IMDb रेटिंग
6.7/10
16 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
एक प्रतिष्ठित पत्रकार से वृत्तचित्रकार बने व्यक्ति अतीत, वर्तमान और अपने मैक्सिकन पहचान के साथ सामंजस्य स्थापित करने के लिए एक आत्मनिरीक्षण यात्रा पर जाते हैं.एक प्रतिष्ठित पत्रकार से वृत्तचित्रकार बने व्यक्ति अतीत, वर्तमान और अपने मैक्सिकन पहचान के साथ सामंजस्य स्थापित करने के लिए एक आत्मनिरीक्षण यात्रा पर जाते हैं.एक प्रतिष्ठित पत्रकार से वृत्तचित्रकार बने व्यक्ति अतीत, वर्तमान और अपने मैक्सिकन पहचान के साथ सामंजस्य स्थापित करने के लिए एक आत्मनिरीक्षण यात्रा पर जाते हैं.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- 1 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 17 जीत और कुल 50 नामांकन
Íker Sánchez Solano
- Lorenzo
- (as Iker Solano)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Director Alejandro Iñarritu has reached a point in his career where he gave himself the opportunity to create a film based on his own life and his existential crisis with living between two cities. The city of Los Angeles, and Mexico City which is the one he had to "escape" in order to grow as a person, leaving his loved ones and his origins.
Actor Daniel Gimenez Cacho portrays the image of Iñárritu in a series of events that affected his life. At the same time, the story makes references to a beautiful, corrupted Mexico that the director needed to leave behind because of its cultural and political decadence. It is not a film for everyone, since not only someone who has not seen what Mexico was and has become could notice it, but someone who does not know the director's life could identify with it, given the fact that the movie is all about resemblances to those two.
But the cinematography of the movie itself makes the story worth of telling.
If you want to watch this movie expecting entertainment, you won't enjoy it. But if you are open to see and listen to what the director wants to tell about his personal life and what Mexico means to him, then you will love it.
People will say this movie is pretentious and narcissistic.. but, is it?
If you had the money and the opportunity to film an important part of your life and you want to express the love you feel for your country of origin , would you do it?
Me the writer, I would.
Is the movie perfect? It's not.
Is the movie beautifully done? It is.
Will people like it? It will depend on who's watching.
Actor Daniel Gimenez Cacho portrays the image of Iñárritu in a series of events that affected his life. At the same time, the story makes references to a beautiful, corrupted Mexico that the director needed to leave behind because of its cultural and political decadence. It is not a film for everyone, since not only someone who has not seen what Mexico was and has become could notice it, but someone who does not know the director's life could identify with it, given the fact that the movie is all about resemblances to those two.
But the cinematography of the movie itself makes the story worth of telling.
If you want to watch this movie expecting entertainment, you won't enjoy it. But if you are open to see and listen to what the director wants to tell about his personal life and what Mexico means to him, then you will love it.
People will say this movie is pretentious and narcissistic.. but, is it?
If you had the money and the opportunity to film an important part of your life and you want to express the love you feel for your country of origin , would you do it?
Me the writer, I would.
Is the movie perfect? It's not.
Is the movie beautifully done? It is.
Will people like it? It will depend on who's watching.
Bardo is probably the most misunderstood film of 2022, and the most divisive. What surprises me, though, is how much critics dismissed it last year. This is Alejandro Innaritu's first film in 7 years, and he returns by reminding us just how much of a visual magician he is. This is, in my mind, the most gorgeous looking film of 2022. From the first minute, Bardo puts you in a trance. I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. Darius Khondji's work should have earned him an Oscar. Conceptually, Bardo is 8 1/2 by way of Terrence Malik, but all the same, it's Innaritu's stream of consciousness and it feels so devastatingly alive. If there is one criticism to be had, is that maybe this film shouldn't have relied on so much self-flagellation. Silverio seems to be ridiculed by everyone around him, and by the film itself. Was this a way to justify the film's existence? Did Bardo have to criticize itself so that it could be as freewheeling and experimental as it wanted to be? Because honestly, it doesn't have to. Or maybe AGI's just laid all of his thoughts, negative and positive, stark naked here, regardless of whether or not we'd understand it. You could analyze the film to kingdom come, or you could just let it wash over you. I'd rather just do the latter.
After finishing this film, I sit in an empty theater, reflecting on what I have seen. The essence of this deeply personal message floating just under the surface of the film is complex. What should I think? Or more important, what should I feel?
I can only answer as a man who has lived over 60 years. I witnessed many "shared" moments in the film, images and memories where I look back on my life and either smile or shed a tear.
The beauty in this film lies in its "truth" which to me is the honest self reflection on a life spent. We all only have a certain amount of life to spend. No do overs. So when we all approach the waning moments of our lives, we look back on those little life pleasures, the painful moments, and the regrets we all have.
And the TRUTH of our own individual lives flashes before us all.
I can only answer as a man who has lived over 60 years. I witnessed many "shared" moments in the film, images and memories where I look back on my life and either smile or shed a tear.
The beauty in this film lies in its "truth" which to me is the honest self reflection on a life spent. We all only have a certain amount of life to spend. No do overs. So when we all approach the waning moments of our lives, we look back on those little life pleasures, the painful moments, and the regrets we all have.
And the TRUTH of our own individual lives flashes before us all.
Bardo is a very interesting film. What I admire most about it is Innaritu's craftsmanship and artistic merit that he was able to foster. However, that is also my main criticism with the film. It's a bit too artsy for its own good. In other words, it is somewhat pretentious. I believe Innaritu didn't even know what he was going for thematically. I'm fine with films having a long runtime. They just have to be paced well. Of course the pacing is not good here. It could have benefited from a shorter runtime. Overall, I thought Bardo was fine, but the unfocused narrative and bad pacing is what really holds it back from being great for me.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAlejandro G. Iñárritu returned to shoot and produce a film entirely in Mexico for the first time since Amores perros (2000) over twenty years ago.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटDuring the last part of the end credits, we hear someone whistling. Supposedly, it's the song that Silverio kept trying to remember from his childhood.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनFollowing the Venice and Telluride Film Festivals, Iñárritu removed 22 minutes from the film, making the released version 159 minutes.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in 95वां वार्षिक अकादमी पुरस्कार (2023)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Playa Balandra, Baja California Sur, मेक्सिको(Scattering of ashes)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $38,190
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 39 मि(159 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें