Act of Valor (2012)

Amongst the U.S. Navy's special operations units, the Sea, Air and Land Teams (SEALs for short) are considered the principal force, due to their rigorous training and high degree of professionalism that have earned the reputation of being amongst the most capable military units in the world. However, despite this reputation as an elite squad, the recent wars in Irak and Afghanistan borough the need of increasing the numbers of SEALs, so with this goal in 2008 a recruiting film was commissioned. The production company that won the project was Bandito Bros., founded by former stuntman Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh. The project kept growing and, after having won the support of the SEALs that were collaborating in their video, McCoy and Waugh offered a twist to the project: instead of a recruiting film, it would be a feature length film that served as tribute to the SEALs. The project was a approved and the result was "Act of Valo", film that while it certainly does a great job as a recruiting tool, has numerous severe flaws as a drama film.

"Act of Valor" begins with a terrorist attack to an elementary school in the Philippines, where the American ambassador (Marc Marguiles) is killed as he was there to pick up his little son. The attack has been organized by Chechen terrorist Abu Shabal (Jason Cottle). While this take place, two CIA agents, Walter (Nestor Serrano) and Morales (Roselyn Sánchez) are working in Costa Rica tracking drug smuggler Mikhail "Christo" Troykovich (Alex Veadov). The agents are discovered and Walter ends up murdered while Morales is kept a prisoner by Christo. With this situation, the Bandito Platoon, SEAL Team Seven is called. In their last day at home, Liutenant Rorke confides Chief Dave that his wife is expecting a baby, so Dave decides to get Rorke a vacation as soon as the new mission is over. The SEALs get into action and manage to rescue Morales in Costa Rica, however, they also discover that Christo not only is linked to the operations of Abu Shabal, they find that Shabal is planning a major attack on American soil.

Taking as basis diverse real life stories about the SEALs, "Act of Valor" was written by Kurt Johnstad (scriptwriter of Zack Snyder's "300"), who was hired to tie all those stories in a cohesive plot where the SEALs' courage and valor were honored and praised. The result is a tale that will definitely sound a bit too familiar for those versed in the action film genre: a dangerous terrorist threatens the nation and a special team is sent to stop him, two team members are best friends and of course one is about to become a father and eagerly hopes to finish the mission to be with his family. The resulting conclusion is unfortunately too easy to guess, and that's because to build up the plot of "Act of Valor" scriptwriter Kurt Johnstad seems to have picked every single cliché of the genre he could find. In fact, even the film's villains form a collection of every single group of America's enemies (it has Muslim terrorist of Russian origin with close ties to Mexican drug lords), making up a true "axis of evil" that the SEALs must face heroically.

In a certain way, "Act of Valor" shows a lot the background found in the careers of directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh, both former stuntman turned commercial directors. The action scenes are frequent, and are superbly done, with a high quality technique and a quite dynamic style, very energetic. And even when "Act of Valor" is a film of a relatively low budget, McCoy and Waugh manage to take full advantage to the invaluable support of the U.S. Navy, so there's a great showing of the SEAL's tactics and equipment. And that's where the main selling point of "Act of Valor" is: the film is not just a film about SEALs, actual real SEALs play the main roles in the film. So, what is seen in the screen are real SEALs fighting as real SEALs would do, with the same kind of strategies and movements they would do in real life. This realism is the strongest element of the film, and through the lens of cinematographer Shane Hurbult, filmmakers McCoy and Waugh achieve remarkably done action scenes full of a vibrant dynamism that truly transmit the adrenaline of combat.

However, while the SEALs that work in "Act of Valor" are truly at top form when acting like soldiers in the carefully designed action scenes the film has, when the plot requires them to actually act and develop their characters is where their limitations are seen, because their talents is not precisely the most adequate for this mission. And while it's obvious the great deal of effort done by the soldiers to recite their lines, their nervousness and lack of experience can't be hidden, resulting in a series of pretty poor performances that severely harm the resulting film. Nevertheless, this isn't entirely the SEALs' fault, as in all honesty, Johnstad's character are so poorly developed that to make them interesting would be a real challenge even for an experienced actor. A testament of this is the fact that the rest of the characters (played by professionals) are equally as underdeveloped as the soldiers are. Not even a single one of them offers a good chance to their actors to shine, perhaps only Roselyn Sánchez and Alex Veadov, are the only ones able to create something out of the cliché.

And that's why unfortunately the cliché is the dominant element in "Act of Valor", where it seems that the last thing that was developed was the story. This is tragic for the film, as it leaves it as a group of action scenes connected by a series of poorly acted scenes where nothing relevant or exciting takes place. And the reason of this is simple: the characters are mere caricatures. While "Act of Valor" makes clear that the SEALs have a life full of risk where they face the enemy face to face and offer their lives for their countries, Johnstad offers only eight soldiers that lack a defined personality of their own, avoiding a greater identification with them. True, one of them has five kids, and the other will be a father for the first time, but other than those details, there is nothing else to define them beyond their patriotism and their dedication to their job. In a way, what Johnstad has done is a disrespect to any soldier of any country, as his screenplay dehumanizes them and makes them nothing more than an action figure.

At this point, it's unnecessary to mention that besides it's poorly constructed screenplay, "Act of Valor" is imbued by an excessive American patriotism that shows little interest in presenting the reality of the countries in which the action takes place (it happens everywhere except in the U.S.). However, and while the ethics of their propaganda is questionable (and not a bit subtle), at least in this aspect it can be said that "Act of Valor" accomplishes its mission as a recruiting tool. The truly unforgivable sin of the film is that by pretending to honor the American soldiers, it presents them as empty machines void of personality and useful only to do their job. Nothing is know about they like, what they feel or what they think. the only think known about them is that they are good at killing. Not a particularly honorable portrait.

4/10
-------------------------------
This review was originally published in Spanish for Habitación 101 in May the 25th of 2012. Habitación 101 is a great site to check for news and reviews on cinema and theatre in Spanish.

La Revolución de Juan Escopeta (2011)

From 1910 to 1920, Mexico was immersed in a series of armed conflicts known collectively the Mexican Revolution, as they resulted in major social changes and as a whole formed the most important sociopolitical event in Mexican history of the 20th century. It all began with the uprising of Francisco I. Madero against the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, who had been in power for almost 35 years. Madero's rebellion was followed by many leaders across the country (like Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata), and their Revolution succeeded in ending Díaz' regime in 1911. Unfortunately, that would only be the beginning of the Revolution, as the conflicts between the rebels would continue with General Victoriano Huerta's betrayal and eventual coup d'état. This period of history would mark generations of Mexicans, and naturally, cinema would reflect its relevance. Jorge A. Estrada's "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" is a film set right in the middle of the conflict, but what makes it even more interesting it's the fact that it's an animated film, in an industry that rarely produces animated movies.

"La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" (literally "The Revolution of Juan Escopeta") is set in 1914, during the battles against Victoriano Huerta's army. It's the story of a young kid named Gaspar or Gapo (Ulises Nieto) to friends. Gapo lives with his mother (Dolores Heredia) in a small mining town named Mineral de la Luz, as his father has died and his brother is away, having joined Pancho Villa's army. One night, Huerta's army arrives to town while Gapo is playing in the countryside, and when he returns he finds his house robbed and his mother dead. Gapo is taken by Huerta's army in order to recruit him by force, but he is saved by a mysterious gunslinger named Juan Escopeta (Joaquín Cosío). Escopeta is heading north, and when Gapo learns this he decides to join Escopeta, as his brother's army is there. Escopeta reluctantly accepts, and the two begin a journey through the Mexican heartland, which they will try to cross despite the constant battles between Huerta's army and the rebel forces. And to make things worse, another gunslinger is after Escopeta's head.

