Les Borgia

impressive cast. honest story. and desire to present with great accuracy a very complicated tale. and the result is not bad. but it is too correct. the preoccupation of director to not make errors is first cage of its potential. so, the gestures are almost theatrical, the performance is limited, the story is prudent and action , in few moments, not credible.so, it is a good film but not more. too long and too short in same measure, not really profound but full of good intentions, it remains sketch of a fresco who can present essence of a powerful family.and its perfect ingredient is Angela Molina in a delicate - subtle role.is it enough ? I do not know. but I think than Lluis Homer can be more credible in this kind of role and the art of Paz Vegas is not indicated for a shadow - role.

Really nice film. I enjoyed it a lot, and was not long at all. May be is because I love historic films.

One of the best things about the film, is the way the Pope and the cardinals are depicted. They are not pious people like in many films. Instead they behave like emperors and politicians, which is probably nearer the reality. There is also some nudity, but I don't think they abuse of it at all, even more if we read about the morals of the Borgia family.

The only thing I didn't like much about the film, is that it narrates only the facts surrounding the Borgia family and their political interests, buts speaks very little about the overall situation in Europe, and the important changes in Europe's art and society during the 14th and 15th century.

I have just finished watching the "versión extendida" of Los Borgia, the 2dvd-set lasting 92+93 minutes respectively. Was it too long? Not really. The story spans about 14 years (1492-1506), has three or four main characters (pope Alejandro VI with his children César, Lucrecia and Juan), each with their own plots and subplots. While I haven't seen any of the previous, shorter versions, I suspect they were too condensed to give much room to characterization and plot development. In fact, had Los Borgia been turned into a television series twice as long, it might have been better still.

What did I like about this film? First, the way it was photographed, the sets and the dresses, that really looked like clothes made for wearing. Second, the acting, which was modest and unobtrusive. The characters -- usually taken to be the personification of all that is evil in the Roman Catholic Church -- were depicted as fully human, at times even likable, without taking away anything of the gruesomeness of their deeds. And that is the third thing I like about this film: the way the makers have turned a black page in church history into a lively period piece, without resorting to cheap pornography, as could easily have been the case.

Some minor quibbles: the DVD does not have any extras, which always is a shame, and subtitles (Spanish or English) are sadly lacking -- a drawback to those who, like me, aren't Spanish and might have difficulties understanding everything that is said. Also, for those that are not well up in history around 1500, it might have helped if the makers had inserted dates every now and then. If I remember correctly only once a specific date (1503) is mentioned by one of the characters.

In conclusion, I really liked this film. It gives a fresh and lively look on a controversial episode in the history of Europe.

a film with many virtues. care for historical accuracy, costumes, music, tension, performances. and wise manner to propose a fresco about the ambition and self definition.. but not enough to be a great film. because it seems be only a beautiful sketch, full of good intentions, seductive in few scenes, saved by the presence of Angela Molina but too tensioned for present the story more than as a kind of parable about power. a film who impress for the detail's exploitation. for the ambition to reflect the spirit of a period in the inspired manner. and for the new perspective about Borgias, realistic, interesting, cold, with few drops of romance.

Reading El_Choco's comment, I thought of yesterday, telling about the film to my SO, who did not see it. I said it was a beautiful film, with nice photography, the music did seem nice to me (although yes, I realize now it was the same music once and again) and... well, I managed not to get asleep.

I don't know about historical fidelity. But even if it was good, it is not enough.

I found myself thinking that something is missing in the film. You can not just take some people, put them in nice costumes and locations, even give them a story, and just shout Action! I thought of the voices, the interpretation in general. As said, you did not care much about the characters; they are not believable.

Fortunately I saw a trailer and realized I should not go to the theater to see this film. I went to the Filmo and, at least, did not expend the full usual ticket.