The Liberator (2013)

When "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out, some of us spent long hours discussing the meaning of the disjointed ending. Then I read the novel and discovered that the ending made perfect, even banal, sense; it was just that Kubrick had cut away the connecting logic and left us with isolated images. Something similar happens in this attempt to transpose Bolivar's epic struggle to two hours on-screen; incidents appear with no clear reason or subsequent implication. Danny Huston, compelling and charming as always, appears initially as an Englishman whose role seems central, only to disappear for most of the film after a few scenes. And when he does reappear, it is implied (quite counter-historically) that he had something to do with a famous attack on Bolivar's life. Or maybe not, since transitions are not this film's strong point. The memorable Manuela Saenz appears all at once but is never even named and it is only AFTER the attack in question that we hear a brief mention of her courage - with no hint that she in fact may have saved Bolivar's life, earning her the nickname "The Liberator of the Liberator". We briefly see Sucre close-up before he gets lost in the subsequent crowd of faces, so that when news comes of his assassination (with no hint that it was probably one of Bolivar's own officers who arranged it) we see Bolivar upset, but with no clear idea of why (still less that Bolivar supposedly cried out, "They have slain Abel!" foreseeing the impact it would have on the movement's hopes). Basically, if you do not already know much of this story, you may be swept up in the panoramic battles, the personal conflicts and some very erotic moments, but you won't really follow what's going on. If you do know it, you will be frustrated by how key events are given equal weight with some which may not even have happened (notably the end, which corresponds to no documented reality I know of). It does not help that the film lingers early on on what is essentially back story, wasting valuable screen time on what is apparently meant to be character development, but ultimately slows and clutters a story that needs far more delineation. Will you enjoy the film? If you like pageantry and passion, very likely. Will you come away much more informed about important historical events, or a complex figure, than if you had watched a completely fictional costumed drama? Not really.

This movie with Simon Bolivar as one of the main characters should be compulsory in any high-school. It's an EPIC that provides ideas to ponder. Regardless whether the story is fully true to what happened in those days. Naturally, the dialogues between the characters were written by people that live in our time. Still, I believe that they managed to stick to the spirit of Simon Bolivar and his conviction that South America should not be ruled by an elite group but by the people and that it should be united, just like North America. However, there's a big difference with North America, and I'll leave it to the reader of this review to determine what those differences are for themselves. Just one hint from my own perspective: consider the role of Torkington.The shootings of South America are beautiful and breathtaking and the dilemmas that Simon is facing are expressed fantastically well in the dialogues he has with himself and the people he encounters during his quest to stay true to himself and those people. I fully recommend this as "one to watch" (and to think about for yourself and to discuss it with others)!

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.

I saw this film a few months back, it was a limited release film. My main reason for watching this film was for the History aspect of it, I've not seen anything that relates to the South American Revolution and was eager to see it, because no filmmaker in Hollywood has made a film with that theme.The film takes place in the early 1800s with Spain dealing with rebellion through the continent, as the people from Latin America seek freedom from Spain. So on to the review, I enjoyed the film greatly, with great visuals, superb acting, great photography. What the film lack and this is what disappointed me the most was story structure, character development. I wanted to get to know some these historic figures a lot more, it seemed rush a times, during certain scenes you wanted to know what this guy was about or some of the female characters. I felt this film had a lot of potential to be something more if they just spend more time on story and the characters.