Nuevo orden

Starts soft and salty. Depicted in this movie is to some degree already happening in some countries of Latin America, so no news for me at least. The Ending is what makes this film true to life, somewhat grotesque, scary, but so sad and realistic at the same time.. one thing to add here is the camera they used to shot the film.. a top notch quality camera , and cinematography is not bad either.

The film is shown pretty much through the eyes of a young woman from a rich family. There is not much explanation of the situation in a country, you just see one after another events happening to the main character and build your own story out of it. The problem with this film is, you have a rich family which sort of doesn't care about anyone except the main character and you have the poor which are pretty much shown as mindless monkeys with weapons. Then there is the third side the military puppetmasters which are actually taking over the power forming a new dictatorship. So from the perspective of the creator of this film, there is just a constant struggle of who will be in power at the top and nothing can be changed about it, we are just supposed to comply or our corporate overlords will make it all even more dystopian. When in fact what is wrong with current society is that you have giant corporations and the rich totally avoiding taxes, governments maintaining inflation, so that the poor always stay poor. So when you get a film like this it's more like a message to the poor, just keep working for nothing or it will be even worse, which makes it a depressive film is it offers no ideas on the solution, it just shows a mindless wheel we are all running in...

Michel Franco's NEW ORDER assaults the viewer, and that's not completely 'out of order' for a movie about a Mexican revolution. Unfortunately, Franco mostly delivers body blows with little attention given to feed the heads of his audience.

The initial scenes of the underclass trying to overthrow the bourgeoisie (at a rich wedding, no less) have a certain kick. Sadly, Franco (who also wrote) does very little with that advantage. The wedding family is decently sketched out, but, the characters aren't used very well once the siege fully takes hold. They, like the Mexican people as a whole, become pawns in Franco's rage game.

What gives the opening at the wedding it's effectiveness is that you have come to know them as individuals (Naian Gonzalez Norvind is particularly good as the Bride), but, by the end (actually, significantly earlier), they are just part of the bloody landscape. The various 'sides' are murkily drawn. Whatever political thoughts Franco might have are negligible, if not downright cynical. There is no sign of wit, little dramatic tension and a lack of humanity. The final act should have been devastating, but instead just becomes another nasty set-piece. In a movie full of violence, abuse and torture, Franco's biggest offense is that he has nothing to say.

Because so little explanation was offered, the movie leaves you with an impression that it was all about the cruelty show. Or, the creators thought the explanation and conclusions will be obvious - they are not. Pity, cause it feels like a lost, flattened out potential because of a lack of an ending that would offer some answers, even if requiring further reflection.

The last sequence is completely confusing and suddenly the movie ends. I feel this could be (was supposed to be?) a cautionary tale about what happens when anarchy prevails and the exchange of "elites" which always quickly get corrupted - but it was not pointed enough in the movie.

Despite the title and in-your-face political overtones, "New Order" doesn't really say anything much about class struggle, conflict, or wealth distribution with any specificity or insight. It just takes the ruthless divide between the haves and the have-nots in Mexico (I totally agree with criticisms that whatever it does try to say is shown from the point of view of the 1%) and uses it as a pretext to showcase expert craft in creating tension and bathing the screen in blood. I know that it seems like it has something political to say, but aside from a kind of undeveloped (and generally cheap) cynicism about the corruption of the ruling elites (kind of undermined by zero development of the oppressed), this is just a taut, expertly directed thriller that happens to be set during a fictional uprising and coup. The sights of Mexico's flag waving occasionally onscreen are part of the exploitation of political symbols for what is ultimately an entertaining, tense B-movie thriller, with stylistic flourishes of Michael Haneke. If you watch it with that in mind, you can admire its craft.