Written by director Jorge A. Estrada himself, "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" follows essentially the classic pattern of a road movie in which two very different characters, the idealist Gapo and the tough Juan Escopeta, will learn to work together and an unlikely friendship is formed. All with a quite appropriate Western setting. Perhaps it's not the most original plot line, but an interesting element is the fact that Estrada builds his story around several historical moments of the Mexican Revolution, as the two travelers find themselves involved in some of its major conflicts such as the Battle of Zacatecas. While not without problems, Estrada succeeds in developing convincingly his two main characters, whom through their epic adventure also struggle with their very own personal dramas. Gapo, eager to follow his brothers' steps, faces the reality of a war that keeps taking lives; while Juan meditates about his mercenary ways and rediscovers humanity in his relationship with Gapo, to whom he becomes a father figure.

Director Jorge A. Estrada's visual narrative is traditional yet effective, unfolding his story at a nice rhythm, balancing the mix of comedy, drama and adventure that makes the core of the plot; and all without betraying its Western roots, which are constantly felt not only in the visual imagery, but in the way it tackles more mature themes, after all, "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" is set in the middle of a war. In fact, while an animated film aimed towards a younger audience, "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" doesn't shy away from serious topics, with Gapo discovering that the reality of war is very different than the games he played with his friends. Unfortunately, while Estrada displays good skills as a storyteller, the work of animation done in the film is mediocre at best, downright awful at worst. The film is a classic 2D animation, with some CG enhancements; but while the character design is for the most part good, the quality of the animation is very poor in almost every aspect.

As a saving grace, the quality of the voice acting is for the most part quite effective. As the young Gapo, Ulises Nieto is good in the role of a young boy about to discover the world. Perhaps some of his expressions sound anachronic, though that's more a failure on the screenplay than on his acting. However, it's Joaquín Cosío whom steals the film as the taciturn gunslinger Juan Escopeta. A character that's more about attitude than anything else, Cosío achieves to give a well defined personality to the tired gunslinger. Bruno Bichir plays Cuervo, the mysterious gunslinger who's after Escopeta, and while his performance is good, it does get a bit over the top at times. Julieta Egurrola has a brief but important role in the film as a lonely nun protecting an abandoned church, and her voice work is pretty good. The rest of the cast is effective, though certainly less impressive. Perhaps the weakest link amongst the main cast is Dolores Heredia, who delivers a pretty poor performance as Gapo's mother.

Estrada's "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" has many remarkable elements to its favor, beginning with a truly inspired screenplay that actually develops its characters and story without limiting itself to just looking cool or being funny. Granted, it has some moments of tedium, and at times it does feel a tad episodic, but as a whole, "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" is a very engaging tale of friendship and loyalty. In fact, it's so good that it's actually a real tragedy how awful the quality of the animation is. Developed by Animex (creators of "La Leyenda de la Nahuala"), the work of 2D animation is mess that never really rises up to the level the screenplay deserved. And it's not really a problem in Estrada's directing, as in terms of narrative the film flows nicely, with Estrada picking the right angles to tell his story. The problem is simply in the execution of the animation, which seems to had been done cheaply to save money. To the point that makes one wonder how much better the film would be if it had been a live action movie and not an animated one.

Animated films are scarce in Mexican industry, a filmmaking technique that has never been fully explored, not even during the years of the so-called "Golden Age of Mexican Cinema". In recent times, this has changed and more and more Mexican studios are making attempts at producing an animated film. Unfortunately, the real classic of modern Mexican animation has not been produced yet. "La Revolución of Juan Escopeta" could had been this classic, but while it had a good screenplay, it just lacked quality in everything else. It's sad, because many times it's in the screenplay where most films have their Achilles' heel. In the end, if one manages to ignores the awfully quality of the animation, "La Revolución de Juan Escopeta" will reveal itself as a truly engaging and entertaining story.

6/10

La Guerra Santa (1979)

The Cristero War (or Cristiada) was a conflict that took place from 1926 to 1929, in which Roman Catholics formed an uprising against the Mexican government of President Calles, due to his enforcement of the anticlerical laws. What began with peaceful resistance, soon became a formal rebellion in 1927, and the rebels (known as Cristeros army and formed mainly by rural inhabitants), with the support of the Mexican bishops, began to pose a serious threat to civil order. Peace would only come with the ending of Calles' term as president, and despite grave difficulties (such as the assassination of president-elect Álvaro Obregón by a Catholic radical), an arrangement was reached with he Church and finally the Cristero War ended. The Cristero War left a profound impact in Mexico, as a Civil War in which Mexicans fought against each other instigated by religion. It certainly left a deep sentiment of indignation in filmmaker Carlos Enrique Taboada, as he would portray his vision on the conflict in one of his most accomplished films: 1979's "La Guerra Santa".

"La Guerra Santa" ("The Holy War") chronicles the story of Celso Domínguez (José Carlos Ruiz), a shy and cowardly inhabitant of the poor town of Rincón del Cobre. It all begins when the town's priest, Father Miguel (Víctor Junco), informs at mass that he will close the Church's doors and stop giving mass until the Calles' law is abolished. Father Miguel begins to manipulate the panicked population, convincing the men to join the Cristeros, the rebel army of Catholic loyalists. Celso is afraid of death and doesn't want to go, but seeing how the town begins to shun him, he reluctantly joins the army. Celso enters under the command of Colonel Ursino Valdez (Jorge Luke), a skillful strategist who believes fanatically in his mission and follows the advise of Father Soler (Carlos Cámara). In Ursino's army, Celso will be forced to fight and to kill, joining them in their ventures. The humble peasant will discover the horrors of war and the atrocities committed by both sides in the fratricidal war later known as the Cristero War.

Based on his own research on the subject, "La Guerra Santa" was written by director Carlos Enrique Taboada himself, who took the film as his most personal project. Bleak and full of hopelessness, "La Guerra Santa" is a story about an innocent and calm man being dehumanized and degenerated by the horrors of war. A symbol of the everyman, Celso expresses constantly his unwillingness to join the Cristeros, but does it out of peer pressure. Following the words of the priests, the Cristeros completely believe that their cause is right, and that everything done for the cause is good. However, under the fanatical leadership of Colonel Ursino, soon this "everything" includes raping and pillaging as well. Outspoken about his own anticlerical ideology, Taboada makes no secret about whose side he is on, and portrays the peasant army as the victims of the priests' manipulations who take advantage of their fears and ignorance. Taboada's thesis is that war is always hell, even those justified as "holy". Or better said, specially those justified as holy.

