Un hombre de acción

This is my first time ever to come across a very interesting figure--Lucio Urtubia--and his exploits. His story is fascinating and the movie brings to the screen what is known about the man to a large extent. It's acknowledged however, that what it shown is not true one hundred percent. Still, by and large, it's out of the ordinary.

Someone has remarked that the movie lacks depth considering the rich material that is at the disposal of the makers. Yet, it's good enough considering it's running time.

The central point of Urtubia's story is how he succeeds in challenging the biggest American bank and in outwitting it in an extremely creative way. He didn't give up when an earlier plan fails to take off. What's also significant is his association albeit brief with a legendary anarchist--Quico Sabate. Their association brings out their contrasting anarchist approaches to dealing with the banking establishment. But both agree that what they're doing is not robbing banks but expropriating on behalf of poor people.

All told it's a satisfying viewing experience. Juan Jose Ballesta does a good job portraying Urtubia. Luis Callejo, Miki Esparbe and Liah O'Prey provide able support.

A Man of Action is a biopic of Spanish bank robber/counterfeiter/anarchist Lucio Urtubia. Set primarily in the 60s and 70s, this movie attempts to get the viewer to empathise with Urtubia who is presented as a 'modern day Robin Hood' combined with activist, intent on 'bringing down the system' - most notably American style capitalism.

If you want a taste of the political angle, Che Guevara is portrayed in the movie as some sort of superstar.

As backstory, Urtubia is given motive for his actions via a childhood experience of a local bank refusing to give him a loan to buy morphine for his ailing father. How heartless and cruel of the local bank manager to do his job and protect local people's hard-earned money.

Did Urtubia's family not have any friends that could assist them? Instead of attempting to rob the bank, wouldn't it have made more sense to appropriate some morphine directly? Bad decisions fuel drama, but they are less effective at generating empathy for a character.

To be fair to Urtubia, he was also fleeing the fascist dictatorship present in Spain at the time, so in context his extremism is perhaps more forgivable.

For me, the best thing about Urtubia was, unlike many contemporary anarchists and activists, he actually built things that people can appreciate.

He worked as an ordinary builder for most of his life. He also gave away a large portion of the money he stole, although the movie doesn't expand much on who or what this money was intended for ('the cause'). It also suggests that he and his team kept a third of the proceeds for themselves - which seems to go against the real life Urtubia's comments that he never personally profited and hence 'wasn't really a thief'.

The film presents him as impetuous, naive, and rather simple, but resourceful and with decent intentions. I would suggest he was also utterly deluded. He should've stuck to the day job.

As for the movie in general, it's average in all departments. There's some interesting period detail and the pace is well handled. It's watchable, but hopefully not too many viewers will find it 'inspiring'.

Despite the interesting premise, the plot fell flat after the intriguing opening sequence. The story starts in 1962, with main character Lucio Urtubia and girlfriend reaching the Paris airport with a bag full of cash. Costumes and set look spot on and the audience is left wondering what will happen next, since the police is in hot pursuit.

There follows the first annoying flashback to 20 years previously, in Spain with teenage Lucio attempting and failing his first bank robbery to help his sick father. Move forward 10 years and Lucio is in Paris, joining his sister and working as a builder. On his construction site, Lucio meets some anarchists who introduce him to the doctrine and Lucio decides to "expropriate" bank money to help comrades in need, with the help of more skilled anarchist robber Quico.

At this stage the timeline starts to get muddles, with Lucio meeting Anne, the love of his life, robbing banks and eventually getting caught and incarcerated, then out again for another round that includes falsifying banknotes and finally printing fake travellers cheques.

The actor playing Lucio looks much older than a twenty-something in the section taking place in 1952 and still much older than girlfriend Anne, even 10 years later. Also, he's not a particularly good actor and seems to be sleepwalking through the movie. Most un-engaging, gets a couple of stars for costumes and sets.

The first word to come to mind after finishing the movie is decent. That might not be the desirable outcome of anybody's moviemaking, but we've all seen much worse. The story is loosely based on a real person, anarchist and rebel Lucio Urtubia. We follow back and forth his path for 40 years. Nobody seems to like banks anymore, so in my book if anyone can make fools of bankers, more power to them. Unfortunately, the ultimate price is always paid by people like us, nickeled and dimed to death by them. And when all the dishonesty and greed catches up with them, we save them with generous bailouts. Decent movie, workmanlike, predictable, but not much more.

I liked this movie. It caught my interest and I set my phone down. It's a movie about a gentleman who put it to the man and walked away from it scarred by life but still able to make the world a better place. It makes me want to question my limited world view and cheer for the philosophy of an anarchist.

It makes me want to get the book now and look up the biographical account of the characters. Loosely based on a.true story,

This is not an action movie more of a drama, love story, so pour a glass of wine , relax and enjoy.. I don't post or do reviews often and typically look for movies with a 6.0 IMDB rating or better to watch.thus I have this movie 7.0.