BARDO: FALSE CHRONICLES OF A HANDFUL OF TRUTHS (2022)

Directed By: Alejandro G. Inarritu 

Written By: Alejandro G. Inarritu and Nicolas Giacabone 

Cinematography: Darius Khondji

Editor: Alejandro G. Inarritu and Monica Salazar 

Cast: Daniel Gimenez Cacho, Griselda Siciliani, Ximena Lamadrid, Iker Soriano, Francisco Rubio, Jay O. Sanders, Luis Coutulier, Andres Almeida, Clementina Guadarrara 

An acclaimed documentarian goes on an introspective journey through surreal dreamscapes to reconcile with the past, the present, and his Mexican identity.


This film is an epic self-indulgent, semi-autobiographical tale that has beautiful cinematography.

It’s a memoir that feels like confessions or inner thoughts of the writer and Director. Alejandro G. Inarritu

It’s a film that no one can come close to explaining it’s definitely a film more to experience, even for all of itself indulgent tendencies at times

It seems like a film, where no matter how many times you watch it you get something new each time or notice something that you never saw before, and have to watch it again to understand it on a deeper level.

As it feels like you haven’t seen everything or quite get it do you want to. No, it doesn’t leave you exhilarated like the film EVERYONE EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE but you want to keep on exploring and examining the film just like that one as it seems to capture you and its own mindset

The film offers plenty of surreal imagery. Though never quite as strange as something that would come from Alejandro Jodorowsky 

The film does offer a lot to take in that you will either love or hate. Some might not want to put up with the film as it will feel hollow for some without enough story or plot, which leaves it easy to get lost in or during. As we spend time with the main character. 

The film feels like Alejandro G. Inarritu in his Fellini period. Where not only is the film autobiographical but seems to express his feelings about life and filmmaking. As a Director has made, Hollywood films and manages to put a personal stamp on them.

These days you have to try harder to have a career of only artistic indulgent personal films to raise your profile not to mention get a chance to tell Bigger stories that he wants to

This film feels like Fellini’s spirit is alive, only not as scandalous, but the director obviously has a lot to get off his chest and themes he wants to explore. This is the closest we might ever get to visionary autobiography.

Grade: B 

SOLO CON TU PAREJA (1991)

Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron  Written by: Alfonso Cuaron & Carlos Cuaron Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki  Editor: Alfonso Cuaron & Luis Patlan 

Cast: Daniel Gimenez Cacho, Claudia Ramirez, Luis De Icaza, Astrid Hadad, Isabel Benet, Toshiro Hisaki, Dobrina Liubomirova, Ricardo Dalmacci 

A womanizer is falsely diagnosed with AIDS by a jealous lover and falls in love with a woman equally suicidal as he.


The film already feels outdated. The humor seems a bit lost in translation with the town being so dark. A misdiagnosed aids story played for laughs. As a kind of slapstick sexual comedy.

There seems to be so much in the slapstick situational first half of the movie. That it never feels quite enjoyable or cohesive.

There is plenty of sex yet the films never quite achieved becoming erotic. Instead, it feels crueler.

The last third of the film feels ridiculous as only one scene throughout the film truly feels actually funny.

Most of the film feels so far-fetched and then over-the-top romantic that it takes a lot to believe most of it. 

The thing the movie does have going for it. It is artistically directed by director Alfonso Cuaron making his feature film directorial debut for what ends up such a slightly heavily comedic premise. Which ends up coming off as soft and weak though. Ever seems to penetrate its own artifice.

The best friends are set up to be so over the top nerdy that they lend themselves to stereotypes.

The shocking part is that considering the subject matter you would expect more shocks but the film Is surprisingly bland.

Maybe looking back at the film through modern eyes. Makes what might have been cutting edge seem like an artifact that was of the time more of a fad and modern that fell out of fashion quickly. As it might have been looked at as In Bad taste.

It also seems like a film whose story was made to shock to get attention, for the rookie director to get noticed but ended up pretty lightweight 

Grade: C