Director Carlos Enrique Taboada translates nicely the bleak tone of his screenplay and makes Celso's descent to hell a visually arresting anti-epic, in which the desert rural landscape reflects the abandon and solitude of the Cristero army. The war is experienced through Celso's eyes, and through him Taboada introduces a series of interesting characters that reflect his pessimism about humanity: the cruel and fanatical Colonel Ursino, the cold and ambitious Father Soler, Celso's amoral friend Jacinto, each one of them enters the conflict with the mission of fighting for God, but Taboada makes clear that God, if exists, has seemingly abandoned his army. A particularly moving scene between Celso and a captured atheist schoolteacher (Claudio Obregón) becomes the focal point in which Taboada centers his vision. Certainly, the film lacks subtlety in its approach and makes no concessions about its ideology, however, Taboada succeeds in crafting a moving portrait of a nation manipulated by its political and religious leaders.

The work done by the cast in "La Guerra Santa" is mostly remarkable, with José Carlos Ruiz delivering the best performance in his career. Certainly, there are moments in which Ruiz overacts a bit, though for the most part his delivery as Celso is of great quality, and his transformation very vivid and haunting. It's remarkable how subtle the change from shy villager to soldier of God is, as Celso looks the same, but something is just different. Equally remarkable is the work of Jorge Luke as the violent colonel Ursino. Luke perfectly portrays the fanatical side of his character without going going for the stereotype. The ruthless colonel is a fanatical, but he is not a caricature, on the contrary, he's vividly dangerous because of how natural Luke's performance is. As Father Soler, Carlos Cámara is pretty effective with his stoic and dignified look, which balances the wilder nature of Luke's Ursino. Nevertheless, Cámara's character is also flawed, and the subtlety of the actor makes the character multidimensional.

Not everyone in the cast is as good as Ruiz and Luke, and some are particularly bad (Roberto Ruy for example), though for the most part is one of the best casts that ever appeared in a Taboada film. In fact, "La Guerra Santa" showcases Taboada's talents at their best, with pretty good use of Miguel Araña's cinematography (which is not exactly special, but does the job right) and his great sense of rhythm resulting in a quite fluid storytelling. As written above, Taboada's film has the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but despite its lack of objectivity, in this ambitious anti-epic Taboada manages to avoid any degree of cheap sentimentalism. It is a tale of defeated people, but it's far from condescending with them. Perhaps its major flaw is once again, a Taboada too enamored with his screenplay to cut it, as there are a couple of vignettes in this war tale that seem either unnecessary or too long. Nevertheless, it's hard to deny that "La Guerra Santa" is one of Taboada's greatest achievements.

To the general public, director Carlos Enrique Taboada is better known as the mastermind behind four classics of Mexican horror: "Hasta el viento tiene miedo" (1968), "El Libro de Piedra" (1969), "Más negro que la noche" (1975) and "Veneno para las Hadas "(1984), his famous horror cycle. And this is not without a reason, as the rest of his varied filmography lacked the spirit and energy of his horror films. The great exception is "La Guerra Santa", an anti-war film in which Taboada was able to fully express his idiosyncrasies regarding religion openly. And this perhaps proves a common trait in Taboada's filmography: the quality of his effort depended on how involved the director felt about the project; and in the case of "La Guerra Santa", that was a lot. "La Guerra Santa" is an unfairly forgotten war film that's not only one of Taboada's best, but one of the best war films in Mexican cinema by its own right.

8/10
-------------------------------

Irish Destiny (1926)

In 1916, a group of Irish republicans mounted an insurrection with the goal of ending centuries of British rule over Ireland and the creation of an independent Irish Republic. The Easter Rising, as it came to be known, was quickly suppressed but its influence was enormously significant: it became the seed for the declaration of Independence in 1919 and the subsequent war against the United Kingdome of Great Britain. The Irish War of Independence lasted from 1919 to 1922, and resulted in the separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom and the instauration of the Republic of Ireland. Naturally, the Irish War of Independence became an important theme for the arts of the new republic, and cinema was not the exception. While the war took its toll in the nascent Irish film industry, the year of 1926 saw the release of the first film inspired by the war of independence: George Dewhurst's "Irish Destiny". Considered lost for many years, the film was rediscovered in 1991, offering a glimpse of the Republic of Ireland's early years.

With the Irish War of Independence as background, "Irish Destiny" is the tale of Denis O'Hara (Paddy Dunne Cullinan), a young man leading a normal life in a small Irish town. Denis is in love with the Moira Barry (Frances Macnamarra), who is the town's teacher. However, he is also aware of the situation of his country so, when given the chance, Denis decides to join the Irish Republican Army in the war of independence. As a member of a group of Irish Volunteers, Denis fights under the orders of Captain Kelly (Kit O'Malley) against the British Army branch known as the Black & Tans. The discovery of plans for a raid at the IRA headquarters, prompts Captain Kelly to send Denis to Dublin and warn the heads of the movement. So, Denis rushes to Dublin in order to fulfill his mission, but in the meantime, the villainous Gilbert Beecher (Brian Magowan) begins to court Moira. To complicate things, Denis gets shot by the Black & Tans, and ends up wounded at a Dublin's hospital. Everyone at home now believes him death, much to the dismay of his mother (Daisy Campbell) and Moira.

Written and produced by Isaac J. Eppel, "Irish Destiny" is at its core, a pretty basic melodrama of romance and heroism during wartime, designed to exalt the ideals of the war of Independence and the values of Irish people (in which of course rests the Irish destiny). Denis, an everyman representing the promising Irish youth, decides to put duty to his country as his main priority and risks his life and happiness in order to do the right thing. While this may sound like bordering propaganda, Eppel's story never tries to be anything more than a harmless tale of romance and adventure. In fact, this unwillingness to go further is actually a problem of the screenplay of "Irish Destiny", as it feels too archaic, even for its time. Interestingly, the British army is not really demonized, and it could even be argued that they receive a fair treatment. The true villains in Denis' life are actually fellow Irishmen: Beecher and his gang of poteen-makers, whom indifferent to the cause, just take advantage of the situation for their own benefit.

Directed by British filmmaker George Dewhurst (who would direct the very first version of "Sweeney Todd" that same year), "Irish Destiny" is particularly notable because of one single reason: the use of real footage from the burnings of Cork in 1920, and of the Customs House in 1921. While narratively those events are only referred to set the historical time-frame of the film, the images shown work as a time capsule from Dublin during the war, and are of invaluable for historical reasons. Also of great interest are the vistas of Dublin that Dewhurst and cinematographer Joe Rosenthal capture, specially during Denis' arrival to the city: a series of scenes following Denis riding a motorcycle through Dublin's streets, where Trinity College and St. Stephen's Greens can be spotted. Other than that, Dewhurst's film is pretty traditional in its approach to melodrama, and does little to improve its simplistic screenplay. Though there are some interesting ideas scattered through the film, for the most part the narrative is sloppy and static.

Acting in "Irish Destiny" is a mixed bag: though there are pretty good performances in the film, there are some that are not that lucky, and amongst them is unfortunately the one from the film's protagonist, Paddy Dunne Cullinan. As Denis, Cullinan looks wooden and stiff, and his emotional range is pretty limited. While he looks the part of the hero, his acting leaves a lot to be desired, and this severely compromises the film's success. As her love interest, Frances Macnamarra is slightly better, not much of an improvement though she certainly looks more natural than her stiff counterpart. A better performance is the one given by Brian Magowan, as the vicious Beecher. While his role is certainly one-dimensional, Magowan adds a lot of personality to his character with his facial gestures. It's not difficult to buy him as a sly and treacherous fella. In the supporting roles, Kit O'Malley and Evelyn Henchey are remarkably good. Henchey in particular is a much more natural and attractive presence in the film than Macnamarra.

