Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

I first learned of César Chávez when he died in 1993, and over the years I learned about his activism for the rights of farm workers. Diego Luna's "Cesar Chavez" focuses mainly on Chávez's activism while also looking at how he tried to maintain loyalty to his family. The movie covers his 1960s activism, so I would've liked to see some focus on his activism after that period*, but the movie does a good job with its focus. There is no doubt that César Chávez is one of the most heroic figures in US history, alongside Martin Luther King Jr. Michael Peña (as César), America Ferrera (as his wife Helen), Rosario Dawson (as Dolores Huerta), John Malkovich (as a grape-grower who tries to rally opposition to Chávez) and the rest of the cast play their roles perfectly. This movie deserves an Oscar nomination, or multiple nominations.*Helen Chávez and Dolores Huerta have continued the activism since César's death.

Some reviewers do not like that the actor playing Chavez plays him as a rather bland everyman as opposed to a great and charismatic leader. Truth be told, this portrayal doesn't bother me. Chavez's skills as a labor organizer come more from dogged determination and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds, as opposed to a strong, magnetic personality. Chavez's strengths, as shown in the movie, is that the man simply did not give up in the face of injustice. I think the way Chavez was portrayed did justice to one of the most famous labor leaders in American history. The filmmakers do an excellent job in making the injustices migrant farm workers went through palpable. There is little romanticization of Chavez the man or the United Farm Workers, and the film is commendable for showing that his methods were controversial. For example, his holier-than-thou approach with the rank-and-file in the fields did cause inter-union conflict, and his apparently noble aim of using nonviolence as a tool for labor is not completely unquestionable, especially in the face of violent opposition from the growers. The film is limited in scope and straightforward in the way it presents its narrative, which focuses on Chavez's most famous fight, the Delano Grape Strike and Boycott. The audience is seldom lost, and gets a pretty good understanding of how the events played through.Pluses include that the film does at least show that the United Farm Workers was a multi-ethnic union, in that it included both Hispanic and Filipino laborers, and that both were equally responsible for leading the fight against the growers (one scene shows the flag of the Philippines across from the Mexican flag). The film does devote equal time between the farmworkers and the growers, and shows that the growers, too, could find strength in union---although this plot seems rather undeveloped. John Malkovich does a superb job as a grower determined to fight to the bitter end. Chavez is portrayed not as a messianic figure or even a larger-than-life man like Abraham Lincoln, but as a simple union activist who had as his main life's goal justice for the working man. Nothing in this film is "epic"; it is really a simple story told well. "Cesar Chavez" most closely resembles another movie about the struggle between workers and their employers: "Matewan", by John Sayles. Both films are raw in depicting the fight between unions and employers; unlike "Matewan," "Cesar Chavez" does not feel as bleak, and, for those who enjoy large doses of cynicism in their movies, will be disappointed with the latter film, as it is far more hopeful in its tone.This film is not without its flaws. I would have loved to have seen at least fifteen minutes devoted to Cesar Chavez's back-story as a union leader: how did he get into leading unions? Why did he feel the need to devote his life to migrant workers? How did he meet fellow union activists like Dolores Huerta? This could all have helped in fleshing out his character before we got to the main plot. The two minutes (or less) of exposition at the beginning was not sufficient as backstory. The film tries to balance its depiction of Chavez the labor leader with Chavez the family man. His turbulent relationship with his son is fairly undeveloped: the film could have benefited by spending more time on this subplot, or significantly less. As it stands, the subplot with the son who has problems with an uncommunicative father and with bigotry is rather choppily presented. There are also claims that the film is not true to history, particularly with the way Filipino members of the UFW have been seemingly relegated the background. I didn't think this was apparent, but it might have behooved filmmakers to have devoted a bit more time to the Filipino contribution to story of the Delano Strike and Boycott, particularly if they had any conflict with Chavez's methods. Lastly, this film, like the arguably better "Matewan", is highly polemic. The movie blatantly takes sides with who's "good" and who's "bad" on the political spectrum. Conservative viewers, who may like Chavez's lack of radicalism and his devotion to religion, will not like the persons this movie presents as "villains" (albeit unseen villains, except in historical newsreel footage).In all, the film is a well-done story about an important part of American history. I highly recommend it. For comparison, watch "Matewan" on Netflix to get a better view of how American labor history is depicted on film.

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.

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.