User reviews

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.

Very good movie. Edgar Ramirez is the best Simon Bolivar since Mariano Alvarez (RIP). It's a movie I would own and watch again and recommend it to anyone that wants to learn about this great man and/or sit and enjoy a movie. The photography and design are superb. I felt that Bolivar's struggles were palpable and moving. They should have made it a longer, two-part movie if you ask me. The only thing that I didn't understand much was the final scene. I guess the director just wanted to get artistic, or give it a little twist. Anyone that has read or studied Bolivar, as any Venezuelan has or should, will know what I'm talking about.

Antonio Jose de Sucre needs a whole movie of his own.

I'm Venezuelan, and I went to cinema to watch Libertador with high expectations. I didn't want it this time to be on front of a documentary movie because even with a awesome and rich Venezuelan history, not too much movies have threaten the history in a enjoyable way for young public.

Libertador caught me since the beginning with the excellent plays of Maria Theresa (Maria Valverde) and of course Simon Bolivar (Edgar Ramirez). And later Simon was taking high personality like a snowball down a mountain. I catch the idea Simon was a natural young boy with revolutionary ideas, but at starts, it was just a boy. In my technical analysis about the movie I have to say I loved the photography edition, also the customs used by actors, the landscapes scenes were awesome. Particularly the journey through the snowed mountains was really touching (speaking in a technical and dramatical way) .

In summary, I would recommend you to watch this movie.

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

It's fine. Watch it, particularly if you feel like being told a complex story in childish terms. It will tell you how awesome some people are and how evil others are. But it's nonsense, of course. It's just entertainment.

The movie itself is not at fault in any unique way. It's always been fashionable to produce scripts that use history in order to create a fantasy world. Marketing strategies determine the perspective to adopt and if historical fact gets in the way few will notice.

Still, it provides a point of view, a simplistic one but a contribution nonetheless. If you use it to motive you to dig deeper, power to you. If you don't, well, you will at least be moderately entertained.

Godspeed.

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.

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.

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 .

I am not much of a history person and I don't often watch biographic movies but Simon Bolivar is one of the most interesting historical figures so I've made sure not to miss out on this one.

I've enjoyed the movie a lot from the beginning to its end. While at some points I felt the movie was a bit stretched out, that is the only complaint I am gonna have. The landscapes used for filming were beautiful, the costumes, make-up and hairdo looked so realistic and reminiscent of that era I was quite surprised, the plot had enough twists and turns and, most importantly, the acting was superb. I loved the way Simon Bolivar and his peers were portrayed and the constant inner battle of the legendary general and later president that was shown throughout the movie. This film was all about the man that he was and the man he became hardened through loss and war.

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.

Other members already mentioned the issues with this film, more importantly the script, characters and story. The first 30 minutes show us nothing.

The movie starts saying : " Simon Bolivar 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."

Yet his Wikipedia page claims: "Bolívar fought 472 battles, of which 79 were important ones, and during his campaigns rode on horseback 123,000 kilometers, which is 10 times more than Hannibal, three times more than Napoleon, and twice as much as Alexander the Great."

So, you can understand that these are all propaganda and exaggerated claims. He just wanted to grab power and govern all Latin America. He didn't believe in democracy and said that societies like Venezuela "will require a firm hand".

Henri La Fayette Villaume Ducoudray Holstein described him as a coward who repeatedly abandoned his military commission in front of the enemy, and also as a great lover of women, being accompanied at all times by two or more of his mistresses during the military operations. He would not hesitate to stop the fleet transporting the whole army and bound for Margarita Island during two days in order to wait for his mistress to join his ship. According to Ducoudray Holstein, Bolívar behaved essentially as an opportunist preferring intrigues and secret manipulation to an open fight. He was also deemed incompetent in military matters, systematically avoiding any risks and permanently anxious for his own safety.

Karl Marx dismissed Bolívar as a "falsifier, deserter, conspirator, liar, coward and looter", and a "false liberator who merely sought to preserve the power of the old Creole nobility to which he belonged."