Probably the main problem of "Irish Destiny" is how simple it is, and this is taking into account its release date. While by 1926 silent cinema had reached the peak of its art, George Dewhurst's war melodrama feels as a movie 10 years older than its true age, from a time where cinema's language was still in development. Static and terribly stage-bound, its narrative is pretty conventional to the point of being dull. Though as written above, a lot of the blame must go to the Eppel's screenplay, which follows the pretty basic pattern of American's early adventure films, complete with the last minute rescue. Character development is minimal, as they remain the classic archetypes of adventure films: good looking hero, damsel in distress, and treacherous villain. Perhaps more care while developing the story would had improved the results, as the film is not entirely without redeeming qualities. Unfortunately, those good ideas are lost in a movie that even for 1926 can't help but feeling dated and a tad archaic.

Invaluable as a historical record of Ireland's history, yet marred by an unsophisticated and crude narrative, George Dewhurst's "Irish Destiny" is a difficult film to judge. On one hand it's filled with some amazing shots of 1920s Dublin (not to mention its use of historical footage), yet on the other its stylistic problems are undeniable. In the end, the best recommendation would be to approach this piece of Irish history with an open mind, and expect, perhaps not a classic masterpiece of cinema, but a window to a turning point in the history of Ireland. While as a war melodrama it may fall flat, as a time-capsule and a memory of the city of Dublin, "Irish Destiny" is a magnificent piece of work. For all the movie's flaws, the image of Denis riding through Grafton street in his motorbike has an undeniably haunting beauty.

7/10
-------------------------------
Watch "Irish Destiny" (1926)

300 (2006)

The Battle of Thermopylae is probably one of the most famous battles in ancient history, as it is often used as a prime example that the size of an army does not decide a battle. The reason for this lays in the fact that in Thermopylae, a small army of roughly 7000 Greek soldiers managed to defend themselves against the biggest army of its time, the Persians, which counted in its ranks more than 2,500,000 soldiers. While this is the main reason behind its importance, the battle has reached mythical status because it was also an example of courage, as when the battle seemed lost, most of the Greek soldiers retreated with the exception of 300 Spartans, who decided to put a tremendous last stand against their enemy. Their courage not only inspired 700 Thespians to join them, but also has inspired many notable works of art, most recently the 1962 movie "The 300 Spartans" and Frank Miller's 1998 comic book "300". Now, Miller's graphic novel is the basis of a new movie about Thermopylae: Zack Snyder's "300".

"300" can be summarized as the tale of the Battle of Thermopylae, as narrated by a Spartan soldier named Dilios (David Wenham) to his fellow Spartans. The story begins with a brief recounting of King Leonidas' (Gerard Butler) youth, and the events that made him the courageous leader he was. Years later, as a Spartan King, he receives the news that King Xerxes of Persia (Rodrigo Santoro) is on his way to Europe, and gives the chance to Sparta to join him in his quest for conquering the world. Prefering to keep his people free instead of paying tribute to Xerxes, Leonidas refuses, and prepares himself to defend his people. However, the Spartan council has been bought by Xerxes, and refuses to allow Leonidas to go to battle with the full Spartan army. Knowing that this will be his people's doom, Leonidas decides to take with him only 300 of his best soldiers and goes to battle the enormous Asian army alone, in what later will be called the Battle of Thermopylae.

Adapted by Kurt Johnstad, Michael Gordon and Snyder himself, the movie is almost a word for word translation of Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name, which as well was mainly based on Herodotus' writings on the subject. However, this doesn't mean that Miller's work (and therefore the movie) is an accurate history lesson, as Miller's art takes enormous artistic liberties with the story, making his rendition of the Battle of Thermopylae more mythic than realistic, more in tone with the epic poets than with Herodotus' attempt at historical objectivity. While this of course may bother purists, it truly works in the context of the story (being after all, the narration of a soldier), as it's essentially an exaltation of the achievements of a country's army that of course demonizes its enemies. More an action film than a drama about war, the movie focus completely on the event of the battle, which keeps the plot simple but also results in a severe lack of character development.

The film's highlight is definitely the highly stylish visual look that director Zack Snyder uses for his movie, which basically follows Miller's art to the letter. Using the same digital technique than Robert Rodriguez used for "Sin City" (another of Frank Miller's comic books), Snyder brings Miller's graphic art to life in an extremely faithful way taking a lot of care for details, almost putting every frame of the comic book in the big screen. This extremely stylized visual look not only extends to digital backgrounds and special effects, Snyder's movie uses slow motion, great choreographs and a superb art direction to create an operatic narration that, just like in Miller's comic book, accentuates the mythic traits of the story, showing Spartans as super-soldiers and the Persian army as a hellish array of monsters. While of course this is completely inaccurate historically, it fits the story Snyder is trying to tell, although this extreme care for the style often makes him forget to care for the substance.

Now, "300" is without a doubt a great technical achievement and visually, a wonderful film to watch, but it has some major problems deep inside the flashy look, with the performances by the cast being only the top of the iceberg. While Gerard Butler has received a lot of criticism as King Leonidas, he is actually one of the best in the film, and does a really good job with what he has to work (which in all honesty, is not much). If there's any fault in Leonidas' characterization, I'd blame the source material, not Butler. The best in the film is in my opinion, David Wenham, who truly adds a lot of mood and atmosphere to the movie with his narration. He's the only one who seems to capture the feeling of "Epic tale" tthe movie is going for. Sadly, not everyone in the cast was up to the challenge, and one wonders if they were chosen for the part thanks to their physical looks instead of acting talent. Lena Headey, Michael Fassbender and Tom Wisdom are really the main offenders, who make some of the worse parts of the script look even worse with their poor delivery.

Personally, I think that the movie's most serious problem is the overall lack of characterization in the story, which to be fair, is a flaw that comes straight from the source as Miller's simplification of the Battle is what made most of the characters look two dimensional at best. While it is true that Miller remained true to Herodotus and that some lines came straight from his work, it's difficult not to notice how silly some dialogs are, probably the result of a severe misunderstanding of the sources about Thermopylae. True, it's an action film, but a little more of care while developing the script would had been enormously beneficial, because as flawed as it is, Miller's graphic novel had great potential that with some twitching could had resulted in a classic. Another problem of the film is definitely Snyder's complete focus on the visual aspect of his movie. Don't get me wrong, I know that a movie like "300" isn't supposed to be a powerful drama, however, Snyder's visuals tend to get pretty overwhelming, with an excessive use of slow motion that while effective at first, soon becomes a tiring gimmick.

While I do consider "300" to be a flawed film, I must say that it's pointless to judge it in terms of historical accuracy because it never attempts to be accurate and dwells more in the realms of myth. Many have criticized this aspect (as well as Miller's obvious political subtexts) without noticing that "300" is not here to teach or to illustrate, but to simply provide good entertainment, a purpose that despite all its problems, it finally achieves with honors. Granted, that the purpose of the film is only to entertain it's not really a valid justification for a movie's flaws, but what I'm saying is only that the criticism about its historical accuracy is unfair. It's a flawed movie, but not for those reasons. And in the end, that's not that bad.

