VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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

Noble Price Bless Me, Ultima, directed by Carl Franklin, a film based on the book by the same name, written by Rudolfo Anaya, is a touching, emotional, and thought provoking film about a boy's journey to understand the people and the world around him. The film does a very good job recreating the magical feel the book gives you. Franklin's use of many different film techniques also helps the film immerse the audience. For example, when Antonio and his father, Gabriel, walk outside to confront Tenorio, the film's antagonist, Franklin utilizes a P.O.V. tracking shot to make the audience feel like they're with Antonio and Gabriel as they confront Tenorio. I feel that if Franklin used a different camera angle, it wouldn't have the same effect. Another effective camera technique is when Franklin uses a high angle shot to show Narciso's dead body. This is very effective because it gives the impression that Narciso's death isn't significant, giving the film a much deeper meaning. As for the acting, it was garbage. The actor who played Antonio is too flat, giving Antonio a whiny, brat like impression. The only actor who seemed like they knew how to act was the woman playing Ultima. She gave Ultima a wise, old feel to her, and she looked just as I would imagine Ultima would look. In conclusion, the film adaptation of Bless Me, Ultima, is a good film that sticks to the source material very well. The acting is garbage, excluding a few actors. If you liked the novel, you will most likely like the film.

garneraja I really liked Franklin's use of extreme long shots through out the film.Franklin frequently used extreme long shots when Antonio and Ultima were interacting with nature.The nature aspect of the book and film are extremely important and I think by using extreme long shots, nature in the movie really stands out. It's almost as if nature is a character in the film. If Franklin had chosen not to use the extreme long shots, the importance of nature would have not stood out as much, making it's role in the film not as effective. Franklin also did a decent job with his use of diegetic sound. The use of diegetic sound further emphasized the importance of nature. At times though I feel like the diegetic sound was a bit too much, more specifically in the scene where Narciso is murdered by Tenorio. The sound of the rain is a huge distraction and it disconnects the audience with Narciso's death. It's almost as if Narciso's character was not as valued as much in the film as he was in the book. All in all, Narciso's death felt very isolated especially when Franklin decided to use the extreme long shot of his lifeless body. It lost all effect that it was supposed to have along with Antonio confessing for Narciso as he was dying. The confession was drowned out by the noise of the rain, which played into Antonio's fate as a priest.The film in whole was not very effective. The acting did not seem as animated or genuine as it should have been. It also left out major themes that were in the book. We all know that a film can't possibly include everything from the book, but I feel like Franklin left out too much. The audience never really see's Antonio's internal struggle with his identity and his battle with choosing if he is to follow in his mother or father's foot steps. This is another major part of the book and is something Franklin failed to put across all together.

ccorr-89011 The 2013 Film Bless Me Ultima, Directed by Carl Franklin and based on the novel written by Rudolfo Anaya, shares great messages of God and family. The main character Antonio struggles with his faith and the life his family has planned out for him, at the age of 7. Franklin's use of reaction shots perfectly portray the chaos that occurs in the film, allowing the viewers to feel for the characters. We feel as if we are in the film with them, whether it is when Antonio is about to get shot or when Florence hits his head and drowns in the lake. The camera quickly cuts to shots of the boys' faces showing their shock and fear. Antonio's life being predetermined by his parents and the arrival of Ultima makes it harder for him to decide what he wants to be when he is older. He is constantly faced with answering the question: "Do you want to be a priest or a farmer?" Ultimas presence exposes Antonio's doubts in God. God had failed to save Florence's parents and failed to save Narciso from dying. These events only decrease his faith in God.Franklin makes good use out of natural sounds from nature, that can be classified as diegetic sound since the viewers hear what the character hears. The sound plays a large part in the film and is absolutely beautiful. We hear what Antonio hears, such as the rushing of water or the loud pounding of feet on the bridge when people race the Vitamin Kid. Overall, the film is horrible compared to the novel. It lacks a sense of emotion and the relationship between Ultima and Antonio in the book is far more close than how they are portrayed in Franklin's film. The film's music and reaction shots make the film intriguing but when compared to the novel, it failed to keep the attention of the viewers.

josephtome1964 The novel, which has become a staple of high-school lesson plans and thus qualifies as Great Literature, deserves all the plaudits that have been heaped upon it. I read the work for the first time a few years ago and found it very moving. Like To Kill a Mockingbird (to which it has often been compared), its deceptively simple coming-of-age tale is the prism through which we are allowed a view of a larger picture: the merging of a mystically-inclined Native American way of life and more establishmentarian (and yet, in its way, even more superstitious) Catholic Hispanic culture, as well as the impact encroaching modernity has on both. Moreover, the story explored, through the relationship between young Antonio and the wise old curandera Ultima, the meaning of the connections human beings have with one another and the natural world of which they are a part, all beautifully weaved together by the skill of the author Rudolfo Anaya. (I will also add that, when I read the novel, its simple but powerful evocation of a distant time and place, the love between a growing and inquisitive boy and the old woman who effectively serves as his grandmother, and the neo-pagan lessons she imparts all helped me through a tough time, which is certainly one of the blessings of great writing.) So one can imagine my excitement when it was announced a film version was finally in the works and now, after having seen the movie, one may also imagine my disappointment over a work that is barely a shadow of the book. While decidedly earnest and also largely faithful to the source material, the film has none of the magical beauty of the novel. Indeed, the whole enterprise seems misbegotten. I suspect Carl Franklin, a talented director who has made such fine films as One False Move and Devil in a Blue Dress, was the wrong choice for this project. The direction is humdrum and the script he penned is weak, beginning with the idea of having the great Al Molina narrate the story as an adult Antonio. While it's always good to see a film make liberal use of Hispanic actors, every role, other than Miriam Colon as Ultima, seems miscast. The whole movie, for lack of a better description, just lays there, possesses little if any of the wonder over life and love and nature that Anaya made come alive on the page.In his review, the late Roger Ebert generally praised this film, stating that the movie took its time and did not, as so many other films in this day and age often do, completely dispense with subtlety and over explain everything. While I appreciate his point, I think a film can sometimes be too spare and thus too obscure. It was a mistake, I think, to focus so much on young Antonio and his sometimes confused child's eye view of the world. It would have been enlightening, particularly for those who haven't read the novel, to see more of Ultima and her "magic," her pagan-infused Catholic teachings.A completely re-written script would have well served this project and the fuller and more subtly complex film that might have resulted would have come closer to capturing what the author conveyed. I missed seeing that golden fish in the river.