He also says that that Bolívar abandoned his troops multiple times and writes that Bolívar had to be persuaded by his cousin Ribas to return to fight against the Spanish after staying in Cartagena. Marx then penned that after arriving in Caracas in 1813, Bolívar's "dictatorship soon proved a military anarchy, leaving the most important affairs in the hands of favorites, who squandered the finances of the country, and then resorted to odious means in order to restore them."

one of films who impress first for the great ambition to present a complex story in its details, nuances and profound senses. than - for the right manner to do it. because it has romanticism, fight scenes, political confrontations, portrait of hero and aspects who defines the vulnerabilities of a man. it is a homage and many idealistic scenes are easy to be criticize. it is a manifesto and the purpose is far to be ignored. but, more important, it is a spectacular work who escapes from the temptation of easy ways. Edgar Ramirez does a credible Bolivar and that is the key to understand the man behind the great leader. a film who impress . not only for the image or the battle scenes, for the idealism and for the coherent story but for the feeling after its end. because it is little more than a romantic picture or a biopic with ambition of blockbuster. it is a story who reminds the books from childhood . and that is enough for ignore the detail than the real Simon Bolivar was more than the hero, his errors and sins and vision about the way to impose his project being more complex than the film presents. but, in fact, it is one of the good points of film - the invitation to discover El Libertador more profound.

There are so many extraneous and disruptive non-essential scenes, the important story of the history of The Liberator, Simon Bolivar, and those of us who would like to know that story, are badly short-changed.

Yes, it is a very big-budget film, with apparently thousands of extras amid the mountainous grandeur of South America, but so much is shown almost as a collage or montage, it never holds together as a narrative.

Good actors are wasted when a director is as apparently narcissistic as this one seems to be. Tell The Story! But, no, he wants to impress us with his directing. And fails.

Too much camera work is obviously shakily hand-held and wobbly, and probably "The Liberator" or "Libertador" could have been saved by better editing, but my guess is the director bossed that.

Other than the acting and the score by Dudamel, oh, and the scenery, and I suppose the scope, for viewers who might care about that, there is not a lot to recommend here.

After watching 60 hours of Bolivar- una lucha admirable, I wanted to look into other movies/shows about Simon Bolivar. I found this one and liked the trailer so I decided to watch it. Here's my positives and negatives:

Positives:

• Great fight scenes
• Epic sceneries

Negatives:

• Little to no background information, character development or any depth at all
• No chemistry between any of the main characters. That being said, there isn't really a main character apart from Simon Bolivar
• Scenes at times do not seem connected to each other

All in all, OK to watch. But you do not miss anything if you don't.

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)!

Historical drama. A Spanish-Venezuelan biographical drama that tells both the life and the difficult fate of the legendary Liberator Simon Bolivar, one of the leaders of the Latin American revolution. This is the second attempt at a film adaptation of Bolivar's biography (the first was in 1969, and it was frankly weak), but this one was a success. Although, as it turned out, the author of this review had already watched it, he simply forgot, and the current viewing was repeated, but with knowledge of the real biography of Simon Bolivar. And here's a brief opinion - A good, albeit rather superficial Spanish-Venezuelan historical film. There are both advantages and disadvantages in the picture, and all this should definitely be sorted out. Therefore, this should be the end of this introduction.

So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - despite its superficiality and the absence of many events, the picture will show us the struggle of a young Creole from the noble family of Simon Bolivar with the Spanish Empire, which sucks all the juices out of its considerable colonies in South America, without putting the local population into anything (where there are mestizos, whites, blacks, and Indians), and all attempts by local residents to achieve justice end up, at best, being dispersed by troops (and at worst, with sophisticated executions, which you can find information about yourself, believe me, there are a lot of interesting things there). Our attention will be drawn to Bolivar, from a happy family man to the president of Great Colombia, who dreams of uniting all the former Spanish colonies into a powerful state, the Andean Federation. For the sake of liberating the motherland, the hero overcomes all possible adversities, crosses the Andes with the army (which are much higher than the Alps), defeats the experienced Spanish armies with smaller forces, becomes commander-in-chief and president of Great Colombia, and before that liberated Venezuela. He gets defeated several times, but he starts all over again with perseverance, and it pays off. Of course, the image of Bolivar is romanticized here, but in this film adaptation it is already clear what is happening and what year is on the screen now (unlike the 1969 film). The dialogues are not bad, the ending turned out to be too controversial, but the impression still remains.

