I watched Roma yesterday because I wanted to expand my perspective and try new things. I wanted to go far out of my comfort zone. It sucked. A pretentious bore. I understood what is was trying to go for, I understood the symbolism and what the obscure details meant. I still hated it. Why? I didn't connect with the characters. They were all unlikable or boring, blank skates. Whatever empathy I felt for the mc, Cleo, is the same amount I would have for a stanger. I don't get to know anybody. None of the characters truly develop either. The way they act at the beginning and what you can imagine them doing, remains entirely the same at the end. The mother does become more self-assured after she has to become a career woman, but this might only be visible because of the actress. It wasn't coveyed particularly well by the writing and plot. Cleo just felt like an alien to me. She was quiet, dumb and naive. At the end, she was a bit less naive. This again, was not coveyed through much action. She has one line of dialogue that indicates this. The revolution backdrop of the movie feels totally separate from the main plot and I didn't have the background knowledge to understand why it was happening. The film gives no insight into this.
The film seemed to me like a propaganda piece made to give a human face to Mexicans and get me to sympathize with them more. I'm not deliriously cynical enough to completely believe this was for political reasons, but I wouldn't be suprised. It failed. It has two hours to accomplish the bare requirement for a compelling story and it failed. I didn't even learn anything new. It was like a late night soap operaish flick with a few extra embellishments like class struggle. Nothing new or suprising. It seems like a movie made by Mexicans for Mexicans. How it got so much praise is a mystery to me.
For a moment I thought it was actually about rome and didn't understand why anything had to do with mexicans.
Anyway, checking wikipedia
>On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Roma holds an approval rating of 98% based on 191 reviews, with an average rating of 9.3/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Roma finds writer-director Alfonso Cuarón in complete, enthralling command of his visual craft – and telling the most powerfully personal story of his career." On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 96 out of 100, based on 47 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".
>At the Toronto International Film Festival, the film was named second runner-up for the People's Choice Award. The film also won the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival.
If what you say is true, then I'm really disappointed people claim it to be such a masterwork if there isn't even any character development or story to drive your interest in the film. Maybe I should watch it to judge it better, but it doesn't seem that appealing to me.
If you've got two hours to spare, please do. As I was walking out of the theatre, it seemed like everybody had a negative opinion on it. Admittedly, most of the people in that small theatre were old and white. They complained about it being boring or too depressing. I love depressing stuff that's well executed, so I knew that wasn't the issue. The movie certainly has, "layers", here and there, especially with the Fernand/Fermind character, but a smattering of themes and symbolism does not a good movie make. Ultimately nothing significant changes, certainly not anything the audience is made to care about. Bit of easy, "emotional torture porn", here and there to try to wring out pity for a character we barely know.
this isn't something new critics do. critics have often praise films and music if it's culturally or politically relevant regardless of the quality of it. they also then get buttmad that the rest of the viewers/audience didn't like it and write embarrassing articles about how they don't like the viewer for having an opinion contrary to the critical view. critics/rotten tomatoes are usually jokes.