User Reviews

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.

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.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free thoughts, please follow my blog to read my full review :)

"Bardo works best when it focuses on the dynamics between father, mother, and children regarding immigration and how this drastic life change impacts each member of the family nucleus. Alejandro G. Iñárritu takes advantage of all the awe-inspiring technical elements to build a story worthy of the big screen but lacks tonal consistency and narrative control.

"Historical" recreations with q.b. Surrealism only makes the runtime feel heavier, and if it wasn't for Darius Khondji's superb cinematography along with exceptional set and sound design, this film would have been in trouble.

Fortunately, there's a lot more to be enjoyed than to feel frustrated."

Rating: B.

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.

What a terrible shame that BARDO is only gonna be shown on Netflix. Although Netflix produced this year's greatest films, it's a shame that those films will never play on the big screens. So you can imagine how honoured and grateful I was to attend a preview of BARDO with Alejandro G. Inarritu, one of my favourite directors of all time, who came himself and presented his film. You could tell how happy he was to present the film, as it clearly is his most personal and intimate work to date.

I was hoping for the best, but didn't expect too much as the film received quite mixed first reviews from Venice and other previews. That's why I wasn't prepared for the journey Inarritu would take me on for the next three hours. BARDO isn't only easily the best film of the year so far, it was also one of the most beautiful and profound cinematic experiences I've had in my life - that's the reason why I started my review by saying that it's a shame most people will only experience this on their TV. It's really a shame. The images Inarritu and his godlike DoP Darius Khondji produce here are far beyond incredible. The first half hour of the film, I constantly had goosebumps because of the sheer beauty of this film. I often say that I deeply appreciate when a film invents new, unseen images, when the team behind the film almost invent a new cinematic language. They absolutely do here.

The film might feel too long for some, pretentious for others, but it was just the film I was waiting for since a long time, not knowing I was until I've watched it. It was one of these rare films which I didn't ever want to end, and the fact that I knew it was going to run for three hours actually comforted me many times throughout the sublime time I had watching this.

BARDO is undoubtedly Inarritu's most ambitious film yet, this film feels - and is - HUGE. It's an incredible homage to the country Mexico (I've sat through the whole endless credits and he literally only hired Mexicans to work on this film), but moreover, it's one of the most touching and honest films about family. Where in many films depicting family relationships can feel cheesy and superfluous, here it really worked, and moved me in a way no other film did. That is also due to the fact that all actors are nothing less than absolutely outstanding. Led by the revelation of the year, Daniel Giménez Cacho, who plays the role of Silverio and easily carries the very heavy weight of this opus on his shoulders, the film already had a complex character who you could easily identify with. But every actor until the last smallest supporting role was cast perfectly and contributed to this film.

Bardo reads like a poem, as Inarritu speaks in metaphors one more beautiful and thoughtful than the other. It's layered, complex, absurd, dreamlike, moving, breathtakingly beautiful, visionary and ambitious - one of the best films I've seen in my life and a film which will have a place in my heart for a very long time.

Greetings again from the darkness. Many filmmakers mine their own lives for projects, making their work personal, revealing, and sometimes invasive. It's easy to label these works as narcissistic, and by definition, that would be accurate. However, some of the finest films from our most interesting writer-directors fall into the autobiographical (or semi-autobiographical) category. Examples include Fellini's 8 ½ (1963), Cameron Crowe's ALMOST FAMOUS, and Woody Allen's STARDUST MEMORIES. This time it's Oscar winner Alejandro Inarritu looking inward. Inarritu won his Oscars for THE REVENANT (2015), and his previous nominations include BIRDMAN (2014) and BABEL (2006), and those are in addition to his other standouts: BIUTIFUL (2010), 21 GRAMS (2003), and AMORES PERROS (2000). He's joined on this project by his BIUTIFUL and BIRDMAN co-writer, Nicolas Giacobone.

The film begins with a Terrence Malick-like dream sequence of a man leaping and flying through the desert as his shadow follows below. Next, we see a woman giving birth in a hospital as her husband lends support. Only this time, the mother and doctor agree that the baby didn't want to come out, so they put him "back in." The father is Silverio (Daniel Gimenez Cacho, (BAD EDUCATION 2004, CRONOS 1993), and it's quite obvious he is representing our real-life director, Mr. Inarritu. A few years later we are informed that Silverio, a respected journalist and documentarian, has become the first Mexican selected for a prestigious award in the United States.

Griselda Siciliani plays Lucia, Silverio's wife, and she is integral to his life, yet we witness much of his life outside of their relationship. The film struck me as a metaphysical exercise as an artist turns his lens into selfie mode. It seems as though Inarritu is coming to grips ... and sharing his philosophy with us ... that emotions drive the reality of our truth. Stated another way, truth is an illusion of emotion. Our emotion skews how we view everything. Additionally, he examines (his own) midlife crisis, and the corresponding insecurities, dreams, fantasies, and doubts. And since much of this occurs in his native Mexico, spiritual and cultural aspects enter into what we see, as does the uncertainty of time as an element.

Inarritu and cinematographer Darius Khondji capture some startling imagery, including a sequence on the dance floor, a segment where bodies drop in the street, and a bag of Axolotls being held on the train. Much of the film has a surreal look and feel, but then there are moments that are more emotionally grounded - like the terrific rooftop exchange between Silverio and his friend Luis (Francisco Rubio). In contrast to that heartfelt conversation, there are the moments when Silverio seems to be heard by others without his speaking. "Move your mouth when you speak", he is told ... yet, his thoughts are conveyed.

The use of sound is masterful, and is crucial to numerous scenes. A second watch will allow me to more fully appreciate this aspect. However, at two hours and thirty-nine minutes, Inarritu likely had many thoughts and ideas, and we find ourselves wishing things were a bit tighter on the editing side. Still, while the film may be self-indulgent and ego-driven, it's also spectacular and stunning filmmaking. There are some slyly comedic touches, and the best may when this Netflix production doesn't shy away from taking a jab at its competitor, Amazon.

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 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.

Inarritu's most famous film, Birdman, got a lot of grief from some viewers because of its elements of magical realism, but it was mostly grounded in an engaging, fast-paced backstage story that kept the audience's attention.

Unfortunately, this movie does not have the same energy. There is very little in the way of plot or character development. There are a lot of surreal, dream-like sequences and references to Mexican history that are lost on this gringo. There is some beautiful cinematography and music, but it's not nearly enough to keep me interested for 2.5 hours.

It's telling that the tag-line for this movie on IMBD contains the word "oneiric", which I had to look up in the dictionary. That tells you what audience this movie is aimed at, and it doesn't include me.

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.

The merits of Bardo are in its exploration of meta realism and its arduous yet adventurous take on surrealistic expressions of art. Furthermore, the distinctive pictorial palette intensifies the same concept and spreads Iñárritu's perspective on his life, his past, and on his conscience.

However, whenever he tried to deviate from his main course of fulfilling its responsibilities as a semi-autobiography, a drama whose sole goal is to exhibit meta conscience, he seemed to have lost his grip, his control on the rhythm as well as on the accumulated momentum. The exposition-heavy discourses in the middle did not seem to provide any assistance either.

Having said that, this is specifically catered for the fans of the niche genre, who appreciate such oddities, such bizarre yet tantalising visions of a filmmaker in the form of an tangible art, in the shape of a motion picture, and I am confident they will cherish this experience.

This movie seems to be heavily influenced by Fellini (8 1/2, La Dolce Vita, Giulietta degli Spiriti) and Bergman (Wild Strawberries, Winter Light, The Silence), Bob Fosse (All That Jazz), Orson Welles (Citizen Kane). It's virtually a pastiche. Parts of it were interesting (even though I'd seen them before in better films), but it meanders a great deal and has some boring patches. The story is pretty mundane: a maverick film-maker prepares to receive an award and reminisces about how he got where he is. A newborn son died about 20 years earlier after living only 30 hours, but the filmmaker and his wife are still grieving. That's a subplot that has nothing to do with the rest of the film. The filmmaker does a lot of thinking about what it means to be a Mexican. He has chosen to live in the U. S. but still has Mexican identity, which he is very defensive about. Not a lot really happens, although there are some spectacular images with a lot of fancy camera work and CGI. I think young people who have never seen any of the films it copies will be impressed, but those who have a good background in film history will find it imitative. The scenes that interested me most were the ones of the hordes of migrants headed toward the US to enter illegally. The visual elements of the film are impressive, but superfluous. Take away the gimmicks and there's not much there.

I'm giving it a 7 mainly for its excellent cinematography and good acting by the entire cast .... BUT not for the director and his pitifully pretentious and indulgent misdirections.

Yes yes we get it - it's supposed to be the bardo in-between land - but so what? So it can't be done meaningfully? So it has to contain the director's endless pretentious crap?

Having obscure nonsensical scenes doesn't in anyway make a movie better - it just pushes it into the stinky toilet.

Having unnecessarily long long long extended scenes (eg. The breakfast conversations, the dance floor, etc) with overly drawn out visual panning and pointless conversations way way past their plot utility only subtracts lots and lots from the viewers' experience.

Having so many unnecessary nude scenes just creates more droppings for the toilet.

In the end, the fine cinematography and acting can't overcome the loads and loads of laughable pretention.

Could have been a great movie, but just NOT at all. Too bad.

I'm a big fan of anything Alejandro González Iñárritu does, his films are usually around a rating of an 8 at least but for me, this one I'm giving a generous 6.

The film plays along nicely at times and gives me straight forward direction and understanding but then we get the artist side of Iñárritu that perhaps should of been left alone or left out of this film.

You're ahead in this film thinking it's a really good then throughout you find that you're actually one step behind.

The safer more generic and parts of the film are intriguing, they keep you content or even happy but then the 'moments' too many 'moments' we see are just too much for me.

Even understanding bits of the offbeat uneven track it makes for a difficult watch.

Saying all this I enjoyed big parts of the film but with the 'moments' it doesn't quite allow for me full enjoy the film entirely.

Daniel Giménez Cacho gives us in Bardo an infinite humanity with an undeniable mastery of art. His passive role in this case lends us with his eyes a channel to observe and respond to the various mind-boggling events he navigates, and he does so with a sincerity and apparent ease that makes it almost impossible for me not to connect with him. If the movie was just his acting, it would be a gift to all film lovers.

Bardo is about Mexico, success, immigrants, fatherhood, existentialism... but mostly i think it's talking about loss. The loss in all its senses, not only death, but the inevitable separation from everything in reality, because time, mind and life are so. And so the film's way of approaching human perception is supremely exciting, witty, visionary-like a lyrical, lucid illusion.

Bardo is not autobiographical, but, like any expression of art, it is a reflection of the author. In this case the conventions are dissolved to release something deeper, because when an artist exposes himself without barriers, delivering and exploring entirely the duality of self and things, that is when he can deliver something truly special. That is why the audacity with which Iñárritu exposes himself, when he could make any complacent film, is admirable.

The sincerity is so apparent that it can even give some aversion to some, because seeing someone so vulnerable can be very uncomfortable and thus create distance between us if we are not willing to empathize. But if we open up to these emotions, without judgments, they can also provide us with a sublime connection with all that is infinite, as well as attaching us to the essence of the collective experience of being human.

Iñárritu plunges on a deep introspective adventure without thinking twice because he knows the value of making art is through sharing an intimate perspective of the world. In this sense, any form of art, in its essence, can be self-therapy, and you feel Iñárritu in this film contending to invoke the existential questions of life.

The ending sequence of this movie is unforgettable.

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.

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.

What happens between lives? That's hard to say. In fact, those who go through the experience may not even realize that they're going through it when they do. They just might feel out of sorts or, more precisely, out of touch with the reality they've come to know so well. However, they could begin to realize and understand what's unfolding when they start assessing aspects of themselves to which they may not have previously given much consideration. Suddenly bells begin to go off when they introspectively examine matters like personal integrity; relationships with family, friends, colleagues and significant others; regrets and accomplishments; fulfilling one's potential; and what one might have done differently. If that sounds like the prototypical life review that so many spiritual schools of thought talk about, you could actually be on to something. But will you appreciate the insights that come from it? That's what an aging, respected Mexican journalist/documentary filmmaker experiences in this latest offering from writer-director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Drawing upon themes discussed in some of his earlier works, such as "Biutiful" (2010) and "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" (2014), the auteur takes things a step further in this outing, employing his signature flamboyant (some would say self-indulgent) style of filming and storytelling, though this time he places it on steroids. But what more fitting tactic could there be for a narrative set in the bardo, the world between worlds where, according to some Buddhist circles, we undergo the very process described here, only with abilities and perception skills far more advanced than what we make use of on the physical plane. It's a place/state of mind where individuals like the protagonist can allow their imaginations to run wild in the process of conducting the aforementioned analysis. The result is an eye-opening experience for the film's principal, not to mention viewers. One gets the sense that there's a lot of the director in his central character, too, which is why the material presented here often feels intensely personal. That's also probably what accounts somewhat for the picture's length, coming in at a runtime of 2:39:00, somewhat protracted for a story of this nature. That's especially true for much of the first hour, which could have been cut significantly without losing much (had the director done so, this probably would have received a higher rating). But, once this release finds its stride, it truly takes off as a great piece of cinema - one that's inventive, gorgeous to look at and well-acted and has something to say to boot. What more could a movie lover ask for? Iñárritu really is in his element here, at least for much of the final 90+ minutes, and that's more than good enough for me. Even though this offering probably won't appeal to everyone, I'd certainly love to see moviegoers give this one a fair shot. It deserves it - and so do you.

As "Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths" (2022 release from Mexico; 159 min) opens, we are introduced to Silverio, a documentarian who is returning to Mexico for the first time in decades. Along the way, his wife delivers a baby but the baby refuses and goes bank into the womb (no, really). It appears Sliverio has a difficlut time adjusting to being back in Mexico (and that would be the understatement of the year). At this point we are 10 minutes into the movie.

