User Reviews

Starring Mexican actor Gael García Bernal, No is the movie submitted by Chile to the 2012 academy awards. The movie tells us about one moment in Chile history when dictator Pinochet organized a referendum trying to legitimize his government to the eyes of the world. However, against all odds, the political opposition manages to win the voting and that way democracy put an end to that nefarious period of Chilean history.

How did they managed to do that is the topic of the film in which the story is told through the main character, René Saavedra, an advertiser hired to organize the campaign of the No (no to Pinochet leading the country for another eight years) which gives its title to the film.

The film gives us the chance to get into one of the most important events in Chile contemporary history, but one that isn't very well known outside that country; I at least haven't heard about it until I saw the film. The first virtue about the film is that you don't need to know about this events to get into it, as long as you know Chile lived a long military dictatorship (which should be general knowledge) you won't have any problem getting into the plot.

No shows us the complications around the campaign, Saavedra only counts with 15 minutes each day to get his message to the people of Chile, and his works starts not with some commercials, but talking the opposition parties to agree to his idea of making some positive promos in order to help Chileans get over their fear of voting, instead of denouncing the crimes of the dictatorship now that they have a chance to do it. Besides that, all the government and media works for Pinochet, and they'll use everything in their possibilities to obstruct the opposition message.

No uses many archive images, maybe up to a quarter of the film is made from the original videos aired in the Chilean TV during the campaigns, this is very interesting since as foreigners we get to see what people in the country watched in their TV every night. The film does a great job combining this archive images with the work of the actors so at all time the film moves along quite well and it never feels like a documentary or a history lesson which could make some people bored; but it is still very interesting for anyone who (like me) loves history. Watching this archive images gives us some surprises, and while everything will undoubtedly say more to Chileans than to foreigners, you may still get some surprises, like discovering Hollywood actors like Chistopher Reeve, Richard Dreyfuss (in a good Spanish) or Jane Fonda giving support messages to the people of Chile.

This combination of archive videos and original film is made more effective by the cinematography. The director looked for a camera like the ones used and the end of the eighties to make his film, and he manages that all the film has the same definition which helps to blend it perfectly, also this gives the film a distinctive look that makes it visually different from any other current film.

The acting is good, with Gael García Bernal giving a good Chilean accent, without much dialog his characters evolves very well through the movie, I liked specially when he is working on other advertising besides the No campaign, he uses the same phrases while selling his job, but despite this remaining unchanged by the end of the film we notice how he earned a lot of respect and confidence with his winning No campaign.

One last good thing is that despite the fact that you know the ending from the first moment, the plot manages to give you some moments of tension, a proof that it has been very well developed.

Some things I didn't like is the sound, at some moments I had some difficulty hearing some dialogs, this technical fail is a shame. I also disliked some shots in which the sun is too bright obscuring everything else on screen, but this doesn't happen much.

At the end of the film you will be humming the catchy song of the campaign. Naturally this wasn't the only thing that forced Pinochet to leave the government and there is a lot more to learn about this moment of Chile history, but the campaign was important and the film offers a great introduction to the topic trough an original cinematographic work. Recommendable

As soon as the opening credits started, I knew I would love this film. Even before that, the idea of learning more about the TV communication war between the two parties seemed very much interesting.

The director had the brilliant idea to edit the movie in a vintage, 80's look which helped mixing archive clips with the actual film more easily. Also I guess his intention was to take us on a journey to that period, and I must say that it worked quite well. I truly enjoyed the time travel machine experience.

Gael Garcia is an amazing actor and I believed in his acting. So did I for the rest of the cast. Being able to enter the process of this huge advertising and political war was jubilant, as it felt like we had access to a whole secret world where no one was able to step in before.

Now the main thing I regret on this film is the lack of an actual story. As fun as following these advertising nerds can be, it is disappointing to not know more about them, especially the lead character René. Yes, he has a son and is separated, struggles with a few ego issues... but that is it. We are only given a very few insights of his personality. Nothing else happens really.

You can tell that the director did some research and heard this and that about him or her, so he's put it in the film. Then we just watch the YES and NO TV commercials one after the other, sometimes accompanied with a few images of people's reactions.

What I mean by that is that it was difficult even frustrating at times, to swing between a proper documentary and a regular movie. Finding the good balance is the main difficulty with such films.

Overall I truly liked this film because it taught me things.

"No" suffers from trying to be, and succeeding at, being far too realistic.

As preposterous as this criticism sounds, a promising political drama based on true events surrounding a 1988 election campaign in Chile abandons all the fundamentals of modern movie making. There's no soundtrack. There's no witty dialog. There are no special effects. The performances aren't particularly memorable. As a result, a potentially riveting political thriller drags badly in this poorly-scripted, abysmally-shot re-enactment which debuted last year in Chile. It's now finally making rounds in American movie theaters, its longevity based on being nominated earlier this year for an Oscar in the Best Foreign-Language film category.

