Los delincuentes

This movie is so good, just a long, sweet mediation. The actors are great, the scenery is lovely, the story has a neat twist - I just can't say enough about what refreshing change of pace it was, a very 70's-late hippie sensibility to the film, like Easy Rider, say, laid back but with meaningful social commentary with a very respectful portrayal bordering on documentary of a sweet, simple land and life, none of which had to be explained or described or tediously walked through in a simplistic narrative fashion as is the case with most movies. It was a very satisfying aesthetic experience. The poem of the Great Salt Flats was new to me and I look forward to reading it again, I hope sales go through the roof thanks to the movie.

I am smarter than your average bear, really, but I am amazed at how much I truly disliked this very well reviewed film. I think the director is horrendous. The acting was good. The main story had some good elements. It may have played pretty well with a more mainstream style and at about half the runtime, but what weird choices this director made. He loves using awkward split screens that have little to no relevance. "Oh look it is a split screen, both those characters are being reflective and smoking a cigarette in the dark at the same time. How creative!"

I really despised the soundtrack. It never evoked a relevant feeling or enhanced any scenes. It reminded me of the music in a 1970s Western TV show. Boring and forgettable.

I suppose some people are going to get a lot from the long seemingly strange uneventful scenes that make up more than half the runtime. Many critics did at least. I sure did not though.

Saw this at the 2023 filmfestival Ghent (Belgium). Upfront, before seeing the film, I saw harsh words in the IMDB user reviews and positive reviews from professionals. Such contradictions never fail to attract me. Usually, the users are right when I compare it with my own preferences. The professionals, on the other hand, tend to discuss aspects that may be relevant for the state-of-the-art, but fail to interest me as a rule. This film is the exception: users are wrong, and professionals are right.

In this case, all the user reviews focused on the length and the lacking contents to warrant the indeed generous running time over 3 hours. Though I must admit I missed the last hour due other priorities, I had no problems sitting out the first 2 hours. It was an original plot to rob a bank this way. There are logical consequences to be expected, like mistakes in the execution of the heist, or wrongly trusting a colleague with the loot. But it all went in a different direction. I'm glad that it deviated from the expected downtrodden path (e.g., trusted colleague takes the loot and leaves for a country far away). I regret that I did not complete the full journey, contrary to aforementioned naysayers.

Maybe above text is against the rules, having not completed the full three hours, but I could not refrain from a bit of compensation against the three users who reviewed before me. Try the dive and judge for yourselves.

I liked the movie more as an existential story than a heist one.

The working question and the what do we really want to do with out lives is what most liked about this movie, as well as the cinematography and the music, both really good. There's not more to add to the plot than the very description of the movie.

On the other hand, a few things I did not like: It's extremely long, excessive, unnecessary. Some sequences were really looong, I don't really need to see a 5 minutes sequence of the character climbing a mountain or crossing a river. I do understand the aesthetic of this but it's counterproductive.

If you need 3 hours to tell your story, you are failing at storytelling in my opinion.

The other thing I wasn't that comfortable is with the acting. They don't act so natural, sometimes seems forced.

Wrapping it up, is a good movie if you like thoughtful olots and good landscapes, but if you cannot handle slow pacing, avoid this movie.

I am a bit sad giving a low rating in this movie, because there were many positives here. There is a great movie inside this movie but unfortunately, it was buried beneath Moreno's overambitiousness. There is a lot of originality and creativity in this movie, i liked both the first and the second part but it should have been AT LEAST one hour shorter.

I love slow paced movies but this was too much to endure. At times, it's unbearable to watch and this is a strong word to describe it, but it's not a hyperbole. It didn't need to be like this. Many scenes were pointless. Even the pace was terrible at times, i don't want to see a man walking for 3 minutes in the city. Bela Tar and other similar directors can pull it off. This movie shouldn't be that slow.

I managed to watch the whole movie because i wanted to give this a fair rating, besides there were many positives as i said and most of the time, i liked it. Great acting, an interesting story, beautifully shot, it's obvious that the creator had an artistic vision and he served it, without caring about the outcome. I respect that and i love overambitious movies even if they failed. But this shouldn't fail. It was too good and unique for a 20's movie.

Sadly, also about 60 minutes longer than it should.