AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Tom Dooley This is the story of Cesar Chavez who took on the planters and growers in the southern US in order to end exploitation of immigrant workers. On his way he made a lot of sacrifices but so did his family – he had eight children and the film captures some of the familial strife that he underwent too.We also have the parts played by numerous politicians from Bobby Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald 'I don't use hair dye' Regan. This could be called one sided in that it is pretty black and white in its approach, however it has a genuine feel of authenticity and seems to match what I could find out about the man. That is the factual stuff; the emotional is obviously part poetic invention. Starring Michael Pena ('End of Watch' and 'Fury') who puts in a solid performance and with able support from, amongst others, John Malkovich. This is a film that does not require very much analysis and you can just kick back and enjoy it. The real strength here is the message of unity and education and how that can make a change for the better. I for one really enjoyed it and irrespective of your political hue there will be something here for most people.

Teachem As of this writing, FIVE of the "Reviewers" here NEVER rated a movie before the Cesar Chavez (2014) movie release. They apparently had an interest in the outcome. Suspect is their desire to see that "civil rights of undocumented workers" are misplaced in the heroism of César Chávez. This will goad many Americans to respond. In addition, the movie came off a bit dry possibly because the actors who knew enough about Chávez (e.g., Pena) realized the writers were off point. In real life, César had enough documented migrants, and the supply of workers were much greater than the demand.César and his brother Richard often caught Illegals on their properties, loaded them into a pickup truck, dropped them back into Mexico, and told them never to return until they had documentation. Cesar considered the Illegals "scabs" and a host of other expletives. He had this disdain because it threatened his Civil Rights movement for documented labor of Mexican descent, threatened his relationship with the Union, and to quell the over supply of underpaid workers. César knew the Illegal threatened the success of his activism and Civil Rights movement, and he urged documented Mexican-Americans to register and vote. (Sources: The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: A Biography, March 25, 2014; and, "Hall of Honor Inductee César Chávez." U.S. Department of Labor, June 18, 2014).In other words César Chávez was to the Mexican-American, as Martin Luther King was to the African-American, —except that César incorporated fair wages into his Civil Rights activism and Union relationships. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't fully develop this message because it had some innuendos that Mr. Chávez was okay with border jumpers for hire. He'd roll over in his grave to find out that less than "8% of Illegal aliens work in the fields," and the rest are in U.S. communities either working a job, or collecting benefits. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2005).For whatever reason, Hollywood having made previous movies of Chávez is still bent on blurring the lines between "undocumented workers" and "Illegal aliens." César was not okay with the Illegal alien worker, and until Hollywood gets it right it remains an unfair depiction of this man's pride of Mexican-American heritage. However, the movie did have some good aspects of advocating fair wages, better working conditions, power of hunger strikes and boycotts, and the non-violent nature of César Chávez to bring about fantastic changes. We've seen this sporadically in the past brought about in no less than three other movies, and this film brings nothing new to the table, —especially NOT addressing the immigration issues at a time in history when the release of this film is suspect. Accordingly, a lower score is just until Hollywood stops trying to rewrite history through its admissions and omissions.

Michael Dimock (michael-963-316945) We live on the edge of a time when mass movements could once again become decisive. Cesar Chaves, Diego Luna's latest film, reminds us that heart is what empowers people to overcome injustice.Luna has picked a fabulous cast and a respectable script that brings to life the immense story of a very intense struggle to give farmworkers the basic right to organize. Filmed where the real events took place, Luna captures the stark,windswept and washed out beauty of the vast Southern San Joaquin Valley. He shows us the faces of the people who toil so that we might live. Through a strong performance by John Malkovich, Luna captures the patriarchal mentality that allows one to exploit others to build wealth. This sparks outrage and one is moved to identify with the Chaves and the small brave band that he led.Michael Pena as Chaves is believable and endearing because the methodical, measured intensity of the man comes through and when moments of rage and deep emotion well up in his character the contrast is riveting. You understand why people followed. But it is the women that I found most interesting, particularly America Ferrera as Helen Fabela Chaves. And without Dolores Huerta (Rosario Dawsom) he could not have succeeded. She was the more politically adept. It was the women in his life that empowered him to be great. The film is not flawless and the 101 minute running time is the key problem. The story is simply too big given the number of compelling characters and the complexities of the real events. I longed to understand more about his son, his brother, the growers, Huerta and Helen. I would have appreciated seeing more of the power struggles among leaders, which must exist within any movement.But overall, I am pleased that Luna, his cast and crew respectably brought to the cinema this very American story that helps me to remember why I love this country. Social movements do make progress despite darker forces because valiant hearts bonded by the vision of a better world do not give up.

Kansas-5 This fast paced film is simply riveting. Producer Diego Luna cast Michael Peña in the lead. Peña honestly portrays one of the most important leaders in American labor struggles. John Malkovich joins Luna, co-producing as well as in acting in a villainous role. He exquisitely plays a fictionalized composite, an exploitative Machiavellian grower, comfortable with manipulating family as well as local and national public officials to frustrate Chavez's organizing,and not above promoting lethal violence when it suited his agenda.The movie tracks the dangerous and demanding path taken by Chavez in the decades it took for him and his compañeros to win dignity and living wages for mostly Hispanic and Filipino farm workers. It faithfully displays his courage, religious devotion, acumen and self sacrifice, and the alliances he built, as well as the political and public relations solidarity and coups necessary for success. Only so much can be covered in a film of this length, but it fairly faithfully tracks his intense commitment to "la causa," and how that conflicted with his competing desires to be a father, husband and provider. It touches on his personal sacrifices that extended to long fasts and marches of hundreds of miles, and a willingness to be subjected to brutal physical and political attacks meant to defeat his efforts, but never abandoning Ghandian non-violence. His career, though longer due to Martin Luther King's youthful assassination, overlaps King's considerably in era, unwavering commitment, allies and methods.Given the magnitude of the substantial task to portray such a major and complex figure and movement, the development of other important characters suffers. They include his brother Richard (played by Jacob Vargas), his career-long ally and foil, activist Dolores Huerta (Rosario Dawson) who has outlived and outperformed most of her contemporaries, and the late, long time United Farm Workers powerhouse attorney/negotiator, Jerry Cohen, though all deliver strong performances. Absent from the screenplay are the equally demanding lettuce strike and most of the frustrations with the Teamsters Union and the UFW's eventual settlement with them.This film recapitulates an essential part of late 20th Century American political and social history that legitimately deserves a wider audience than it will likely receive.