A very interesting movie, but not always the most engaging. It feels kind of like a documentary in the way it's filmed and paced (I actually thought it was a documentary for the first few minutes) which leads to some really interesting explorations of ideas of democracy, propaganda, and choice. It seems to be historically accurate and pretty educational, which is really nice. The acting is all fine, but the characters don't really get fleshed out as the movie focuses much more on the logistics of the plot rather than its impact on the characters (another way that this feels like a documentary). No is a good movie for history or politics buffs, but probably not exciting enough for your average audience.

Es una buena película, pero no es excelente; la trama es interesante, la cinematografía es pasable y la actuación de Gael García Bernal es decente; es un buen intento de retratar el pasado chileno.

In No, ad executive Rene (Gael Garcia Bernal) is hired to manage the campaign to oust Augusto Pinochet from power in the 1988 Chilean referendum. It sounds like pretty dry stuff but the film is filled with some unexpectedly clever humor and a surprisingly touching conclusion. Based on a true story, the movie has the gritty feel of a documentary, but never loses focus on the character development of the protagonist or strays too far from the theme – the triumph of good over evil. What's unsettling about the movie is the lighting. Time after time, the camera stares into direct light and bleaches out the characters in the foreground, either symbolizing the light that is being brought to Chile or an indication that the cinematographer lost his light meter. Either way, it's annoying and manages to keep a good film from being great.

literally so good wow

As a director one has to think about what medium best suits this story. Based on the final product, I do think that taking this story to a series would have been a better idea, the film somehow feels rushed and time lapses are not that well explained creating a lack of tension, characters felt hollow, just García Bernal character gets enough screen time and even him is not very well developed. I understand that probably the idea of using cameras from that era would create a sense of engagement, for me it manages to do the opposite, a feeling of artificiality constantly avoid me from engaging in the movie, for me it felt like a pretentious directorial decision that doesn't pay off. The higlights are the themes explored, the manipulative and artificial nature of life itself. Poignant and a little pretentious ending that I liked. I would love to see the documentary about this real events in Chile's history.

After fifteen years of military dictatorship and facing considerable international pressure, Chile's regime asks the public of Chile to vote in the national plebiscite of 1988 on whether General Augusto Pinochet should stay in power for another eight years, or whether there should be an open democratic presidential election the following year. René Saavedra (Gael García Bernal), a successful advertisement creator, is approached by the "No" side to consult on their proposed advertising. Behind the back of his politically conservative boss, Saavedra agrees to participate and finds that the advertising is a dourly unappealing litany of the regime's abuses created by an organization that has no confidence in its efforts. Enticed by the marketing challenge and his own loathing of Pinochet's tyranny, he proposes to the advertising subcommittee that they take a lighthearted, upbeat promotional approach stressing abstract concepts like "joy" to challenge concerns that voting in a referendum under a notoriously brutal military junta would be politically meaningless and dangerous. While the unorthodox marketing theme is dismissed by some "No" members as a facile dismissal of the regime's horrific abuses, the proposal is approved for the campaign. Saavedra, his son, and his comrades are eventually targeted and intimidated by the authorities. Eventually, Saavedra's boss Lucho finds out about his employee's activities, but when Saavedra refuses an offer to become a partner if he withdraws, Lucho goes to head the "Yes" campaign as a matter of survival. The historic campaign took place in 27 nights of television advertisements, in which each side had 15 minutes per night to present its point of view. During that month, the "No" campaign, created by the majority of Chile's artistic community, proved effective with a series of entertaining and insightful presentations that had an irresistible cross-demographic appeal. By contrast, the "Yes" campaign's advertising, with only dry positive economic data in its favor and few creative personnel on call, was derided even by government officials as crass and heavy-handed. Although the government tries to interfere with the "No" side with further intimidation and blatant censorship, Rene and his team use those tactics to their favor in their marketing, and public sympathy shifts to them. As the campaign heats up in the concluding days with international Hollywood celebrity spots and wildly popular street concert rallies of the "No" campaign, while the "Yes" side is reduced to desperately parodying the "No" ads... Writing in May 2012, Time Out New York critic David Fear called No "the closest thing to a masterpiece that I've seen so far here in Cannes". Variety reviewer Leslie Felperin felt the film had the "potential to break out of the usual ghettos that keep Latin American cinema walled off from non-Hispanic territories. ....with the international success of Mad Men, marketing campaigners should think about capitalizing on viewers' fascination everywhere with portraits of the advertising industry itself, engagingly scrutinized here with a delicious, Matthew Weiner-style eye for period detail." One of the unique features of the film was Larraín's decision to use ¾ inch Sony U-matic magnetic tape, which was widely used by television news in the 80s. The Hollywood Reporter argues that this decision probably lessened the film's chances "commercially and with Oscar voters." The Village Voice reviewer commented that the film "allows Larrain's new material to mesh quite seamlessly with c. 1988 footage of actual police crackdowns and pro-democracy assemblages, an accomplishment in cinematic verisimilitude situated anxiously at the halfway point between Medium Cool and Forrest Gump." "No" is based on the unpublished play "El Plebiscito", written by Antonio Skármeta. At the 85th Academy Awards the film was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. The historic backstory is for sure intriguing and interesting, but this film is not that intriguing nor interesting in my opinion. I can´t really agree with all the raving reviews and the Oscar nomination. I like that the film has been shot in the video support U-matic 3:4 used at the end of the 1980s, to fit with real footage which creates a strong documentary feeling in the film. But, it doesn´t change the fact that the pacing is too slow and "No" is simply quite boring with no real highs or lows.

Puedo ver esta película mil veces y sigo llorando en la misma parte y teniendo los pelos de punta cada vez que gana el No. Una de las mejores películas de Chile.

