User Reviews

Clearly most of the newer reviews are from people who haven't seen films like "Funny Games" (or hated it). All of them completely miss the point of "Nuevo Orden."

"New Order" isn't *only* a commentary on class or race in Mexico, although it is based in part on that. This is a film about how tyrannical militarized governments will sow division and cynically foment what looks like organic protest which they then co-opt and cover up and then seize more power. Recall the rapidity with which the police and workers were instructed to clean up the scene of the wedding massacre to avoid bad PR the day after it happened.

*************Spoilers Ahead*************

This film was a straightforward take on the brutal violence that Mexico's mostly white upper class will allow to unfold among the poor, mostly indigenous population so long as it doesn't touch their lavish lives and serene existence, free of concern for how to put the next meal on the table. This has been playing out in that country for going on two decades in the form of the cartel wars and the corruption of the military and police forces who are either outgunned or paid to look the other way when dozens of people are slaughtered and their bodies hung up on overpasses as a message to rival cartels - AND - the government.

"Nuevo Orden" demonstrates, in a short 1 hour and 24 minutes, how military dictatorships are a common next logical step when corruption and violence is allowed to run amok in one class of citizens who are given no voice in government and no economic options available to climb out of utter poverty other than to participate in the illicit, hyper-violent drug trade. Nobody, not even the soldiers who are part of the system, is safe. Mexico is even more stratified than the USA, especially to the indigenous non-European population with scarcely any "middle class" such as it manifests in so-called first world countries.

As long as the majority lower classes (and lower middle class members of the military) know and stay in their place, either outside of the view of the wealthy or as humble servants to the wealthy, things continue to run somewhat smoothly. But that degree of wealth inequality combined with a societal tolerance for extreme violence confined mostly (for now) to the lower classes and governmental/military corruption is not sustainable or stable. This film shows us one possible outcome for when the lower classes get fed up and there is already a burgeoning extra-legal corrupt militaristic apparatus in place to be co-opted by the power hungry individuals in it. Among the plebes it's every man and woman for themselves while the chiefs of the "new order" enact martial law and engage in hyper vigilance of the lower classes and use deadly profit seeking kidnapping and ransom demands against the upper class to enrich themselves and cement their power.

At first I was unsure what the motive might have been for killing the bride to be after the already exorbitant ransom was paid and then another ransom payment was delivered. I also thought to myself that this is an unsustainable order - if they keep killing people whose ransoms have been paid, why would anyone continue to pay ransom demands? It seemed unnecessary and cruel to the viewer as well as illogical, but I wasn't thinking from the perspective of a fascistic government or military junta wanting to hide the brutality they commit behind the scenes from wealthy citizens whose businesses and taxes are necessary to keep any country intact. I recalled the scene when the family took the ransom video to the military's command station and they were grilled by the commanders about how many other people had seen this video. What the girl endured in that awful prison could not be allowed to be told to society at large, so they killed her and framed the family's help for the murder. This furthered the class divide that gives the new military overlords their power by shifting the blame from their own atrocities to the lower classes. The hanging scene was another example of how violence and death can be used to satisfy the desire for deadly "justice" for the wealthy who have become the patrons of the military leaders. Something not too far from this scenario has played out in numerous post-colonial Latin American countries since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine. The USA and the wealthy in those places tolerate a certain degree of death, violence and injustice meted out to the lower classes and "traitors" so long as it doesn't directly affect them.

In that sense, the film comes full circle - the uprising was allowed to happen, but only long enough for the military's leaders to justify their totalitarian new order and to keep up the appearance of justice and impartiality (both to Mexican citizens and the outside world), they continue the cycle of violence in a way to externalize the blame for their brutality onto one class or the other. So the country is just as divided as when the poor revolted.

All in all a very thought provoking film that many people will dismiss or criticize because they're looking for a happy ending or for true justice to ultimately be served. That's why I compared it to "Funny Games" to start this review. It's not intended as feel good or good prevails over evil, entertainment. It's a harsh lesson to its viewers that things aren't as stable or sustainable as they might be made to seem, especially in a place like Mexico which is already hyper-stratified and ultra-violence is either tolerated or glorified depending on which stratum you belong to.