7/10

Buy "300" (2006)

Kumonosu jô (1957)

Director Akira Kurosawa, without a doubt Japan's most famous director in the Western world, had an enormous influence from English language's best playwright, William Shakespeare, to the extent of making adaptations of Shakespeare's plays. However, unlike most adaptations of the Bard's works, Kurosawa's versions blended the plots with his many other influences resulting in very original stories that while Shakespearean at heart, were also very Japanese. Movies like "Ran" and "Warui Yatsu Hodo Yoku Nemuru" ("The Bad sleep Well") are examples of the results of this mixtures of influences, where the plot is deeply rooted the play, but with the rich Japanese culture filling the screen. Like those two, "Kumonosu Jô" (known in English as "Throne of Blood"), is technically Kurosawa's very own interpretation of "Macbeth", but like the other examples, it is more than a mere adaptation of Shakespeare's play and actually takes the story to a new level by adding elements of Japanese Noh theater.

"Kumonosu Jô" means literally "Cobweb Castle", and that is the place where two brave generals, Taketori Washizu (Toshirô Mifune) and Yoshiteru Miki (Akira Kubo) are heading to after defeating the enemies of their Lord. In their way to the castle, during a dark foggy night, they meet a mysterious old woman (Chieko Naniwa) who presents herself as a powerful spirit. The spirit foresees their future, revealing them that Washizu will be Lord of "Cobweb castle", and that Miki's son will be his successor, but before that, they'll receive great honors from the Castle's current Lord. After they arrive to Cobweb Castle, the first part of the prophecy fulfills as both are highly honored, and this triggers the ambition of Washizu's wife, Lady Asaji (Isuzu Yamada), who in turn convinces Washizu to betray his Lord in order to fulfill the second part of the prophecy. The ambitious Washizu obeys and soon finds himself Lord of Cobweb castle, but fearful of the unfulfilled final part of the prophecy.

While certainly there is more than a little resemblance to "Macbeth" in the plot, the similarities remain only in the basic plot structure, as the story of "Kumonosu Jô" (Written by Kurosawa and his regular collaborators Shinobu Hashimoto, Ryuzo Kikushima and Hideo Oguni) has more changes than the simply translation from Medieval setting to Feudal Japan; in fact, "Kumonosu Jô" works more like a Noh drama put on screen than as a straight forward Shakespeare adaptation. This is not to say that the immortal theme of uncontrolled ambition is lost in the script, but here it takes a very different approach (with Lady Asaji being far more intelligent and cold blooded than Lady Macbeth), and with the element of fate being of bigger importance due to the setting of the story and the cultural differences.

The elements of Noh theater are more prominent in the visual conception of the movie, as director Akira Kurosawa takes the highly stylized atmosphere of Noh drama and translate it to film. This atmosphere includes not only the slow graceful moves of the characters and the equally slow pace of the movie, but also in the gestures, the music and the overall atmosphere of the film. As always, regular collaborator Asakazu Nakai is in charge of the cinematography of the film, creating this atmosphere of desolation and impeding doom with an excellent use of the forest, the birds and the fog. Using Nakai's beautiful work Kurosawa literally creates poetry with his images, and while far from faithful to Shakespeare, he creates one of the most powerful versions of "Macbeth" ever done. The finale, while appropriately different from the play's ending, is simply a glorious example of both Kurosawa, Nakai and Mifune's work.

No review of "Kumonosu Jô" would be complete without talking about the superb acting by Toshirô Mifune and Isuzu Yamada. As Washizu, Mifune shows his vast range as an actor by playing a considerably different character than his previous samurai warriors. Washizu is a man whose ambition is only equaled by his loyalty to his Lord, so the inner conflict in this character after he is finally convinced to fulfill his destiny is what drives the movie. Mifune is simply excellent in his portrayal of a man whose ambition is driven by fate, and consumed by guilt. However, while Mifune definitely gives one of his best performances in his career, Isuzu Yamada is the one who completely steals the movie as Lady Asaji. Her performance is simply breathtaking and of an almost supernatural quality. She is definitely the highlight of the film and it is not a surprise that this is her most celebrated performance on film.

"Kumonosu Jô", or "Throne of Blood", is a remarkable achievement by Kurosawa, and one of the best Japanese dramas of the 50s. However, its fame as a "Macbeth" adaptation may give the false impression that it's a faithful translation. People expecting an exact Japanese "Macbeth" will be sorely disappointed, as while the stories are similar, the explored themes are a bit too different for purists. In the same vein, fans expecting another samurai epic like "Shichinin no samurai" (done 3 years earlier) will definitely be disappointed as the movie is more drama than samurai action. The Noh drama style of the film may be probably hard to get at first, as its stylish method of storytelling may look a bit too slow to modern audiences. However, once the movie starts it's easy to get used to it and personally, I don't see a better way to tell Washizu's story than this.

In his country, Kurosawa was often criticized for being "too Western" for Japanese audiences after the worldwide success of "Rashômon" and "Shichinin no samurai"; however, "Kumonosu Jô" is an example of Kurosawa making a very Japanese film that despite having its roots in an English play, it's very accurate in its portrait of the Japanese Feudal culture. "Throne of Blood" is definitely a must-see and a remarkable classic.

9/10

Buy "Kumonosu jô" (1957)

Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925)

Very few people in the history of the cinema have left an imprint as deep as Sergei M. Eisenstein, Russian director and film theorist whose ideas about montage changed film editing (and film-making itself) forever. As one of the first to discover the potential of the artistic manipulation of film in order to transmit emotions, Eisenstein transformed film editing from simple chronological cuts to a more expressive language. His third movie, "Bronenosets Potyomkin" ("Battleship Potemkin" in English), is definitely his most famous work and the flagship of the montage theory, as it was in this movie where he was able to fully explore the ideas he had developed initially in "Stachka" ("Strike), his first feature. Many has been written about "Battleship Potemkin", and not without a reason, as this movie lives up to its status of classic like no other.

"Battleship Potemkin" is the dramatization of a real life story, the uprising of the Potemkin's crew against their officers in June 1905. The story begins when in the Potemkin, sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov) and his mates discover that the meat destined for their consumption is rotten and filled with maggots. The sailors protest, but the officers state that the meat is in fact in good conditions and that the sailors will have to eat it. These statements increase the rage of the sailors, who that night refuse to eat the rotten meat, defying their superiors in a blatant display of protest. The next day, the Potemkin's officers decide to execute those who defied their orders, and it's at that moment when sailor Vakulinchuk decides to call for a rebellion. The consequences of the Battleship Potemkin uprising will be enormous, and the first place that feels them is the small city of Odessa.

While the movie was co-written by Eisenstein and three of his collaborators, "Battleship Potemkin" is completely Eisenstein's brainchild, as he devised the movie as an experiment about the effects of his editing technique on the audience. The desired effect was that the audience felt completely identified with the revolutionaries and their cause, while at the same time had feelings of antipathy and rejection to the czar's army, arguably the film's "villians". While this may sound like a very simplistic approach to the story, it is really the perfect devise to Eisenstein's highly visual style of film-making, as what matters in the film are not the characters, but the events happening. Despite being a fictional account of the real life event, Eisenstein's script captures the spirit of the uprising and the ideologies behind it (after all, it was conceived as revolutionary propaganda) in a quite powerful way.

