I was 9 years old (in 1981) when I watched "El Globero" (The Ballon Man) and it almost made me cry. It was a very touching and heartwarming film. It was the first movie I ever see of Clavillazo. Also in the movie appears the former wife of the deceased Pedro Infante Irma Dorantes.Although this movie wasn't as funny as the original"Kid" of Charles Chaplin I think it was even more touching.While in the original "Kid" the Tramp worked repairing broken windows in the "Balloon Man" Clavillazo sells balloons, and in the original the Kid used to broke the glasses of the windows, in this remake the foster son of Clavillazo used to blow the balloons with a slingshot; in the original the mother of the Kid was an actress, in this remake the boy has mom and dad and they're both wealthy people.
2 Reviews
Dated style
van_de_burgt24 March 2022
Some 1961 movies still hold up. But not many. And not this one.
Based on Chaplin's The Kid, this movie follows the extremely implausible goings on of a balloon salesman (globero). I don't want to spoil the plot twists.so instead I will focus on its style.
It tries to copy Chaplin's Vaudeville acting style. But it pales by comparison. The camera work is disjointed and distracting with countless jump cuts and poor continuity.
The fights and blocking seem intended to have been hilarious, and maybe they were to unsophisticated viewers in the 1960s, but today the haminess of feeble karate chops that elicit exaggerated wincing and terrible bruise make up fall flat, even for kids.
The obviously empty luggage and horribles holes in the plot are now unforgivable sins in cinema. Even for slapstick comedies that seek to be profound.
This might be an interesting film for a film historian. But not for anyone else who wants to spend two hours wisely.
Based on Chaplin's The Kid, this movie follows the extremely implausible goings on of a balloon salesman (globero). I don't want to spoil the plot twists.so instead I will focus on its style.
It tries to copy Chaplin's Vaudeville acting style. But it pales by comparison. The camera work is disjointed and distracting with countless jump cuts and poor continuity.
The fights and blocking seem intended to have been hilarious, and maybe they were to unsophisticated viewers in the 1960s, but today the haminess of feeble karate chops that elicit exaggerated wincing and terrible bruise make up fall flat, even for kids.
The obviously empty luggage and horribles holes in the plot are now unforgivable sins in cinema. Even for slapstick comedies that seek to be profound.
This might be an interesting film for a film historian. But not for anyone else who wants to spend two hours wisely.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
