Roma (2018)

Absolutely zero plot and wholly unlikable/uninteresting characters. The main character had no spine, and clearly, no drive to succeed. Also, possibly the most boring movie I have ever seen. Not sure how it's up for a Best Picture Oscar, as it wouldn't be in my top 30 of this year.

Fmovies: For the most part, watching Roma was about as interesting as watching paint dry...but not just *any* paint, but the most perfect, precious, beautifully applied paint imaginable. And not just paint in any room, but a room designed to be the best room with the best lighting and the best layout...and, oh, this was paint drying under high humidity conditions so you needed to watch the paint dry in a single, long-flowing take to appreciate the reflective nuances of the paint in all its evolving glory and often from unusually low angles of perspective since that yields special visual treats. Best Director. Best Cinematography. Best Paint Job. Ultimately not engaging.

Every now and then a movie comes along that reviewers who want to appear sophisticated and "in the know" feel compelled to heap all kinds of praise upon. This is one of those movies. Boring, slow, tedious, and lame don't begin to describe it. Hate is a strong word, but it is the only appropriate one to describe my feeling towards this waste of film. I honestly don't see how any real human being could like or enjoy this movie, and I suspect that very few actually did, despite their phony reviews.

Roma fmovies. The story of Cleo and her 'family' might hit a sensitive chord for many viewers who grew up not just in Mexico but in any Third-World country, maybe not just in the 70s but probably the 80s or early 90s.

By no means am I depriving the story from its cultural core but it was Roger Ebert who said: "The more specific a film is, the more universal, because the more it understands individual characters, the more it applies to everyone." Still, it's not just about the characters, I could relate to the context as well on a superficial but still deeply personal level.

Coming from a middle-class family of Morocco, we also had these girls who came from poorer backgrounds (generally rural areas) and whose treatment would look a bit like slavery from a European/"Western" standpoint. The term wouldn't be appropriate though as they were paid, certainly not mistreated and in most cases were considered like members of the family. Not all the ladies of the house treated them with respect but they were often loved by the kids as sister-figures or even surrogate mothers. I was practically raised by the same 'dada' from the age of 4, she dressed me, woke me up, cleaned me till I was 8 (my daughter does it alone since she's 3) and well, she was part of my life and I miss her a lot.

I could relate to the story of Cleo and I was glad that the film didn't take the predictable "clash of the classes" path: having her fired, being rejected or ending as a prostitute in some brothel of Mexico City... Cuaron is above these tiresome archetypes and his intention is clearly to take the opportunity of a nostalgic voyage through his childhood to show people with a strong capability of caring and being empathetic regardless of their origins or social backgrounds. And Cleo, played with mesmerizing naturalness by Yalitza Aparicio, is obviously a girl to inspire the very feelings she exudes: she loves the children she saw growing up since the cradle, she's devoted to her "Signora" Sofia, played by Marina de Tavira, and she values her luck to be part of that world... she knows she could have been unluckier.

It's also interesting that Cleo isn't conventionally good-looking, not in a glamorous Hollywood sense anyway, and her petite frame and youthful face illuminated with a wide smile accentuate her vulnerability. She incarnates a sort of third world within the third world, like an extra layer of fragility making her the perfect target for the kind of troubles no upper class European looking girl would get herself into. Though the film is overarched by the social and political context of Mexico circa 1970-71, I didn't feel like Cuaron tried to make some social commentary, maybe it's just a character study of a woman who could only depend on the kindness of strangers, like Blanche Dubois, but is able to find some inner strength to overcome a blind (but not malicious) adversity if not triumph over it.

And indeed, in her harrowing journey (that doesn't follow any pattern of cinematic predictability), it's less in what happens to her than the reactions it inspires. The film is less driven by plot points but the way people react and reactions to their reactions... or non-reactions for that matter. There is an interesting scene where a Karate master shows a trick that looks extremely easy until it's done with closed eyes, I don't know if it was supposed to symbolize one of the film's underlying messages, but it's true that

As I said. A movie about my grandmother just walking around her house and doing the loundry, cleaning the dishes or crying about her lost husband would be less boring than this movie. This is my first review ever and I wanted to say that I don't understand what's really the point of this movie. Very slow, showing only trivial events. Please don't waste two hours of your life with this movie.

I sincerely tried to get into this movie. I was honestly bored throughout the film. I loved the camera work and get what this was going for. I just could not get invested as much as I wanted to. Not a bad movie. Just not keeping me tuned in. Although I do say again Cinematography was very nice throughout the film.