2. Costumes and scenery - the picture was shot in Spain and Venezuela, so the nature was suitable, to put it mildly. There are still many colonial-style houses there. The costumes are also pleasing to the eye and it is easy to distinguish the army of patriots from the Spaniards. Well, the rest of the costumes are also good and correspond to the historical era.

3. Historical battles and events - we will be shown the defense of Caracas from the Spaniards in 1814, the march of the Bolivar army through the Andes in 1819, the Battle of Boyaca of the same year and a number of minor skirmishes. And although there are not enough extras in all these events, they try to compensate for this with the bloodiness and brutality of the battles. Fortunately, we were even shown the victims of the Spanish punishers, albeit briefly (this was greatly missed in the 1969 film). Although the crossing of the Andes turned out to be the most ambitious.

So, the disadvantages: 1. Historical mistakes - again, as in the 1969 painting, they made a mistake with the banners, instead of the Venezuelan and Great Colombian ones, modern Colombian ones are used, Bolivar, after the death of his beloved wife in 1803, did not drink in Paris, but was engaged in the liberation of his homeland, in Paris he did not reflect on his wife, and did not ask himself at all needless to ask, he was already an ardent revolutionary at that time, who was supported in everything by his friend and teacher Simon Rodriguez (thank you, at least they showed him here, unlike the 1969 painting). If you dig around, I'm sure you can find more bugs. Just the most notable ones are marked.

2. Nudity - that's why it's here? Show the natural needs of men and women? We didn't know that, damn it! And it was shot quite vulgarly. There is no burden on this. Cut it out, and nothing for the narrative will change. So why is it here?

3. Controversial ending - Simon Bolivar was killed in the film, although there is no evidence of this. That's why this shit? Two years before his death, Bolivar contracted tuberculosis, and a year later his condition worsened. He could barely perform the duties of a dictator (yes, he became one, but he could not manage properly, taking such power on his shoulders, and he also became friends with the Catholic Church, which greatly shook his authority in the eyes of his colleagues and ordinary people). Therefore, being already seriously ill, he retired in 1830, and died in December of the same year in Great Columbia. There is no reason to claim that Bolivar was killed, because the fact of Bolivar's poor condition was recorded by his contemporaries. Yes, he had enemies, and why would they kill an already dying Liberator?

Edgar Ramirez as Bolivar - this actor is certainly less of a caliber than Maximilian Schell from the 1969 film, but he's still trying. In some moments, you can see the same fire in your eyes that ignites people's hearts. But in many moments, the passivity of the main character is visible. But if we take the script in general, it is Ramirez's Bolivar that makes the right impression, at least he goes through trials, and we see him before the main events (although in reality everything happened in parallel), unlike Shell's Bolivar. Although it is here that some historical statements of the real Bolivar are missing.

Once again, I highly recommend reading the book by Joseph Lavretsky from the ZHZL series called "Bolivar", which will give you the most complete picture of this historical figure, and which is much more interesting than this film adaptation. But it is this film adaptation that you can watch, at least you can understand from it who Bolivar is and what is happening on the screen.

Rating 7 out of 10 and recommended for viewing!

My opinion--

I watched a beautiful historical film about the major events that marked the history of South America. One can say that it is a hagiography on all these events and on the life of Simon Bolivar. This film was just made to make us understand and show us all the events of this period, but of course nobody can exactly restore the state of depression, emotions and fear that all the people involved in all these events of the " And the period has really felt, because in these troubled times, it is always the people who suffer much more than the images suggest, hence the term hagiography, but we still feel very well the soul of the film And all the intensity of the situations of the time. The production of Alberto.Arvelo is very careful and made his film live, he felt and restored the context of the time, to also note an exceptional performance by Edgar Ramirez (Simon Bolivar). We can summarize this way, it is a very good film we do not miss a moment, finally LIBERTADOR is a film to discover