Great reviews across the board but this really wasn't for me, I'll be honest you're gonna need to be in the mood to sit down to watch a 2hr film about the Chilean Plebiscite vote. I found the 80's style videotape approach took me out of the drama and I found the way political discourse is reduced to slogans and advertising just depressing rather than funny or uplifting. Not for me at all this one.

Both interesting and instructive!

Enjoyable alternative to watching a documentary, a simple story well told of the power of the media.

Surprise, surprise! My third venture into the filmography of director Pablo Larrain is finally a successful one. While I certainly didn?t love No, it is a solid film that does some very inventive things. I appreciate the way they filmed the whole movie utilizing the exact same visual style as the 온라인카지노추천 spots that the characters were making. It made the movie feel like a time capsule from the past, and also made it feel like a documentary. The journey that Rene goes through in the movie is interesting, because it feels like he doesn?t even care about the vote at the outset, and by the end things have changed a lot. Even though the events of this film took place back in the 1980s, the themes seem to be applicable to this day. It is a fascinating look at how the media can influence politics, and I liked how the characters had different ideas of what it takes to make a campaign work. The movie is still somewhat slow, it repeats things multiple times, and there is a good amount of bland acting that turns me off completely. But considering how I felt about Tony Manero and Post Mortem, I?m just glad to have a movie by this director that I didn?t actively hate watching.

Wonderfully designed movie around the 1988 Chilean Plebiscite, and very informative if you don't know much about this period in the countries history. What they do really well is the period grading of the film stock throughout, which certainly works alongside of the video footage from the time in question.

Chilean filmmaker Pablo Larrain has defined his career thus far by capturing the dark side of life in his native country during the authoritarian rule of General Augusto Pinochet. His latest, the Oscar-nominated No, is a decidedly brighter picture that chronicles Pinochet's democratic defeat, and the optimistic tone serves Larrain well. For the first time in his career, it seems as if he's having fun. And while the narrative isn't always dynamic, Larrain's stylistic flourishes help the film sail through any rough patches. Try as he might, but the brutal dictator Pinochet could not resist the calls of Chileans and non-Chileans alike to subvert his country's "Constitution"-a document that was, in fact, only adopted in 1980 (eight years before the events of No) and by Pinochet stooges. Nevertheless, it called for a referendum on his presidency wherein Chilean citizens would cast a simple vote. "Yes" was in approval of Pinochet's governance, and he'd get another eight years. "No" meant he was out, and a general presidential election would be held in a year. Everyone with a clue knew the No side had a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing. Not only did Pinochet bring about great economic expansion (which, it must be noted, came at the expense of a never-higher gap between rich and poor), but many believed he'd kidnap and torture-or worse-anyone who seemed like a legitimate threat to his rule. The man the No side turned to, however, wasn't a politician. He wasn't even political by nature. Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) was a top advertising executive. The Yes and No campaigns each had 15 minutes of television time per night over a one month campaign to sell its message. Saavedra's motto for team No: "Happiness is coming." Rather than highlight Pinochet's atrocities (of which there were many), he called on beautiful people, celebrities, and others to sing and dance with rainbows and joy all around. This is Chile after Pinochet, Saavedra hoped to convey, if enough of you vote No on October 5. As you might expect, the film hits a few predictable plot points. Saavedra is threatened repeatedly. He has a young son who he must temporarily say goodbye to. He clashes with his colleagues over the tone of the No message. And he sees himself transform into a bit of an activist over the course of the campaign. Gael Garcia Bernal's performance is understated-almost to a fault-but the character's arc is pretty compelling, and it's applied to a truly unique situation and setting. The film is most noteworthy, however, for its rather extraordinary look. Visually, Larrain mimics the very commercials his lead character makes by using U-matic tapes. The result: Something grainy and straight out of the 1980s. It's a technique that probably needs to be seen to be understood, but it's damn cool-much more than a gimmick. Larrain has said this is the third film in a sort of "Pinochet trilogy" (Tony Manero and Post Mortem were films one and two in said trilogy). If so, it'll be really interesting to see where he goes from here. He doesn't exactly make films that set the world on fire, but his sensibility is a welcome one on today's international film scene, and freed to do whatever he wants, he could be poised for a major breakthrough. Until then, however, we have the low-key charms of No to enjoy. http://www.johnlikesmovies.com/no-review/

An historical film about what the "NO" campaign meant and the creativity showed.

Probably my first Chilean movie, good plot and inspiring message. Yet I am not sure if the hand-held filming adds on the 80's like picture for a documentary style.

Dekada 70? Marcos era? How about Duterte? This reminded me of what's important.

'88 ?ili'sinde, tüm kitle ileti?im araçlar?n?n bask?c? rejimin kontrolü alt?nda oldu?u bir ortamda tek adam yönetiminin devam?n? isteyen referandum için muhaliflerin yapt??? kampanyan?n ve kulland?klar? siyasal ileti?im yöntemlerinin ba?ar?s?n? konu ediyor. ?lginizi çektiyse size pazar sinemas? önerim olsun. (:

Es una lástima que una historia tan interesante la hayan desarrollado de forma tan descuidada. Me dejó con esa sensación que pudo ser mucho mas.

Although the most interesting part of this was the genuine campaign broadcasts, I did feel it benefitted from not just being a documentary, as the process and arguments behind making them were brought to life. Having said that, GGM's central character was weakly drawn, and the peril to the No campaigners never felt real.

Never underestimate the power of media!! Of course, the makers sidelined the other efforts that too contributed equally, if not largely, in freeing Chile from Pinochet's dictatorship. The focus here is on the ad campaign, and to an extent, it's appealing. Loses steam towards the ending, though.