O Libertador

Historical drama in Latin American cinema has experienced a comeback in recent years (Morelos, 5 de Mayo, The Conquest) with mostly disastrous results, as the ambition of these projects rarely is met with adequate resources or talent. This film is somewhat of an exception. The most expensive South American film made to date, The Liberator cannot be accused of being unambitious. The 50 million dollar production deserves to be seen if for no other reason than to find out how the money was spent. Venezuelan director Albert Arvelo spared no expense in creating spectacular sets that recreate Madrid, Paris, Bogota, and Caracas, among other cities, and in mobilizing armies of extras to re-stage 19th century battles. The result is convincing. The camera-work and cinematography of Xavi Gimenez (The Machinist, Agora) is equally first class, whether it is drone-shot aerial vistas of the snow-capped Sierra Nevada or hand-held following a fleet of canoes over the Orinoco river. The score, by the phenomenally talented Gustavo Dudamel, elevates the visuals and, while mostly conventional, punctuates orchestral lushness with Amerindian instrumentation much like in Moriccone's The Mission.

If only the script were on the same level. Part biopic and part cinematic history lesson, the film ties to capture almost the entirety of Simon Bolivar's life in under two hours. Instead of choosing a slice of the life of one of the most complex historical figures of the nineteenth century, as Spielberg's Lincoln did effectively, Arvelo foolishly tried to rush us through his entire career, from his time as a young landowner, to a dilettante in Paris, to an almost Moses-like figure liberating an entire continent. Such ambition is nearly impossible to pull off, and what we get is a Wikipedia-like biography on celluloid. We follow Bolivar around without ever understanding motives, emotional or political. The narrative devices are equally problematic. Forced, unnatural dialogue is mixed with shots of Bolivar penning letters while we hear unconvincing voice-overs in Spanish, English and French. As the movie progresses, the less time the director has in explaining the historic or personal issues, and mere minutes are spent in political battles that lasted years. During the last half hour, the film opts for slogans, name-calling and unashamed hero worship.

Edgar Ramirez, who was riveting in Assaya's Carlos, plays the title character and doesn't quite know what to do with the role. He has a screen presence, but he cannot do much with a film has little time for character development. Ramirez is most comfortable in the early scenes, as a sorrowful young widower, but the progression from aristocratic landowner to military commander and towering political leader is unconvincing and he becomes increasingly unlikable. The English banker Torkington (the great Danny Huston), is the only other memorable character, but later in the film is turned into a capitalist-cartoon villain that seems like something out of a propagandist's imagination.

Arvelo, the director, confessed in a Variety interview that "screenwriting is quite possibly the weakest element in Latin American filmmaking." How could I disagree? Still, the accomplishments of the film are undeniable. The film is a visual spectacle, best seen in a large screen, and at the very least left me wanting for someone else to try a real character study of Bolivar.

one of films who impress first for the great ambition to present a complex story in its details, nuances and profound senses. than - for the right manner to do it. because it has romanticism, fight scenes, political confrontations, portrait of hero and aspects who defines the vulnerabilities of a man. it is a homage and many idealistic scenes are easy to be criticize. it is a manifesto and the purpose is far to be ignored. but, more important, it is a spectacular work who escapes from the temptation of easy ways. Edgar Ramirez does a credible Bolivar and that is the key to understand the man behind the great leader. a film who impress . not only for the image or the battle scenes, for the idealism and for the coherent story but for the feeling after its end. because it is little more than a romantic picture or a biopic with ambition of blockbuster. it is a story who reminds the books from childhood . and that is enough for ignore the detail than the real Simon Bolivar was more than the hero, his errors and sins and vision about the way to impose his project being more complex than the film presents. but, in fact, it is one of the good points of film - the invitation to discover El Libertador more profound.

After playing Carlos Edgar Ramirez takes on another historical figure. He's doing a great job again with this one, showing off more sides than one of a man who was very important. In Europe we might not have heard of him, which is why they compare his achievements with those of Alexander the Great. Different times and different possibilities of course are a bit of deal breaker in this comparison. But still, mostly doing positive things, should be acknowledged.

Having said that, we do have more than drama here, but less controversy (if you think Oliver Stones Alexander) in some respects. The fight or war scenes are shot nicely, as is the whole movie. Very good acting and neatly outlined story development help too. Not only for historian buffs, but anyone who loves a good story

I'm Venezuelan, and I went to cinema to watch Libertador with high expectations. I didn't want it this time to be on front of a documentary movie because even with a awesome and rich Venezuelan history, not too much movies have threaten the history in a enjoyable way for young public.

Libertador caught me since the beginning with the excellent plays of Maria Theresa (Maria Valverde) and of course Simon Bolivar (Edgar Ramirez). And later Simon was taking high personality like a snowball down a mountain. I catch the idea Simon was a natural young boy with revolutionary ideas, but at starts, it was just a boy. In my technical analysis about the movie I have to say I loved the photography edition, also the customs used by actors, the landscapes scenes were awesome. Particularly the journey through the snowed mountains was really touching (speaking in a technical and dramatical way) .

In summary, I would recommend you to watch this movie.

A spectacular epic, with outstanding photography, costumes, and acting. That said, while Edgar Ramirez did a fine job of acting, he is not quite right as Simon Bolivar, lacking a feeling of introspection and sensitivity that El Libertador must have had. The "Making Of..." extra feature is excellent in showing what a major project this was (filmed on location in France, Spain, and Venezuela). The producers explain that the limits of a theatrical movie kept this from being a detailed account of Bolivar's life and accomplishments. However, they insist on throwing in real-life characters, such as General Antonio Jose de Sucre, Manuela Saenz, and Irishman Daniel O'Leary without much explanation for what their roles were in Bolivar's success (O'Leary was a member of the British Legion which joined the fight for independence, became Bolivar's aide-de-camp, and later wrote a biography of the Liberator). Without some prior knowledge of these characters and events much of the movie is just images, albeit spectacular at times, of key moments in the life of Bolivar and the fight for South American independence. Finally, what's with the nudity and simulated love-making? Totally unnecessary and putting this film out of the reach of a younger audience who would best benefit from it. And, on that topic, how come Maria Valverde (as Bolivar's ill-fated wife Maria Teresa) and Elisa Sednaoui (as Fanny, his Parisian main squeeze) get to be nude but not Juana Acosta (as Manuela Saenz, his dedicated Significant Other during the War for Independence)? Somehow, I feel cheated.