic, the beauty that is life.
When I stood up to leave the theater at the end of the film, I felt as though I had spent the day with a friend who had taken me along with them to work. In my heart, I felt the beauty underlying their daily work routine.
Highly recommended!