O Libertador

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.

This is one of the most interesting historical dramas in recent memory - with particular relevance to the USA's current predicament - albeit our oppressors are global multinational companies who have no conventional nationalistic affiliations. The histories of men like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara bear much scrutiny for the citizens of the USA today - because they were both born of a privileged society, but were driven by their consciences to work against the established power of their era. The one lesson to be learned by the two is that one must steer a very narrow path between collaboration and revolution to be successful, lest one become the tool of the current establishment or the tool of the establishment to be.

Watching this tempts me to compare and contrast with another of America's much-loved founding fathers, George Washington. If you look at the details of their achievement, for better or worse - one wonders how much of their legacy derives from the fact that although both were born into power and privilege - one ended up the richest North American of the day and the owner of numerous slaves and slave employing interests, and the other ended up dead under suspicious circumstances after having clearly declared himself a true champion of the average person - of any race.

It's fine. Watch it, particularly if you feel like being told a complex story in childish terms. It will tell you how awesome some people are and how evil others are. But it's nonsense, of course. It's just entertainment.

The movie itself is not at fault in any unique way. It's always been fashionable to produce scripts that use history in order to create a fantasy world. Marketing strategies determine the perspective to adopt and if historical fact gets in the way few will notice.

Still, it provides a point of view, a simplistic one but a contribution nonetheless. If you use it to motive you to dig deeper, power to you. If you don't, well, you will at least be moderately entertained.

Godspeed.