just watch it!

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Not a film for everyone. For those who dig at the roots of human conflict or who want some short primers in a back-corner part of the world, your time won't be wasted - It is a hard story to follow, and seems improbable even as we watch, but Flores was an actual man, who stared in an earlier Fekete movie, "Bolshe Vita", 1996. As she got to know him she was intrigued by his 'rootless' background and decided to make a movie, with Chico himself. With some fictional elements, this is his story.It's hard to follow in part because she seems to have stitched together film footage of varying quality. Some of it is rough and blurry. It's also hard because we ordinary film-buffs will not know the national flags being flown: we are not sure who Chico is fighting with, either in Hungary or later in shattering Yugoslavia. (Hint: he's with the Croatians against the Serbs and Chetniks.) - See more at: http://www.allinoneboat.org/#sthash.D27nZrzL.dpuf

The main reason I like Chico by Hungarian director Ibolya Fekete is that it never tries to force you to make a moral decision, to view world in black and white only. It's almost opposite to The Hurt Locker (which I honestly dislike) on that matter. Ibolya Fekete narrate her story, allowing movie watcher to determine who is write and who is wrong. And this is not an easy decision... it's not like a primitive story about straight and heroic American soldiers (Hurt Locker).Also, people in 'Chico' knows what they are fighting for. They may be wrong and they are cruel, but the are not like Americans brought to Iraq by obscure political reasons of W.W...The more you see 'Chico' the more you start to empathize to its main hero... and you're becoming devastated together with him.I suspect, though, that it would be harder to understand this movie for people who were not born in USSR or other communist country, who didn't hear their propaganda for years.

Some hints how to prepare for this film:To fully understand and to _really_ absorb something of "Chico" you must have as much historical, geopolitical and ideological background-knowledge as you can. Especially about Chile, South America, Allende, Pinochet, communism, fascism, Hungary before and after the '90s, ex-Yogoslavia and the liaison of it's nations, Serbs, Croats, Chetniks, Ustashas, minorities, Albania, Jerusalem etc., just to name some of the most important keywords. (If these terms are not so familiar for you and you haven't seen the film but you want, then I recommend looking after them for a while. Believe me. It will increase your satisfaction!)To make this mess more "confusing" Chico (Eduardo Rózsa Flores) speaks Spanish(Castilian), Hungarian, English, Italian, Croatian and a little bit of Russian as the story moves along. Because of that, there are almost no people who could fully understand everything without subtitles. This is very interesting and challenging.See it!If you liked "Chico", you should also check out: Machuca (2004), Rane (1998), Before the Rain (1994). These films will also improve your understanding of "Chico" and vice versa.

I'm not sure a more challenging film has been made. Fekete, director of Bolshe Vita, itself a complex and difficult undertaking, went beyond what we think of as manageable material with Chico. Blurring fact and fiction, uniting a story told through 25 years in 5 nations, or almost-nations, or nations in the process of becoming, unified by the improbable story of an impossible man whose credibility lies in the fact that he is portraying himself, masterfully, honestly, fragmentarily. This is a film of genius by a filmmaker who is not satisfied unless she is on the trail of something very large, very real -- the only other filmmakers I can think of that approach this are the early Rossellini and the early Cassavetes. I would welcome further information on this director and how she managed to make this film.