Los delincuentes

I am a bit sad giving a low rating in this movie, because there were many positives here. There is a great movie inside this movie but unfortunately, it was buried beneath Moreno's overambitiousness. There is a lot of originality and creativity in this movie, i liked both the first and the second part but it should have been AT LEAST one hour shorter.

I love slow paced movies but this was too much to endure. At times, it's unbearable to watch and this is a strong word to describe it, but it's not a hyperbole. It didn't need to be like this. Many scenes were pointless. Even the pace was terrible at times, i don't want to see a man walking for 3 minutes in the city. Bela Tar and other similar directors can pull it off. This movie shouldn't be that slow.

I managed to watch the whole movie because i wanted to give this a fair rating, besides there were many positives as i said and most of the time, i liked it. Great acting, an interesting story, beautifully shot, it's obvious that the creator had an artistic vision and he served it, without caring about the outcome. I respect that and i love overambitious movies even if they failed. But this shouldn't fail. It was too good and unique for a 20's movie.

Sadly, also about 60 minutes longer than it should.

Warning: three hour movie incoming!

No worries, split this sprawl in two, and away we go. First half is a bank caper, the second an existential quest for idyllic existence. Nice.

Moran is a frumpy, bald bank teller, stuck in a nine to five glum who decides to shake up his life with an inside heist. His anagram Roman is an lanky bank teller who becomes an odd accomplice. Their anagram Norma is an effervescent hippie and the object of their desires. Their anagram is Namor and that has nothing to do with this film.

Moran is a man of simple means, who calculates exactly how much he needs to swipe to match his cumulative pay upon retirement, allowing escape from the rat race. Seems fair. His other calculation is three and a half years, which is the time spent in jail upon surrender with good behavior. Again, what could go wrong? Roman is reluctantly roped into the audacious plan, which surprisingly seems plausible, save a couple of hiccups.

Part two: the major hiccup: Norma. A dark-haired, free spirit prancing about the countryside with her film-maker friends, collecting eggs, riding horses, splashing in a swimming hole. Sweet. Moran and Roman fall for her in separate story lines, and it looks like we are headed for an anagram triangle confrontation. Also the bank starts to close in, and the tension begins, but when the movie should start to ramp up, it instead meanders and lingers on mundane passages instead. Sigh.

Lots of filmy things going on here, starting with the beautiful expanse of the Argentine countryside, and the savouring of life's simple pleasures. An actor plays two characters and it somehow makes sense. Split screen shots feature Roman and Moran pondering their individual fate over cigarettes in different time lines.

For a heist and love triangle film, there's a dearth of action, and not much return on your buck. This is a very small film with a very lengthy running time. Three hours may be a tall ask, but there is something weirdly captivating to savour, not just the characters, but the whole experience. "Delinquents" is quite captivating in an offbeat way.

• hipCRANK.

I am smarter than your average bear, really, but I am amazed at how much I truly disliked this very well reviewed film. I think the director is horrendous. The acting was good. The main story had some good elements. It may have played pretty well with a more mainstream style and at about half the runtime, but what weird choices this director made. He loves using awkward split screens that have little to no relevance. "Oh look it is a split screen, both those characters are being reflective and smoking a cigarette in the dark at the same time. How creative!"

I really despised the soundtrack. It never evoked a relevant feeling or enhanced any scenes. It reminded me of the music in a 1970s Western TV show. Boring and forgettable.

I suppose some people are going to get a lot from the long seemingly strange uneventful scenes that make up more than half the runtime. Many critics did at least. I sure did not though.

Saw this at the 2023 filmfestival Ghent (Belgium). Upfront, before seeing the film, I saw harsh words in the IMDB user reviews and positive reviews from professionals. Such contradictions never fail to attract me. Usually, the users are right when I compare it with my own preferences. The professionals, on the other hand, tend to discuss aspects that may be relevant for the state-of-the-art, but fail to interest me as a rule. This film is the exception: users are wrong, and professionals are right.

In this case, all the user reviews focused on the length and the lacking contents to warrant the indeed generous running time over 3 hours. Though I must admit I missed the last hour due other priorities, I had no problems sitting out the first 2 hours. It was an original plot to rob a bank this way. There are logical consequences to be expected, like mistakes in the execution of the heist, or wrongly trusting a colleague with the loot. But it all went in a different direction. I'm glad that it deviated from the expected downtrodden path (e.g., trusted colleague takes the loot and leaves for a country far away). I regret that I did not complete the full journey, contrary to aforementioned naysayers.

Maybe above text is against the rules, having not completed the full three hours, but I could not refrain from a bit of compensation against the three users who reviewed before me. Try the dive and judge for yourselves.

4 stars is a very generous rating from me, I only give such a high rating to such a boring film because the story even tries to discuss some interesting themes, albeit very prosaically.

I also like the cinematography and some of the locations a little, but that's it, the film is tremendously boring and has serious pacing problems, it's over three hours long and could very simply be shortened to around 90 minutes without losing much of the substance. Narrative that isn't much.

In this way, this review acts as a bit of a warning so that you don't waste too much time of your life watching such an insipid narrative. I don't want to use the word pretentious, but I think it's useful here.

The film simply does not respect the viewer's time, it has a very basic and rudimentary script, disguised in such a way as to make the inattentive viewer think they are watching something of substance.

Come to think of it, considering the total lack of respect in taking so much time without having much to say, 4 stars is perhaps too condescending a rating.

In short, the film is tremendously boring because it is unnecessarily long, perhaps if it weren't so long it would expose what is truly true, a film of little substance.