Couple of comments: this is the latest oeuvre (don't just call it a movie) from Mexican writer-producer-composer-editor-director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Let me add right away that I've seen ALL previous 6 of his films, and I loved them all, each one more than the other (including Birdman; The Revenant; 21 Grams). So I went into see "Bardo" with high expectations, and then was massively disappointed with what I saw. The movie made zero sense to me, none. It is not a "black comedy", it is not a "drama". In fact I've no idea what this is, other than a deeply personal and frankly narcissistic exercise. But not all is lost: the photography is outstanding (including numerous longshots), as is the score (yes, also by Inarritu). But that is not nearly enough to save this massively beautiful mess, but still a massive mess. There is god reason why "Bardo" is the lowest rated movie ever in Inarritu's career (currently only 58% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes).

"Bardo" premiered at the Venice Film Festival in early September to decidedly mixed reaction. After a short US theatrical run, it started streaming on Netflix last week. I just saw it last night. For those that reviewed this mess with an 8/10 or higher, good for you I suppose. I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to anyone, sorry. Of course don't take my word for it, so check it out and draw your own conclusion.

Director/Writer/Artist Alejandro G. Iñarritu it's at his best in terms of maturity and personal experience. The use of camera, sound mixing, music, editing, all stands out above the majority of this year's films. But above all, the direction stands out.

It was so refreshing seeing this movie at the theatre when they are full of dull action/superhero movies almost all the time. The Venice Film Festival version of Bardo was 15 minutes longer. This final cut feels just right. Also, Mexico City is portrayed with such beauty, ugliness and life, that it becomes a very important character in the film.

Easily the best artistic movie experience of the year.

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.

In Zen terminology, "Bardo" describes the state of consciousness between life and death. Alejandro Inarritu's movie is all about transitional phases. Personal and professional. Birth and death -- and all stages in between. It's autobiographical, but the subtitle dares one not to take it too literally: False Chronicles Of A Handful Of Truths.

Inarritu's alter ego here is Silverio (Daniel Gimenez Cacho), a documentary filmmaker who mixes in his personal opinions and dramatized events in his films. More specifically, he's a Mexican national now living in Santa Monica with his wife Lucia (Griselda Siciliani) and two children. Silverio's on the verge of receiving a prestigious journalism award from an American organization. He is feted by his Mexican colleagues, but draws the ire of one of his former associates, Luis (Francisco Rubio) who belittles him as a sellout. It's certainly reminiscent of the attacks on Michael Keaton's Riggan in BIRDMAN by the theater critic - a theme which obviously irks Inarritu. The larger concern is one of identity. Is Silverio a Latin American filmmaker or a Hollywood one? And, what of his family? Are they Mexican? American? Or, do they have to accept being an hyphenate? Have they taken the easy way out by living in California rather than remain in their homeland?

Working with Cinematographer Darius Khondji and shooting on 65mm digital, Inarritu certainly isn't wont for ambition. Dreams, fantasies and flashbacks are all captured across a wide canvas. The lines between reality and fiction are not only slim, they are virtually non-existent. When the movie debuted in Cannes, it was over 20 minutes longer than the current cut, which is still a luxurious 159 minutes. Some of the set-pieces are extravagant but, extremely well executed (the party, the talk show), while others simply befuddle (the Cortez sequence).

It's unclear in the end whether BARDO amounts to an ego trip or a guilt trip -- or some perverse approximation of both, but, compared with all the other autobiographical films being made recently by high profile Directors (FABELMANS, BELFAST, ARMAGEDDON TIME, LICORICE PIZZA etc.), Inarritu at the very least asks some probing questions of himself and the art form, and that's reason enough to see it.

Not everyone's cup of tea.

To be honest I am not sure if I completely understand this movie. This is definitely one of the most wierdest movie I have ever seen. A movie that gave me a experience close to this was joachim triers "the worst person in the world", but that movie was still understandable. This movie is just metaphor heavy, I understood a few of them, but I have not grasped it completely. There are few things I liked about the movie. The cinematography by Darius khondji is just amazing. The music is great. The set design and the way they have concived a few shots were amazing. Even though I couldn't understand what's happening sometimes on screen, I just stayed glued to it because of the amazing visuals. The director and writer Alejandro tries to show his views on the political and historical events that happened to mexicans and how even now there are racial and ethnic discrimination against mexicans in the states(thoes were the aspects that I could understand to an extent).

There were many scenes which I couldn't understand, for example, what does the scene from the metro train mean ?. There were scenes where a baby pops out in between and they try to push it back, what does that mean?. What does the opening shot of the movie mean?.

Definitely a very different kind of tripy movie, but I am not sure if I enjoyed it.