One other lesson - whether it was intended or not - is that when only the criminals and military have arms (guns) and ammunition, the soft bourgeoise is defenseless in the event they are victimized. Another "Funny Games" parallel. If the rich families and middle class business owners had been armed, it is unlikely that the events of the film could have proceeded along the same path.

Stylistically it was very professionally choreographed and presented. The cinematography, staging and soundtrack were all very engaging and professionally done. This makes sense as the cinematographer is the same guy who did "Holy Motors" and other high production value films. The writer/director's influences were also apparent. I saw a bit of Kubrick (green paint flowing like the red blood in "The Shining") and there were some Michael Haneke touches. Some of the scenes could have come from a Danny Boyle movie.

I do have a few minor complaints - For one, the extras in the rioting and subsequent martial law street scenes often looked extremely amateur and inaccurate. There were several of them that I'd swear were Americans too, including a blonde man and woman. That was inconsistent with the message that after the riots had ended and the military assumed control/instilled order, the wealthy mostly white Mexican citizens were back in their gated communities, burying their dead and expecting justice. I understand that there are in fact white people in Mexico because I practically grew up there, but there were just too many of them in the streets to be believable. Again, minor complaint.

My other complaint is that by adding a few extra minutes/scenes to the film, the director could have avoided a lot of the criticism I'm seeing in the negative reviews where people clearly didn't understand what was really taking place and I admit that at first, I didn't either. Certain events seemed illogical and unbelievable without further consideration. But perhaps that was the point. Shock the viewer into doing some deeper thinking about what they just watched and keep it short (but not sweet). Clearly that failed with a number of very fragile individuals leaving childish one-star reviews that I'd encourage the more open minded to ignore. By this point I've already laid out most of the movie's plot, and anyone not wanting spoilers won't have read this far, but if you have, I still recommend this film.

This movie, directed, protagonized and produced by white high class Mexicans, depicts white high class Mexicans as victims of indigenous low class Mexicans pictured as blood thirsty barbarians. 500 years of history shows that it has been the opposite.

This was a HARD sell for me. It was a gruesome look at how easily tables can be turned and things could go bad. I do say it was very believable up until a point. Not sure what the point of saving the girl was when they just turned around and made it look like the other family shot her. Why not just let the soldiers kill her, this was an undeniably HUGE whole in the plot and made the rest of the movie not worth it. If you have a weak stomach or a heart at all this one will be hard to see. I will not be recommending this movie to anyone I know and for me it was just ok watching it once and NEVER again. You will either love this one or hate it.

Normally I do not over-analyze a film, however, being a film that has to portray a political and social context, it is extremely important to note all the elements, however, this film has nothing to analyze, it uses elements that were never explained, a An example of this is the green paint at the beginning. The story never explains anything of what is happening, if it is a social struggle, it is IMPORTANT, to know why it happened, how it developed and why the characters do what they do, but the director shows a bit of ignorance by assuming that all movements are the same, they never explain why the social movement. During the course of the film, they go from a social movement to a militarized state or what looks like a coup, where they rape and kill everyone for no reason. the direction is horrible, full of meaningless scenes and unnecessarily lengthened. There are so many things wrong with the film, my recommendation is, don't waste your time watching it, but that would be wrong, watch it and generate your opinion, but know that you are going to lose an hour and a half of your life. although I must admit that the first 30 minutes are decent, but they are ruined for the rest of the movie.

I think overall the movie was quite good as a thriller. I think the political angle at first seems to lean very much towards the "rich are good, poor are bad and revolt". But, considering the movie after it had finished, I figured that the director did not want to.portray the poor as the aggressor. I realized this because of one particular scene in the movie, a seemingly non essential event at first, where Victor and his family leave the wedding early. If you think about this, the rest makes more sense and it gives the plot an interesting twist, which makes the movie better than I thought right after it finished.

Quick, thought provoking, disturbing, no happy endings. This will require more then one watching too. Dont listen to neg reviews. Open your eyes.