Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Amari-Sali Admittedly, though the name of Cesar Chavez was certainly familiar, was drew me to watching this was mostly Rosario Dawson and America Ferrera who, outside of the occasional appearance on The Good Wife, I haven't seen much of since Ugly Betty was canceled/ ended. But it should be noted that while they are participants in the film, the star is Michael Pena who plays Cesar Chavez.Characters & StoryCesar Chavez (Michael Pena) is a man born in Arizona to a family which formerly owned a farm, but when the depression hit his family lost their farm in pursuit of jobs they assumed would be in California. Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones with hopes to find work, so they were left with a bit of dashed hopes, but a spirit which remained unbroken. Something which would help Chavez in his later years.Which leads to the heart of the story which deals with Chavez's rise as a civil rights leader, with assistance from his wife Helen Chavez (America Ferrera) and, the woman who is noted as co-founder, Dolores Huerta (Rosario Dawson). The three combined try to organize farmers who are paid, at most, $2 a day while the farm owners, of which a prominent one is played by John Malkovich, rather try to seek undocumented immigrants or export to Europe in order to bypass coming to a negotiation table.However, even with the farm owners, President Nixon, Governor Reagan, and the death of Robert Kennedy working against Chavez and the United Farm Workers, one major battle in the war for justice was accomplished.PraiseIn what you could take as a backhanded compliment, I felt Cesar Chavez more so aimed to educate, or provide an overview, of Cesar Chavez's work than present this as an entertaining biopic which wanted the type of performances which elicited accolades. I say this because everyone comes off sort of dry, and no one really seeks to standout in their performances. Even Pena, as Chavez, feels very toned down to the point I'm not sure if I'm just used to grandeur, charismatic performances, or if Chavez and his team were just not as lively as most figures we get to meet through film. I will say though, I quite liked the use of interlacing archival footage with the story giving it the type of feel which made it feel like you were more so in the moment than watching a film.CriticismWith that said though, at a little under two hours, I must admit the film really does feel like something you'd watch in school and would fall asleep on. I would probably account this to the fact it really doesn't pull much out in terms of bells and whistles. I mean, yes it shows the brutality of the farm workers daring to stand up to almost plantation styled farm owners, but outside of those scenes where the farmers, including Chavez, and the owners are showing their passion for or against the cause, it is quite boring. Also, Pena to me may play the role well, but being that he is the focal point of the movie, it is hard to say he is as enrapturing as Idris Elba was in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, if you want to compare one civil rights leader biopic to another.Then, what makes things worse, is if you do a bit of research on the film, you start to wonder why Dolores, pretty much isn't allowed to really get into the action. I mean, maybe researching her and Chavez's life may show that she may have been more behind the scenes, but something about the way she was first presented in the film makes it seem like they downplayed her role, as well as Helen's, in the film. And considering they did show Chavez as a bit of a machismo at times, perhaps this was meant to be symbolism?Overall: TV ViewingLike with Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, the movie is good in terms of giving you a basic overview, or rather introduction, so you can hopefully be intrigued enough to do your own research, but entertainment wise it doesn't have a high value. Pena, be it because of how Chavez was as a person or just how he wanted to portray Chavez, doesn't call for your attention, and no one really does. The acts of violence and the struggle are what keep your eyes glued to the screen, and naturally these moments are only meant to show the peaks of when the movement was making progress. However, before and after those moments are a rather drag to sit through, so at best I can say this is worth TV viewing.

bigcodyjack The movie in its way distorts the Cesar's Chavez and his impacts. No doubt Chavez was a charismatic figure and because of that Big Labor used him to create the UFW. Chavez was Labor's puppet. He did what they wanted him to do. He was non-violent because Labor did not want violence. To Big Labor violence was something that belonged to the commies and Labor didn't want violence to characterize their efforts to create another cash cow in a farm workers union. So Labor manipulated Chavez and because he saw the benefits of being Labor's stooge, he went along with it. Not that he didn't also believe that it would benefit his beloved farm workers too. Without the backing of big labor, Chavez would have gone nowhere. He was poorly educated, almost an illiterate itinerant. But to his credit he listened to Big Labor and he succeeded. It was Big Labor that had the power in Sacramento and with the government, not Chavez. However, Chavez's claims of success are somewhat dimmed by the fact that while it successfully with the help of Big Labor did get some reforms enacted into law, members of the UFW get socked for dues that support well paid union executives that have in the end delivered little for the workers. And many farm workers still don't belong to the UFW which they do not see any reason to belong to.Unfortunately, the movie is very selective in what it portrays of Chavez so as not to diminish his image. Hopefully someday someone will write the true story of Chavez and bring it to the screen so the public can form its own judgment concerning his importance to Latinos.

Markus Emilio Robinson Would it be weird to say that "Cesar Chavez" was a laugh riot? Well, for a film which depicts people being beaten and sprayed with pesticides, the script contained tons of laugh out loud lines of dialogue. OK, I'm not sure if that came off as completely insensitive or not, so I'll just move on: An independent production directed by Mexican actor/filmmaker Diego Luna, "Cesar Chavez" is an educational partial biography of (you guessed it) Cesar Chavez which chronicles his participation in the California (and abroad) civil rights campaigns during the 1960's, which addressed fair wages and better working conditions for migrant farm workers, his infamous 25 day hunger strike and the UFWA (United Farm Workers of America) grape boycott.While I did find myself really enjoying this movie, "Cesar Chavez" is yet another example of a PG-13 film which attempts to depict a rated-R snapshot of American history. On a technical level, Luna does display above average directorial chops and his film is overall more historically weighty than something like last year's "42" (a PG-13 movie which glossed over many of the more violent atrocities of racial intolerance in the 1940's) it is obvious that Luna does pulls some punches in an attempt to make the Cesar Chavez story accessible to a wider audience.There are good biopics and there are bad biopics. The downfall of many biopics is that they take fascinating characters and simply tell their story, while failing to bring their world to life, failing to spark interest with an engaging back-story or failing to build an emotional connection with audiences. And while those types of biopics may be interesting to some, they usually alienate those who didn't live through the events or may not be familiar with said character. Luna and Michael Pena, who plays Chavez, seem to understand this, as they come together to depict a Chavez that is completely 3 dimensional and complex. That said, Luna does not escape my praise without scrutiny, as he and screenwriters Keir Pearson (Hotel Rwanda) and Timothy J. Sexton (Children of Men) fail to give Chavez much of a back-story; so much so that it feels as though "Cesar Chavez" is missing its entire first act (the story of how Chavez started down the civil rights road to begin with).Pena's performance stands as one of the more surprisingly pleasant aspects of this production. He nails the Chavez look and mannerisms, and when he speaks he sounds like a civil rights leader. And during the fasting sequences, Pena looks like a man who hasn't eaten for a substantial amount of time. Although quite enjoyable in other movies such as "End of Watch" and "30 Minutes or Less", his role as Chavez is by far my favorite.Final Thought: This shouldn't be a movie which only resonates with those who lived through the events, but if you have no idea who Chavez was going into this, for you the timeline may get a little choppy in the final act and questions may be raised about Rosario Dawson's purpose in this movie since Dolores Huerta (a woman who played a massive role in La Causa) is hardly referenced here. Then again, if you are a Californian and don't know who Cesar Chavez was, you should be ashamed of yourself to begin with. After recently sitting through a stretch of shockingly below average movies depicting the Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano struggle (Filly Brown, For Greater Glory and A Better Life) I will say that I was quite entertained by this good, not great, biopic which salutes this important man and equally important moment in relatively recent California history.

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.