Obviously, Eisenstein's direction is the true star of the movie, as he shows his mastery, not only of montage, but also of cinematography (by Eduard Tisse and Vladimir Popov) and overall visual composition, which give the movie a nearly poetic majesty. It is often said that movies with good narrative should be able to tell its story without sound, and "Battleship Potemkin" proves that statement true with its near perfect visual storytelling that without problems (and with very few inter-titles) transmits its message to the audience. Another interesting trait of the film is how despite the manipulative montage, it feels incredibly realistic, almost as if it was a documentary on the subject. The now legendary Odessa Steps sequence, a monumental achievement in film-making, is done in a tremendously realistic fashion that, as critic Roger Ebert points out, "is often referred to as if it really happened".

To achieve this atmosphere of realism, Eisenstein often used untrained people (and even members of his crew) to play basically themselves in his movies, and "Potemkin" is not an exception, as to most of the actors on screen this meant their only participation in movies. A notable exception is the man playing the movie's most important role, Aleksandr Antonov, who plays rebel sailor Vakulinchuk. Antonov had his debut in Eisenstein's first movie Dnevnik Glumova, and went on to have a relatively prolific career during the following decades. As Vakulinchuk, his performance is quite powerful and very natural, capturing with ease the traits of the legendary rebel and transforming him into a myth. On a side note, directors Vladimir Barsky and Grigori Aleksandrov (Eisenstein's close collaborator) appear in the movie in the roles of the battleship's evil officers.

More than 80 years after its initial release, one can still say that Eisenstein's experiment was an enormous improvement in film editing techniques, and more than that, it was probably the final step to complete the transformation of film into an art form. While the use of film editing to create emotions was of course done with the purpose of using the films as revolutionary propaganda, the use of images and symbolism to create emotions in the audience is hardly objectionable and one could say that it was even necessary for movie to be the expressive art form that is today. Due to all those reasons, "Battleship Potemkin" is without a doubt one of the most important movies ever made, and one that even today manage to bring great emotions from its audiences, as its universal message of freedom is certainly more powerful than any political ideology.

An obligatory entry in almost every book on the history of cinema, "Battleship Potemkin" is a movie that even today, more than 80 years after its conception, keeps being not only a thrilling an entertaining story, but also as fresh and influential as when it was originally released. Some would accuse it of being manipulative propaganda, and while they are probably right, in the end, what film is not manipulative?

10/10
-------------------------------
Watch "Bronenosets Potyomkin" (1925) - Unrestored

The Long Voyage Home (1940)

Without a doubt, director John Ford is one of the most highly regarded American filmmakers of all-time, as not only he directed several acclaimed movies through his career, his work is often cited as a big influence by celebrated directors such as Orson Welles. While definitely better remembered for his revolutionary work in the Western genre, Ford tackled many different themes and subjects through the 49 years of his career, and "The Long Voyage Home", based on Eugene O'Neill's "Glencairn Plays", is a big proof of this. Produced during one of the highest creative peaks in Ford's career (1939-1940), "The Long Voyage Home" is a drama film about the crew of a freighter; and while it's probably an atypical Ford film at first sight, it's probably one of his best and most personal, and it even has one of the best and most unusual performances by Ford's most famous friend: John Wayne.

"The Long Voyage Home" tells the story of the crew aboard the SS Glencairn, an English ship during World War II. The crew includes very different and contrasting people, such as the witty Irishman Drisoll (Thomas Mitchell), the young and optimistic Swedish farmer Ole (John Wayne), the melancholic philosopher Donkeyman (Arthur Shields) and the brooding Englishman Smitty (Ian Hunter); with the ship being what brings them together and the place where they face their own demons. However, their trip from Baltimore to London will bring another problem to their lives: the Glencairn has picked up dynamite in Baltimore, and will try to transport it to England sailing through the Atlantic ocean, where the German army lurks and hunts for this kind of shipments. This difficult situation will be the catalyst that will uncover secrets, put them to test, and make some personalities clash.

As written above, the movie is an adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's "Glencairn Plays", four one-act plays about the Glencairn's crew, although scriptwriter Dudley Nichols moves the action from World War I to World War II. Nichols shows a lot of care in his work of blending the four plays into one single storyline, as well as a great understanding of cinema as a different medium from theater. Not only he manages to update O'Neill's work to the years of the WWII, he does it without compromising the often bleak and pessimistic themes of the plays; and more importantly, it's all so wonderfully structured that while episodic, the story flows seamlessly and with a very good rhythm, making hard to believe that it's made of 4 stage plays. Nichols makes sure to develop every character in a very realistic way, making them just like O'Neill intended them to be: portraits of real sailors and their life.

Like he previously did in "Stagecoach" and "The Grapes of Wrath", director John Ford once again creates a movie around a group of characters, although unlike those other film, in "The Long Voyage Home" there is not a "main character" to tie the rest of the group, here everyone is of relatively equal importance and if there's anything that brings them together, that would be their voyage home itself. And Ford makes said voyage to have a life of its own thanks to the eye of the legendary cinematographer Gregg Toland, who in this movie gives one of his best works, capturing with his camera haunting images that posses both a harsh realism and a supernatural beauty. A lot of the power of Toland's images comes from how atmospheric they are, as Ford used them brilliantly to portray the feelings of isolation and loneliness in which the sailors live during their trip.

A lot has been said about how the combined talents of Nichols, Ford and Toland created this great movie, but honestly, it wouldn't be the same without the excellent performances delivered by the cast. As Driscoll, arguably the leader of the gang, actor Thomas Mitchell is simply excellent in his portrayal of the charming Irishman. However, as great as his performance is, he is eclipsed by Ian Hunter's portrayal of the mysterious Smith, a sailor haunted by the inner demons from his past, in which is probably the best work of acting done in the movie. As the only optimist in the group, John Wayne is very effective, in a role that proves that there was more in the Duke than the cowboy he often portrayed in films. Familiar faces from other Ford movies such as Barry Fitzgeral and John Qualen also deliver excellent performances as the movie's only source of comic relief.

It's very probable that "The Long Voyage Home"'s worst enemy is the fame of John Ford and John Wayne, as considering the style of most of their other collaborations (Wayne appeared in 24 of Ford's films) and the fact that he gets top billing, one could be expecting another of Wayne's roles as a lead actor when here he is in fact, just another member of an excellent ensemble cast. Still, this movie is one of Ford's most enjoyable films, mainly because the humanity of the characters is so realistic, that it's not difficult to feel identified with the sailors and their problems, and I would venture to say that the physical isolation in which they live is somewhat representative to the mental isolation one feels during difficult times. While melancholic and somewhat bittersweet in tone, "The Long Voyage Home" is definitely a very powerful and human motion picture.

"The Long Voyage Home" will probably disappoint those expecting to see Wayne in a World War II action role, but it provides a different fascet of John Ford's cinema that it's as interesting as what he did in his Westerns. In "The Long Voyage Home", Ford creates a haunting portrayal of humanity and its many sides, contrasting optimism, pessimism, idealism and even nihilism in a very beautiful and realistic way. Ford and Wayne will probably be remembered mostly for their Westerns, but it's in films like this one where they show that their talents weren't limited by a genre. Personally, this is my favourite performance by Wayne, as despite being a relatively small role, here he shows he knew how to act.