"No" has the sophomoric look and feel of a film school project shot with a couple of Beta cams. That's because director Pablo Larrain curiously decided to shoot his entire movie with the same outdated videotape stock used by actual television news crews during the 1980's, when this film takes place. He presumably did this to add the look of realism. Borrowing a visual device that worked masterfully when Steven Spielberg employed World War II-era Bell and Howell movie cameras to film the famous Normandy Beach scenes in Saving Private Ryan (1998), the same technique might have proved a powerful cinematic accompaniment had it been used selectively. Instead, the entire movie is shot in a grainy film texture which not only becomes annoying, but quite distracting after the first few scenes when we realize this is the way the entire will be. It becomes like trying to watch a movie through a dirty window pane.

This is unfortunate because "No" had great potential. The movie is all about the 1988 political referendum on the brutal dictatorship of Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet. One of the most despised political leaders in Latin American history, Pinochet ruled the South American nation of Chile with an iron fist between 1973 and 1988. However, his dictatorship faced growing international pressure to hold free elections, and so a national referendum was called in 1988 to vote on the question if Pinochet should be allowed to stay in power.

The premise sounds rather simple. But after the military junta's 15 years of disappearances, torture, intimidation, and media control, those Chileans brave enough to work on the "No" campaign took enormous risks, both professionally and personally. What if they worked against Pinochet and then lost the election? What would then be their fate? Would they ever work again? Would they eventually be arrested? Could they end up as political prisoners? "No," which gets its name from the actual anti-Pinochet campaign, recounts the atmosphere of fear those brave enough to oppose the dictator had to endure during the 27-day campaign. Given the overwhelming odds stacked against them, no one -- not even the movement's most committed followers -- gave the "No" campaign a chance.

But if that was the case, we wouldn't be watching a movie about these events some 25 years later.

That's where the star of "No" comes in. Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal plays a young hotshot advertising wizard hired by the anti-Pinochet ("No") movement to orchestrate its media campaign. The very real issue of how to run a national campaign amidst this culture of fear gets compounded by a deep divide within the camp between those who want to use this rare opportunity to showcase Pinochet's horrific human rights abuses versus the younger pragmatists who view the selling of a candidate about the same as marketing beer or tires.

Given the extraordinary circumstances of this unique moment in history and all the subplots of running an underdog campaign fraught with danger, one can immediately see similarities to some of movie history's best political thrillers -- including The Candidate (1972), All the President's Men (1976), Primary Colors (1998), and most recently -- Argo (2012). Had "No" employed a top-notch screenwriter and shot the movie in a more conventional manor (on standard film, for starters), it might have taken its place among the pantheon of great political dramas. Instead, a fascinating story gets lost in the abyss of a poorly contrived and under-budgeted mess.

One final note: Without revealing any spoilers, "No" is probably a must see for political junkies if for no other reason than to watch this unlikely campaign unfold, and at times completely unravel before ultimately becoming a serious challenge to one of the most notorious political and military regimes in Latin American history. This is a fabulous story with some truly mesmerizing moments of triumph. However, the film fails to convey these remarkable real-life events in a manner worthy of those brave heroes who actually set out to achieve the impossible.

Out of the eight movies I've seen so far at TIFF (four more to go), "No" is my favourite. It's smart, funny and historically accurate AND offers timeless commentary on (so-called) democracy.

The cinematography is perfect for the time, and I thought the creative ways they wove the real campaign footage into the film were impeccable.

Inside scoop: real people who took part in the original "No" campaign are featured in the film. Mostly, they play for the "Yes" side.

All of the actors are strong, and the star of the show is one of the best on earth, Gael Garcia Bernal of Mexico. He is excellent, as usual, and I'm told his Chilean accent is perfect.

Overall, highly recommend seeing this movie. (You'll find yourself humming the campaign song for days!)

A well crafted and acted movie about a little known episode in history. It is an extraordinary tale about the exceptional individuals who rose to the occasion and managed to purge Chile and the rest of the world of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet without spilling blood, inciting violence or seeking vengeance and reprisals! They did it with a song, steadfast belief in their cause and a lot of hope and faith! "NO" covers the end of the Pinochet dictatorship and the transition of power from the military junta rule through democracy and elections to a civilian government. It is the conclusion of an ugly cycle of violence, tyranny and oppression which started when the democratically elected government of Chilean president Salvador Allende was overthrown in a violent military coup on September 11, 1973 (quite ironic...the date!). It culminated in the ascent to power of general Augusto Pinochet, the head of the military junta.

By the late 1980's, external pressures mainly from the US and Western Europe(as it was at the time) where being put on Pinochet and the junta to take steps towards the democratization of Chile and a relaxation of what was basically governance by military decree.

