Crónica de un desayuno

This film is very weird and sad, it makes you laught sometimes and sometimes you just dont know what to think,Its a mixture of ideas and cliches of old cinema in Mexico, plus culture, chilango speaking (capital city way of talking) and everything you can possibly come up with thinking people is gonna think its deep while it really is STUPID! I love how this actress Helena Rojo does an amazing work in the laught-Cry Pedro Infante Style, its a great homage and she really pulls it off in a great manner, the bichir guy (don´t know his name cause hes like a Baldwin but in Mexico)is o.k in his portray of himself when he was 9 years old, his siter is Hot, his dad is Mad, his little bro is great as a matter of fact for his role, check him out as he asks his siter if she wants "bread", love sosme moments hate another ones, and whats the deal with that darn candle they all hold sometimes in the film? Check it out and if you really hate it well you just had a bad experience but if you like it....i know a dozen crappy films like it here in mexico, just check out my film comment history, bye.

A waste of good actors in a project that has no sense nor depth Pretentious and senseless - with "scandalous - shocking" scenes and story lines that don't add up to anything of significance

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but "Cronica para un desayuno" could be one of the most gretatest films in tne mexican movie history for a lot of reasons. We can get a lot of ingredients for a perfect mexican middle-class family breakfast: a cup of Buñuel's surrealistic motifs with a little drop of Ripstenian desolated scenarios; a pound of phallus symbols around the film and a difficult psychological complexity, more than Todd Solondz's Happiness and the Dogma movement films. There`s a lot of sordidness, black humor, repressed dreams (Teodoro's dream of fly), incestual lack of control (the relation between Marcos and Luzma), no-sense parallel stories, a discrete violence, anachronisms and

a little sign of hope (spotlighted in Luzma, the husband's home return and "Un poco Mas" used for leit-motif). Marcos (Bruno Bichir) is a charming character ( I think in a Bukoskian way), the king-without a-crown who don't expects for anything, but broken noses. Luzma (Maria Rojo) , the lovable wife , put out a lot of faces, but the only thing that she worried is that her sons had breakfast; she' s a loser in many ways and sensual in few moments , but you will fall in love of her. The soundtrack's drag (too much woods) feeds the lack of technical merits, intentional , of course: out-of-focus shots, overlighted close-ups (in introspective scenes), dizzy pans and sudden edition cuts. "Crónica" is something difficult to digest, it get stuck in the throat and anything helps for it. It tastes bitter, like a rotten orange juice and sour like expired milk, but you want to enjoy it. So I recommend to get some Melox before the show, because you won't get hungry after all.

Some people prefer to see blue walls and some others red ones. Some people choose to see the truth, some prefer to be blind folded because the truth hurts. This is a film made with balls. You need them to break conventional modes of film making. If you consider most of Hollywood film are worth two hours of your time, then this film should not be in your plans. Is a brain and heart teaser film. Is a film about Mexicans and its painful as well as reliever. This is film revolution. This is real. Keep making films like this! Keep upsetting people, they need it. Bravo!!

Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.

It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.

It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.

Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.

There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.

It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.

It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.

Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.

In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"