Reviews

It is easy to miss the point of this unique movie. I expected an adventure film and then got drawn into it as a slice of life (and death) in a Mexican village.

It is as if B Traven shows us what happens in the traditional village after the protagonists in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" leave. It is complete with John Houston playing his father's old codger role and well too. Difference is that this is a coastal and not a mountain village. The pace of the movie, measured, corresponds to the pace of life in the village. So don't expect a lot of action.

The movie throws a curve or two-- e.g., (spoiler alert) It turns out the protagonist is looking for the man who killed his father, who may be (but probably isn't) the John Houston character.

Shows well the odd rural Mexican combination of Catholicism plus traditional Indian religion and custom. Typical example-- A dance starts out as a stereotype Mexican fiesta danced to a poorly played fiddle and then ends up with dancers in croc and jaguar costume dancing something from the old religion.

(Spoiler alert) In the end, after making the earlier point that "oil destroys whole villages", the main character decides that the villagers life is not worth destroying for the odd oil well. Definitely worth viewing if you are into this sort of thing.

This film has its interesting moments. As a serious film buff I am glad I sat through it for these. However, there were several times I almost bolted. Be forewarned-- anyone who didn't go to film school may feel this film is a waste of time.

For example, the "Pores on the face of the peasant" reference is all too true--- Talk about artistic pretension and overdoing the closeups. Considering the intended audience ( not you ), it is no surprise that this movie has won the occasional film festival award.

However, this film has one potential utility-- if you need to convince the new girl friend that you have some special insight into film and a certain sympathy to women's problems, take her to see it. Don't worry, unless she is also trying to convince you that she is likewise some sort of film expert ( or even worse, really is one ) she will demand to leave 10 minutes in.

You will have made your point about being a pointy-head film poser and won't have wasted too much time. At the very least, you and she can commiserate about how "original" sometimes means impenetrable.

Variety's reviewer sums it up in a more mannerly way: "...filmmaker Garine Torossian should connect particularly with audiences from the Armenian diaspora. Otherwise, this very personal film -- focused on women and swimming in music, religious iconography and a heavy-duty dose of folklore -- makes great demands on the viewer, limiting its accessibility beyond festivals..."

*"There is no dispute that Gus is in the east"

The movie plot depends primarily on supposedly smart characters being dumb over and over. So it lacks credibility.

E.g., presumably for plot advancement, Piven inexplicably hides his pistol until equally inexplicably pulling it out. The heroes are as heavily armed as the bad guys. After a shot or two or one of their members taking a bullet, do you really the bad guys are going to chase anybody armed down a dark alley. Or if they do, the chased party is not going to take advantage of it by shooting them?. Gimmee a break.

Then toward the end, the Cuba Gooding character finally does shoot one of the bad guys-- why didn't they do this before? Still, judicious use of a firearm would have meant the movie would have ended in the first 20 minutes.

Still, this is Chicago, where the only the bad guys have guns. This plot would not have worked in Texas.