Carlos (2010)

the audience applauded

So much average

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The acting in this movie is really good.

His is a fascinating and interssant film about the terrorist who went under the nickname The Jackal. The film is based on the years has been active as a terrorist, with all the cruelty committed by him and his network. The movie therefore takes the 20 years he was a feared man in the West. The film has good depictions, and portrays the violence and terror they performed. Unlike, for example, Steven Spielberg's film Munich, this film does not aim to come under the skin of The Jackal. What was his inner motivation to accomplish these terrible actions? We do not get any answer as to why he took these choices and the underlying causes of a terroist life. But yet the movie is good as it gives an insight into a world we do not know on the inside. The brutality of the film gives insight into what blind fanatism does, and how individuals do not make any sense in reaching their political goals.

This film is one of the few that inspired me to write a review. The film excelled for several reasons, the first for providing me with a quality educational experience and second for the quality of the film making that had goodies within goodies to offer.Carlos the Jackal was active during my youth, I grew up reading about him in the newspaper but this film put all of the knowledge together in one place and really made that knowledge relevant and understandable.The film itself was well made, the actors, the director, the crew, and the writer did a great job but the challenge the film makers had was to maintain quality while telling the dismal story that had become Carlos' life.Carlos the Jackal started his career as SPECTRE's James Bond. He was handsome, a lady killer, moneyed and fast with a gun but as life wore on, each new mission or event added a new dent that took him down a notch. The film documented the range of gradual failings and although there is a temptation to make humor from this absurdity, the style of the film is always serious. The film makers had a big job to show this quantity and quality of failure. You can literally make a check mark for each new insult every ten minutes.This film is about demise and the cluelessness of those involved.

The story was interesting and worth the watch. Despite the disclaimers that stated fictitious characters were introduced in the movie and some events or parts of them were also fictionalized for artistic content, I like to think as I'm sure many others will, that it did not matter; we get a sense of what terrorism at the time, the 70's and 80's, was probably like. The movie has a lot of action scenes, a plus. It had too many solo nude scenes of the character Carlos. My guess is the director(s) tried to convey the narcissistic side of the man; I can't rule out that possibility. I would have preferred he had some of the women Carlos was famous for seducing into his world of violence, with him in the nude scenes. Édgar Ramírez did okay with the character of Carlos, but I think that had the direction of the movie been better quality, Ramirez would have provided a much better performance. The editing was sloppy and almost amateurish, I'm sorry to say. It won't spoil your enjoyment of the movie but if you watched the two part series "Mesrine", you can see the difference better editing and direction can do.

Fascinating 5 hour plus, 3 part film about Carlos the Jackal (although he never actually called himself that) the headline grabbing terrorist of the 70s and 80s. With little exposition, we're dropped into a whirlwind of violence, self-aggrandizement, sexual seduction, and power games, moving at an almost dizzying speed. The film allows us to slowly figure out Carlos, instead of explain him in a simple facile way. While never sympathetic, somehow the amazing Edgar Rameriez allows us to feel for this id and ego driven creature, powered far more by the need for attention and adulation (whether from women or the press) than by true belief. Indeed, one of the most interesting things about the film is how (intentionally) shallow and hollow Carlos's political monologues ring.The last 1/3 is the slowest and hardest to sit through. Carlos's slow decline into ineffectiveness and unimportance is sometimes patience trying. But Rob Nelson, in his excellent Village Voice review makes a strong argument that this is a) unavoidable after the high paced rush of the first two parts and 2) part of the point of the film; without his fixes of women and power there wasn't much to Carlos, and without them both he and we want it to be over. This is a film I'd like to see again. While I don't quite agree (yet) with the many critics who have hailed this as of the best films of last 10 years, I do think it's a challenging, brilliantly acted, wonderfully made film, that gives context both to modern terrorism and recent world history. Add to that, an exploration of the blurring fine line between power and uncontrolled narcissism that seems to dog leaders (especially male) of all political stripes from Hitler to Bill Clinton to George Bush to Carlos.That's a lot to cover, even in 5 hours.