Now I understand, first they gained independence thanks to the English and then they were free the real chaos began

Although I've heard this movie was around about a year ago, I didn't give it a try until I read somewhere that it was nominated for an Oscar in foreign film category so, I thought that it might worth the time. Well, not so much. Let's beging by saying that the casting of the main character just failed to convince in every possible way. Any one who had ever seen a portrait of Simon Bolivar can appreciate that. The actor looks are way too caribbean for a man who supposedly was born from European anscestors, father and mother both spaniards. The actor matches none of the physical features attributed to the historical figure who was 5 feet tall and weighted around 60 pounds. Watching Reamirez play Bolivar is like watching Adam Sandler playing Bonaparte. You just can't get pass the fact that you are watching a guy who's attempting to play somebody else. The same also happens with other key characters in the plot. On top of that, the acting is quite stiff. Most of the actors, including and specially Ramirez, seem to be reciting the lines in a school play, just rushing through the words without investing any emotions. Being Bolivar the great thinker as history claims he was, it is amusing to notice that the script does not conveys that eloquence and sometimes the dialogs don't even make sense, except for the very few moments in which is obvious the lines are extracted verbatim from historical research and those words result inspiring in their own right and not because the actor manages to awaken the emotions of the spectator. On the technical aspects, I like the photography and scenography; vestuary was nice too, and the effects in general are satisfaying enough. In short, I think you need to be south American and more particularly, a venezuelan national to overlook its many flaws and to watch this film with tender eyes, which is regretful as Bolivar is one of the greatest figures in universal history whose thoughts and actions changed the course of an entire continent and had a huge impact on others. A life story that definitely deserves to be told and known in a more dignified way.

I don't believe the movie accurately portrays Bolívar's life, and it moves at such a fast pace that it becomes hard to follow. I'm from Venezuela but currently live in the Netherlands with my Dutch wife and our half-Dutch, half-Venezuelan children. As someone who is deeply inspired by Simón Bolívar and knowledgeable about his history, I wanted my children to watch the movie. Unfortunately, it only ended up confusing them.

To truly understand Bolívar, the best approach is to read books about him-there are many out there. His life and achievements were incredibly complex, and no movie could ever do them justice in just two hours. In my opinion, the final scene was also inaccurate. Overall, I was not satisfied with the film.

If you want to learn about Bolívar, explore the many books written about him. His life was well-documented by numerous historians, and he also recorded much of it himself.

"Libertador" is a gorgeous film....with sweeping battle scenes, lovely costumes and the look you'd expect from early 19th century South America. Clearly, he was among the most important figures of his century and it's good to see a film devoted to his legacy.

The film, however, suffers from some serious problems as well. The biggest one is that trying to encapsulate Simón Bolívar's life into two hours is really impossible to do and do well. At the very least, it merits a mini-series or perhaps several films. On top of that, the filmmakers oddly emphasized various female relationships he had...but by doing this, they really did a superficial job in discussing his military and political life. It was a decision that to me was baffling. Especially baffling was how the film glossed over the man's biggest flaw. While he was a revolutionary, he was also happy making himself a dictator...one who made 'president for life'.

Finally, there's a more serious problem, probably since it was a Venezuelan film, as the ending simply isn't true. The film reports that Bolívar was murdered by his enemies and these enemies lied...saying to the world that he died of tuberculosis. Well, it turns out this was the pet theory of then president for life Hugo Chavez....something he repeated on several occasions. However, after his body was disinterred and an autopsy was made, the results were that he did, indeed, died from tuberculosis. Now here is the crazy part of all this, and why I strongly suspect some of the motivations for the script being as it was....that Simón Bolívar actually died from tuberculosis was announced TWO YEARS BEFORE THIS FILM WAS RELEASED. This would mean the filmmakers lied....knowing how the man actually died. Why they lied, I don't want to guess...but they did lie. And, this is the main reason why although the film looks great, I really don't recommend it.

I truly enjoyed the first 30 minutes! Unfortunately, the movie slowed, plodding along like a lame mule. If not for the need to read subtitles, I would have listened while reading Bolivar's Wiki page.