9/10
-------------------------------

Vámonos con Pancho Villa (1936)

1936 proved to be a defining year in Mexican director Fernando De Fuentes' career, as it was the year when he released the two most important movies of his career: the musical comedy "Allá en el Rancho Grande", and the war drama "Vámonos con Pancho Villa". Two very different movies whose results defined the future of De Fuentes' work. The last one to be shot, but the first to be released, "Allá en el Rancho Grande" became the most successful Mexican movie as the time, breaking box office records and receiving praise across the globe. On the other hand, the last part of his Revolution trilogy, "Vámonos con Pancho Villa", suffered a troubled shooting and awful reception at box office. These results would make De Fuentes to decide to focus on commercially successful movies from now on, however, time has proved that while a commercial failure, "Vámonos con Pancho Villa" was De Fuentes' true masterpiece about the Revolution.

The movie is the story of Tiburcio Maya (Antonio R. Frausto), Melitón Botello (Manuel Tamés), Miguel Ángel del Toro (Ramón Vallarino), Martín Espinosa (Rafael F. Muñoz) and the Perea brothers (Raúl De Anda and Carlos López), six very good friends who one day decide to participate in the Mexican Revolution by joining the forces under the command of General Pancho Villa (Domingo Soler), considered a hero by the group. Fighting alongside their hero, the gang begins to be noticed as a very skilled and brave team (earning the nickname of "Lions of San Pablo"), but while very exited at first, as the war goes on the gang begins to discover that war is not as glorious and fair as they thought it was, that courage and honor worth nothing in the battlefield, and that even history's greatest heroes can have very inhuman traits.

Based on a novel by Rafael M. Muñoz (who experienced Revolution first hand and also played a role in the film), the movie was written by Fernando De Fuentes himself with the collaboration of poet Xavier Villaurrutia. In a very straight forward fashion, the story follows the six friends and their misadventures fighting against the Federal government alongside one of the many Villa's squadrons. While De Fuentes' use of the six characters as one collective hero indeed does sacrifice some character development, he makes sure to establish a distinct personality for everyone to make up for that. Once again De Fuentes takes a critic position on the Revolution and instead of glorifying the war, he shows it as a corrupting hell where people is used like mere objects by those commanding the armies.

Film critic A.O. Scott once called De Fuentes "the Mexican John Ford", and this movie is quite probably the reason behind his statement. Finally working with a good budget, De Fuentes does an amazing job in recreating life during the Revolution complete with really good choreographed battles and an extensive care for historical accuracy. Visually, the film is a joy as De Fuentes' care for realism is wonderfully captured by the cinematography of the legendary Gabriel Figueroa (in of his first jobs) which together with De Fuentes' masterful domain of the montage techniques form a powerful and crude portrait of the war. In spite of the great technical merits of the movie, De Fuentes keeps the film focused on his characters and the crumbling of their ideals, effectively portraying the human side of the conflict.

In one of this earliest roles, legendary actor Domingo Soler plays the man himself, Pancho Villa, and as the general, Soler delivers a terrific performance that truly humanizes the figure of the general, avoiding myths and portraying him with all his virtues and flaws. While the "Lions of San Pablo" are our collective hero, some have more prominence than others. Antonio R. Fraustro makes an excellent job in his performance as Tiburcio Maya, the leader of the "Lions" and the one who idolizes Villa the most. Manuel Tamés is simply perfect as the funny Melitón Botello, showing not only his talent for comedy, but also a powerful dramatic presence. Ramón Vallarino plays "Becerrillo", the youngest of the gang, and while struggles a bit, doesn't do a bad job. The rest of the cast has lesser screen time, but there are good performances by Carlos López "Chaflán" and a very young Raúl De Anda.

At the time of its release, "Vámonos con Pancho Villa" was completely overshadowed by De Fuentes' other movie, as the public preferred the uplifting musical comedy over the grim and dark meditation on the war. The harsh criticism De Fuentes makes about the revolutionaries and the figure of Pancho Villa (who is shown as a man far from the heroic ideal) didn't help in this matter, and the movie ended almost forgotten. However, "Vámonos con Pancho Villa" is truly a monumental epic that shows the talent of De Fuentes as a director able to portray introspective human drama in an epic adventure, pretty much on the level of John Ford and Sam Peckinpah. Of course, when compared to his previous movie, "El Compadre Mendoza", the plot may seem simplistic, but De Fuentes never lets his story get boring or tiresome.

While many critics consider "El Compadre Mendoza" as De Fuentes' best movie, personally I think that "Vámonos con Pancho Villa" is the movie where his style is at its best as everything just fits nicely with his vision of the Revolution. Sadly, the poor results of the film almost ended De Fuentes' career, so he spent his following years making commercially successful movies without caring too much for the art. Still, this movie is a fitting ending for his Revolution trilogy, and a fitting closure to the first era of Mexican sound films as this film inaugurated the "Golden Age of Mexican Cinema".

10/10

Buy "Vámonos con Pancho Villa" (1936)

El Prisionero Trece (1933)

One of the most important and influential figures of the early years of Mexican sound films, director Fernando De Fuentes began his career in the film industry with the job of subtitling foreign movies for a chain of theaters, taking advantage of his knowledge of English. While having studied in the U.S. gave him good job opportunities, he decided to pursue a career in the young Mexican movie industry after the introduction of sound films, and his first job would be as assistant director in Mexico's first successful sound movie: "Santa". A year later, De Fuentes would find himself making his debut as a director with "El Anónimo", a typical melodrama (sadly now lost) that only found moderate success; however, his second movie, "El Prisionero Trece", would be the one that would show the magnitude of his rising talent, marking the beginning of what is now known as his "Revolution trilogy".

In "El Prisionero Trece", Alfredo Del Diestro plays Julián Carrasco, a soldier whose alcoholism has turned into a violent man. Unwilling to keep living this way, his wife Marta (Adela Sequeyro) leaves him and takes their son with her. Years go by, the Revolution starts, and Carrasco is now a Colonel in charge of arresting revolutionaries and spies. One night, his troops manage to arrest 13 members of the revolution, and the governor orders their execution; however, the family of one of them is very rich, and asks Carrasco for his freedom in exchange of a big sum of money. At first he is not convinced of this, but his good friend Zertuche (Luis G. Barreiro) convinces Carrasco to accept the offer. Knowing that the governor demanded thirteen executions, Carrasco orders the release of the thirteenth prisoner and the capture of a look-alike to replace him, but this proves to be a cruel and shocking surprise to the violent Colonel as the man chosen to replace the prisoner 13 is none other than his son Juan (Arturo Campoamor).

The movie was written by Fernando De Fuentes himself, with the collaboration of Miguel Ruiz, although judging by their future works, it's obvious that De Fuentes was the mind behind the script, as it sets some of the themes he would explore later in his next Revolution movies. As in a classic tragedy, the plot unfolds nicely as De Fuentes slowly puts all the elements of the story in their right place. While the movie is essentially a melodrama about sins from the past returning to haunt a character, De Fuentes uses this story to show his ideas about the government's actions during the Mexican Revolution, portraying in a very realist fashion the fears and paranoia of the urban populations in the years of the Revolution, as well as the fragility of morality in extreme circumstances such as a civil war.

