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.

THE LIBERATOR is a epic recreation about a notorious Venezolan hero who purposes to free his country from the Spanish army . Simon Bolívar , a brave man would defy an Empire , this flick journeys through the impassioned struggle of a revolutionary leader Simón Bolívar -Édgar Ramírez- who fought over 100 battles against the Spanish Empire in South America. He rode over 70,000 miles on horseback. His military campaigns covered twice the territory of Alexander the Great. His army never conquered -- it liberated and to create a free and equal Latin America.

This epic/historical movie , in ¨Mel Gibson's Braveheart¨style , contains thrills , emotion ,romance , breathtaking battles and being based on historical events . It packs a splendid cast giving good interpretations , as starring Édgar Ramírez, Danny Huston, María Valverde, Imanol Arias, Iwan Rheon , Gary Lewis and Juana Acosta . However , some reviewers often cited as an inaccurate historical epic. . This is the classic story about confrontation between good guys , the Venezuelan , versus bad guys , the Spanish , being extremely manicheist . A simplistic and pure tale with rude stereotypes and offering a stew of Hollywood clichés , being overlong but well played and efficiently directed .The film has some heavily fictitious events but filmmakers claimed the changes had been made for dramatic purposes and based off a script by Timothy Sexton . Impressive production design , including thousands of extras , a majority of the actors and extras in this film were actually Venezolan and others using 3D computer generator . Colorful and glamorous cinematography by Xavi Gimenez , showing marvelous outdoors , including glamorous opening shots , snowy peaks , wide prairies , lush jungles , dark mists and many other things . Evocative and sensitive musical score by the prestigious composer Gustavo Dudamel who a bit later on married Maria Valverde .The motion picture was well directed by Alberto Arévalo , being a groundbreaking endeavor and Official submission of Venezuela to the best foreign language film category of the 87th Academy Awards 2015 .

The picture is based on historical happenings , these are the followings : Simon Bolívar fight for independence in Latin America from Spain and his vision of a united South American nation .Bolívar unites different races, social classes, and nations to defeat the Spanish Empire . Colloquially known as El Libertador, was a Venezuelan military and political leader who played a leading role in the establishment of Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Panama as sovereign states, independent of Spanish rule. Bolívar was born into a wealthy, aristocratic Criollo family and, as was common for the heirs of upper-class families in his day, was sent to be educated abroad at a young age, arriving in Spain when he was 16 and later moving to France. While in Europe, he was introduced to the ideas of the Enlightenment, which later motivated him to overthrow the reigning Spanish in colonial South America. Taking advantage of the disorder in Spain prompted by the Peninsular War, Bolívar began his campaign for independence in 1808, appealing to the wealthy Creole population through a conservative process . The campaign for the independence of New Granada was consolidated under the auspices of Francisco Mariño y Soler with the victory at the Battle of Boyacá on 7 August 1819. Later he established an organized national congress within three years. Despite a number of hindrances, including the arrival of an unprecedentedly large Spanish expeditionary force, the revolutionaries eventually prevailed, culminating in the patriot victory at the Battle of Carabobo in 1821, which effectively made Venezuela an independent country.

Following this triumph over the Spanish monarchy, Bolívar participated in the foundation of the first union of independent nations in Latin America, Gran Colombia, of which he was president from 1819 to 1830. Through further military campaigns, he ousted Spanish rulers from Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, the latter of which was named after him. He was simultaneously president of Gran Colombia (present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador) and Peru, while his second-in-command, Antonio José de Sucre, was appointed president of Bolivia. Bolívar aimed at a strong and united Spanish America able to cope not only with the threats emanating from Spain and the European Holy Alliance but also with the emerging power of the United States. At the peak of his power, Bolívar ruled over a vast territory from the Argentine border to the Caribbean Sea.

Bolívar is viewed as a national icon in much of modern South America, and is considered one of the great heroes of the Hispanic independence movements of the early 19th century, along with José de San Martín, Sucre , Francisco de Miranda and others. At the end of his life, Bolívar despaired of the situation in his native region, with the famous quote "all who served the revolution have plowed the sea".In an address to the Constituent Congress of the Republic of Colombia, Bolívar stated "Fellow citizens! I blush to say this: Independence is the only benefit we have acquired, to the detriment of all the rest" . However , for the rest of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the political environment of Latin America was fraught with civil wars and characterized by a sociopolitical phenomenon known as caudillismo, which became very common in Venezuela, especially after 1830. According to Quiroz, caudillos were inspired by Bolívar's centralized government ideals, since "Bolívar crushed liberal-minded leaders and usurped constitutional power", with some caudillos learning from Bolívar how to abuse military funds "under the banner of patriotic heroism .

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

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.