Altamira

Pablo makes a fair point . But it was the family who owned the property that tried in vane to share this great discovery with the world and condemned as a fraud. As with anything discovery is not the be all and end all. A far more significant

point to this story is about is the efforts to share this magnificent artifact with the world in the face of complete skepticism. Yes a shepherd / hunter found it but the journey is in getting people to understand the value in the history of mankind amid claims of fraud. This is an effort to view the far bigger picture the efforts to learn human history and just how relevant this find was relating to preserving a chapter in early mankind's history. the effort to share with the world is the story .pablo is looking through a more political lens. But at the time it seems few other than a determined landowner cared about the historical value . His efforts saved these magnificent artifacts bring attention to the story of mankind's history

I give this movie full marks. It may not be Lawrence of Arabia or a block buster but it is fine cinema nevertheless. For what the producers did with their budget and the location and interior shots - they did very well. One reviewer remarked that the movie did not credit the true discoverer of the cave. However if you watch carefully it is clear that credit is given to the huntsman who actually did find the entrance in 1858.

I enjoyed the production thoroughly. this is the perfect movie for those who enjoy historical drama. Well paced with great photography and great location sets. I have family in the film industry living in Hollywood and it is often a great battle between the corporate financiers who want as much sex and nudity with blond bimbos to boost sales and are constantly ruining potentially good cinema by inserting complete dross into otherwise good scripts. Good cinema is becoming rare. Someone has taken a punt on this movie and my bet is that it won't rake in millions - but it gets my vote and I loved it.

In May 2017 I will be visiting Altamira and will remember this movie and certainly want to read more about its discovery. Chris Lachman, Adelaide, Australia

I gave this a seven, because of the historical importance of the Altamira cave paintings. But as film itself goes, it rates a 6. History saves this film. The depiction of the work of the paleolithic art is accurate, though somewhat blurred in its depiction. The background of this film was too drawn out however, to allow for a better rating. It steers to closely to a Hallmark movie, rather than a dramatic historic narrative. To me, when actual historic dialog is lacking, as little as possible should be added to fill in the blanks. I almost stopped watching it due to the tedium of the dialogue. The acting was good. It was probably Banderas's best work since the 13th warrior. He was very believable in the role of Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola. Though his accent still detracts from his performance, even in a Spanish role. Rupert Everett shows once again his great talent. It is sad that his attitude has led to the downfall of his career. The other character actors were somewhat bland but acceptable. As it is the case with any historical film, that teaches as well as entertains, the audience and mankind can only benefit. A must watch for amateur historians.

Beyond some controversy in the history behind the story, Finding Altamira is, in its own right, a find worthy of celebration.

The cinematography of Jose Luis Alcaine is amazing. One could take almost any frame in this film and hang it on a wall as a work of art. I could have watched this film in mute and enjoyed just the visual majesty of every scene.

After doing work in films like the Spy Kids franchise, Antonio Banderas is developing a reputation, in my mind, as a recognizable actor who brings attention to otherwise obscure movies, not to drive up the budget, but to elevate attention to the art. I would have never watched Automata, had I not been wondering what Antonio Banderas was doing in that movie; only to be wonderfully surprised again. In this movie, I would say that his acting was adequate, but once again, after the Automata experience, I decided to give the movie a chance. I am so glad I did.

My favorite scenes were those involving Rupert Everett (Monsinor) and Golshifteh Farahani (Conchita). The cinematography was almost like watching an oil painting, with barely any movement, yet the tension and intensity of every scene was incredible. Was it sexual? Was it a power struggle? Was is a tug-of-war of morality? I could have watched them all day.

The little girl in the film, Allegra Allen (Maria), as most child actors tend to be, is just too precocious in this movie and the character almost did not work for me. In my opinion, the point of view of the story shifted too much from the child in the beginning, the father in the middle, and the mother at the end. I believe the story would have been better served if the arc of Conchita's story would have remained the focus throughout.

There was an "affair of the heart" storyline which was totally unnecessary, in my opinion, and only included to generate more scenes and conflict for secondary actors. I believe the movie would have been just fine without diving into that part of the story and leaving it as wistful glances between two characters.

The story, whether parts are true or fictionalized, is simple enough and I would suggest, secondary to this film.

You should watch this movie if only for watching how beautiful the craft of movie making can be.

I am not sure why this actor's name is listed all the way down in the page as he is the main character... I am referring to Antonio Banderas; whoever created this page should correct this. Rupert Everett, who appears in the beginning, is actually playing a small part in this movie. I tried to fix it but by editing the page but couldn't do it. I hope to see this corrected in the future. It just makes no sense to me and I have seen similar mistakes in other movie pages.