The pressure coming from the US was quite ironic given the fact that the military coup which deposed Allende was largely the brainchild of Henry Kissinger (who many rightly consider a war criminal) and the CIA. By 1989 the want and need for change was being made even more urgent for the world powers, because the presence of Pinochet no longer fit the global narrative at the time, given the fact that the Berlin Wall was about to come down, Communism was collapsing all over Eastern Europe and the USSR was taking its last gasping breaths of existence. Pinochet was a badly-drawn, nasty caricature of a tin-pot dictator masquerading as a "anti-Communist" fighter and a bulwark against the expansion of Socialism throughout Latin America. By 1989 the jig was up so the US and co. could no longer maintain the farce that was Pinochet. As a result he was pretty much forced to hold a plebiscite...or a referendum,in order to legitimize the continuation of his presidency for another 8 years. That or give up power. This movie covers that campaign, the people involved on both sides "SI" and "NO" (i.e. the title of the movie) and the events that followed.

The movie was shot in such a way that it recreates the Betamax visual style, it was not shot to accommodate a wide-screen frame (at least it wasn't in the movie theatre I went to). It was shot on purpose to recreate the look and texture of the late 80's, a time I am very familiar with since I recall a lot of the events portrayed in the movie.

Gael Garcia Bernal is his usual talented self as is the rest of the cast. The direction and script are competent and do their duty to tell the tale.

This is a good movie but not a great one. Given the events and times portrayed, it lacks a certain gravitas and sense of urgency. Those were heady days, dynamic, electrifying, full of an anxious optimism for the future and the possibilities it entailed. The movie fails to capture that fervour and kinetic energy which made that transition so memorable and vital.

Still given the rubbish which passes for movies these days, I would recommend it, if nothing else as some type of entertaining history lesson of sorts.

I've seen No twice. The first viewing was at the London Film Festival and director Pablo Larrain graced the screening with his presence and conducted a Q/A afterwards. The second was more recent and follows the film's release in the UK's independent and art house cinemas. I was curious to see if I would enjoy the film as much on second viewing and to see what I may have missed from the first. Well I enjoyed the film more and appreciated its humour all the more as well.

Unlike other reviewers I do not think a viewer has to know about Chile's history leading up to the 1988 official plebiscite with which this film is concerned. Everything you need to know about Chile following the Pinochet coup is shown in the film either as part of the characters' dialogue or as actual footage. To increase the film's authenticity it is filmed on old stock so that it segues with the archive footage. This technique gives the film a nostalgic flavour exploited to humorous effect throughout and especially when Saavedra acquires his first microwave oven.

In 1988 Pinochet bowed to international pressure and allowed the first free election since he and the military staged a coup to overthrow Allende's elected government in the early 1970's. The election was not a general election as such, where voters would choose which party they wanted to govern, but a vote of confidence in allowing Pinochet to continue. So voters would vote yes for Pinochet or no, meaning they wanted someone else but without choosing who or what. The film's title represents the disparate sides (17 political parties) who united behind the 'no' campaign. Their main aim was to ensure people turned out to vote because early signs were that certain key groups (women in their 60's and the youth) believed the election would change nothing and this belief would keep them away from voting. Because these two groups of the electorate had diverse aims and aspirations, as did the 17 political parties in opposition to Pinochet, there was the issue of how to unite people in the face of a murderous and bloody dictatorship in order to make effective use of the 15-minute slot they were allowed on TV over a 27-day period. Outside these 15 minutes TV was regulated by the state and no contrary opinion was permitted.

This is why the ad men mattered. If this film has one major triumph it is taking a novel approach to telling this part of Chile's history. Namely from the view of the ad men and one in particular called Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal), who is a fictional composite of the two ad men that led the 'no' campaign in reality. Saavedra gets the campaigners to focus on what is at the heart of the multiple agendas and interests of people and parties. The answer was a desire to move forward, away from the dark dangerous days filled with death, disappearances and pain and on into a brighter and happier future. Happiness became the manifesto offered by the 'no' side and to accompany this concept was the famous jingle (another clever marketing ploy) 'Chile, happiness is coming'. It's an infectious jingle that I hear every time I think of it and it's one that inspires a person to sing and clap along, which creates more moments of humour on screen.