Like many of the young Mexican directors of 30s, the greatest influence than De Fuentes received in those years was without a doubt the work of Russian director Sergei M. Eisenstein, who started visiting Mexico in 1930. However, De Fuentes also carried a big influence from the American style of film-making thanks to his work subtitling films, so his personal style developed from the mixture of both schools. The remarkable way De Fuentes uses montage and his fluid camera-work are direct results of those influences, and De Fuentes makes great use of Ross Fisher's (another important figure in early Mexican cinema) cinematography to tell his story. While a master of visual narrative, De Fuentes understood quickly that sound in films meant more than just being able to listen the dialogs, and so he was one of the first Mexican directors to use sound to build up suspense and enhance the atmosphere of the movie.

The cast is really effective, with those on the two main roles delivering excellent performances. In the role of Colonel Julián Carrasco, Chilean actor Alfredo del Diestro demonstrates an amazing talent that extends to more than an excellent domain of the Mexican accent, as his performance is simply breathtaking (he would also appear in De Fuentes' "El Compadre Mendoza", the role of his lifetime). Equally as good is Luis G. Barreiro as Zertuche, perfectly portraying the malicious man who serves as Carrasco's Mephistopheles in this tale. The rest of the cast is very good, with Adela Sequeyro (who later would become a director) being excellent as Carrasco's wife, and Arturo Campoamor delivering a very natural performance as his son Juan. De Fuentes' regular collaborator Antonio R. Frausto appears in a minor, but memorable role as one of the arrested revolutionaries.

One of the most notable aspects of "El Prisionero Trece" (and De Fuentes' Revolution trilogy in general), is the harsh criticism it makes to the war as a whole. While later it became common to portray the Mexican Revolution in an idealized way, De Fuentes movies avoids the romanticism and offers a crude, realistic vision of a country at war. This stance gave problems to De Fuentes as the government wasn't too happy about the movie's premise (as it showed the revolutionaries as willing to offer bribes to corrupt enemy officers in exchange of pardon) and demanded changes done to the epilogue, making it look like a cop out ending. On a different matter, a constant problem with this an other early Mexican films is the fact that due to the low budgets, most of the extras weren't trained actors, making their performances really bad in comparison to the rest of the cast.

As the first movie in the Revolution Trilogy, "El Prisionero Trece" is an excellent film to start discovering the works from the early Mexican cinema. It offers not only the first great work by a legend of film-making, but also an interesting point of view about the Revolution that few dared (and still few dare) to present. Powerful and brutal, "El Prisionero Trece" is definitely a hard film to forget, and it was only the beginning.

7/10

-------------------------------

Alatriste (2006)

One of the most popular figures in modern Spaniard literature is definitely Arturo Pérez-Reverte, who since the late 80s has produced a long string of successful novels touching a wide variety of genres such as adventure, thriller and historical novels. Without a doubt, his most popular character is Alatriste, who originated in the book "El Capitán Alatriste" and has appeared in 5 novels after his debut. Being his response to the lack of treatment of the Spanish Golden Century in history books, "The Adventures of Captain Alatriste" have conquered many fans thanks to its accurate portrayal of the history of Spain and the mix of action, adventure and romance in its narrative. Considering the popularity of the character, it was not a surprise that a movie adaptation began to be considered, however, what is indeed a surprise is the sadly poor quality of the resulting product.

Set in 17th century Spain, "Alatriste" is the story of Diego Alatriste (Viggo Mortensen), an aging soldier who after serving in the Flanders War makes his living working as an assassin for hire. His life has a sudden change when one day a young boy named Iñigo Balboa (Nacho Pérez) arrives to his house with a letter. In the letter Alatriste discovers that Iñigo is the son of Lope De Balboa (Alex O'Dogherty), one of his good friends at Flanders and who asked him to protect Iñigo before dying under the enemy fire. While he knows that his way of life is not the most appropriate for this job, he takes Iñigo under his care, decided to fulfill his promise. The movie chronicles many of the adventures that Alatriste lives in Madrid, including the meeting of the love of his life, his problems at the King's court and specially his often difficult relation with his "adopted son", Iñigo.

The movie was written by director Agustín Díaz Yanes himself, and sadly, this is were things start going wrong for the movie, as Díaz' script is an example of what not to do when adapting a series of books. Instead of focusing on one of the many books to build up the story (or making a new adventure), Díaz Yanes opts for condensing the plots of 5 books into one single script, moving from event to event without giving the proper time to develop the details behind the stories. While this still may sound like a fan's nitpicking, it is actually a major problem in the film, as the script lacks a proper narrative to tie every event in the movie, leaving the feeling of an incomplete work or a lack of care in the development of the screenplay. Without a cohesive narrative, it doesn't matter how good the characters are or how interesting the setting is; the result ends up as boring, and often incoherent.

The terrible quality of the script contrasts enormously with the excellent work of production done in the film, as it is really one of the best and most realist portraits of 17th Century Spain committed to film. While his script is of an awful quality, as a director Díaz Yanes shows a great skill directing actors in complex set pieces, as well as a nice use of Paco Femenia's excellent cinematography and Benjamín Fernández' art direction. Focusing on the characters, Díaz Yanes seems to avoid the traits of epic adventure (odd considering the source novels) in favor of human drama, resulting in an extensive use of closed spaces to tell his film and portray the decadence of Spain in those years. Despite this focus, there are some brilliantly choreographed (by the legendary Bob Anderson) sword fights through the film that help to spice up things from time to time.

Díaz Yanes' best trait is his direction of actors, and in this aspect he doesn't disappoint, getting very good performances from most of his cast. Viggo Mortensen takes the lead role of Alatriste with courage and dignity, and shows his great versatility and talent. While his Spanish has some minor problems, he delivers a convincing performance against all odds. Unax Ugalde plays the adult Iñigo, although he is not nearly as convincing as Mortensen is in his character. The women in the movie are truly the film's best feature, with Elena Anaya and Ariadna Gil delivering bests performances of the movie as the mysterious Ángelica De Alquézar and actress María De Castro respectively. Juan Echanove and Eduardo Noriega have small but important roles as Alatriste's friends, with Echanove making a terrific job portraying poet Francisco De Quevedo.

Considering the many excellent things that "Alatriste" has to offer, the terrible flaws in its script become even more tragic as serve as proof that without a good screenplay the movie simply doesn't work. While by the second act it kind of gets on focus and the problem is somewhat corrected, the story never stops feeling like a series of disjointed vignettes without any connection other than the main characters, as the motifs and reasons for every adventure end up either unknown or are explained on a very superficial way. I know a movie should not be compared to the book it's based on, but in this case it is obvious that Díaz Yanes' mistake was to try to put 5 different books into one movie. This ambition destroys what otherwise could had been the best swashbuckling adventure in many years, as no matter how amazing the movie looks or how good the actors are in their roles, the movie feels simply incomplete.

"The Adventures of Captain Alatriste" are excellent adventure novels, as not only they offer an accurate portrayal of the period, but also have really interesting characters and wonderfully thrilling story lines. Sadly, "Alatriste" the film only keeps that care for historical accuracy as everything else is thrown out of the window by Díaz Yanes. While I'm sure fans of swashbucklers will like it, I'm also sure that it could had been better, a lot better.

5/10
-------------------------------