The film find its dramatic tension by focusing on Saavedra and his own struggles during the campaign. He has returned to Chile following a period of exile because his father was forced to flee the Pinochet regime. His wife Veronica, from whom he is estranged, is an ardent activist who is arrested and beaten on a regular basis. They have a young son, Simon, whose bewilderment throughout many of the events mirrors that of Saavedra's and brings to mind what might have been Saavedra's own experiences before his father fled with the family into exile. The problems and pain of living under Pinochet wears the human face of Saavedra. His ideas and beliefs for the campaign are subject to ridicule, he is a target for anger and dismissed as an outsider at times. His life hangs in the balance because should the 'no' campaign fail, he will be treated as a threat to the Pinochet state and untold horrors await him and the others. He learns of this courtesy of his boss, fellow ad man Lucho Guzman (Alfredo Castro, turning in a wonderful performance as the main antagonist), who tells him that he and the other 'no' campaigners will be "effed up" after the campaign, such was the confidence of the Pinochet regime in winning the plebiscite. Happily, this was not the conclusion.

Although the film deals with events that are 24 years old some of its concerns are contemporary: The need and desire for a politics based on optimism and hope for the future without negative campaigning playing on people's fears and creating hopelessness. I feel the need for such a political dialect and I found the ideas of the 'no' campaign inspirational and very moving.

I recommend the film most highly. One, because it is a fresh approach to political history. Two, because it has been made with love and care and has a gentle heart. Three, because it's so terribly poignant for lots of reasons.

I had not even heard of this movie prior to being invited to a screening of it tonight. Therefore, I watched this film expecting nothing but a decent night out at the cinema. This film certainly was not horrible. At no point did I feel like walking out, but I did not feel all that engaged either. I am sure this is a great film for people who live in Chile and are familiar with what was going on and are nostalgic for this event, but to me it was just a very dry, very bland, basic film which was shot in a way which made it feel like a documentary you watch in grade school. You're happy that you're seeing a film instead of doing schoolwork, but it's really nothing exciting.

There were a few moments where I let out a chuckle or two, but this was mainly during the subplots which really didn't ever connect to the story. Why focus so much on his marketing experience? Why focus so much on his (lack of a) love life? I never felt interested in his job, never felt it was important, and never could understand what was going on in that relationship. The actress that played his (ex?)-wife changed her attitude and emotional level to him constantly. I'm not sure if this was a result of bad acting, or bad writing. "Don't get any ideas." two seconds later, she's trying to make out with him.

Would I recommend this movie? No. If you've been dying to see it I won't stop you from doing so, but if you've just randomly heard of it as I had, I wouldn't suggest it.

In elections, people seem less moved by the truth than by their desires. A point made very well in Pablo Larrain's excellent drama about the Oct 5 1989 referendum that ended the 15 year reign of military dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

Pinochet's government, compelled by international pressure, is forced to hold a referendum or plebiscite, on whether the government should continue. Gael Garcia Bernal plays Rene Saavedra, a cynical ad man who is tapped to head the "NO" campaign, which is allotted 15 minutes of TV time per night, for a month to make their case on why Chileans should vote "NO" to another 8 years of Pinochet. Meanwhile the Pinochet government follows with their 15 minute "SI" campaign, and in reality the control of the rest of the media

From the outset Bernal rocks the boat as he dismisses his group's desire to air their grievances about Pinochet's political kidnapping, torturing, and executions, in favor of the political equivalent of a Mentos commercial. Bernal is not received well by his compatriots, who accuse him of trivializing, but Bernal is convinced that the Chileans don't want to dwell on the negative past, but want a positive vision of a future of liberty and happiness. Yet this vision, comically, is reduced mostly to musical montages of people dancing, singing, mimes, and kids running through fields. Larrain expertly captures the silliness of 8o's style ads. When Bernal seeks a musical theme for the movement, he insists to the songwriter that he's not looking for an anthem, he wants " a jingle".

In the meantime, Bernal's boss is working against him in the Pinochet campaign;his estranged wife is in and out of jail as a political activist; and he cares for his young son. Things begin to get dangerous when pro-Pinochet thugs begin to harass and intimidate the NO campaigners.

Larrain holds our attention in this taut drama. He enters in and out of what could be cumbersome political dialog deftly. Though surely the whole story of the Pinochet demise is not told here, the particular way in which the ad men help take down a dictator is riveting. Seldom has a birth of a democracy been more inspirationally depicted.

Using video cameras made to deliver images that bleed like the early video cameras of the 80's was an unfortunate choice though. In trying to capture the essence of the time, presenting a documentary feel through video, or perhaps the ugliness of the time, Larrain has only succeeding in distracting and making an exceedingly ugly-looking film. Too bad, for so much else here is superlative.

Bernal's character is very detached. We never get a real sense of his emotional involvement in the campaign and its significance to him. This seems to be the point. He comes off like the quintessential , detached professional. From the beginning, he seems more like a careerist who is more into the challenge of the "sale" than any ideology. This detachment is frustrating but ultimately fascinating. Can it be that modernism itself, and the professional cultural manipulators were and are more effective than the ideologues?

When Bernal turns it around and uses hard news techniques to sell a soap opera, the irony is thick. In selling democracy or anything else, it seems the only thing that matters is what works.