User reviews

I went to see this movie without reading the books first and with only a vague knowledge of the historical events the novels are based upon. Apparently, the director thought that it would be a good idea to condensate the five Alatriste novels in a single film, in order to give depth to the characters. A big mistake. The pace is for the most part too fast and anecdotic, and the action jumps from here to there without ever giving a clear reason why everyone behaves the way they do, from the romantic plots scattered along the movie to the great political conspiracies. It is never very clear either why Alatriste, who is little more than a soldier and hired assassin, is so important to so many people of high rank.

In spite of all this, I cannot give the film a bad rating because it is certainly a pleasure to watch. The technical aspects, the general "look" of the film, the music, and the acting are splendid. The casting can be a controversial point, but the chosen actors do wonders.

It's big-budget, it boasts extras by the planeload, and a broad historical panorama: it's all about intrigue, loyalty, love, and loads of a real man doing what a real man's gotta do. This is the Spanish film industry's most serious attempt yet to break into the mainstream international market, and Viggo Mortensen's brooding, laconic Alatriste makes a convincing bid for the job. A heroic figure despite himself, Alatriste is the poor bloody footsoldier whose unquestioning courage provided the flesh and blood foundations of the Siglo de Oro, the golden age of the early 17th Century when the Spanish crown laid claim to half of western Europe.

In scuffed boots and floppy fedora, Mortensen cuts an attractive figure in an amoral, down-at-heel sort of way: women are prepared to leave their husbands for him, men fight for the privilege of dying at his side. We are led, or perhaps bullied, on an epic sweep through the muck and bullets of Spain's military meddling in its neighbours' affairs, seen through the jaundiced eyes of Alatriste and his fellow hired hands. Death is a constant presence; if you're not torn apart by a cannonball on the battlefield, or knifed in a dark alley, it may well come for you in the shape of the Inquisition – and in which case, you might be better off cutting your own throat.

We cut frantically and frequently back to the Spanish court, where the grandees plot and connive, and we just know that someone inconvenient is about to get dispatched to the colonies at the very least. Here, Alatriste's glint-eyed soldier's determination gives way to the quizzical gaze of a hard man out of his depth, as matters of State are signed and sealed on oaken desks. Watch your back -- you get the impression that the most blood-sodden battlefield is a far safer place to be.

The film covers a massive swathe of turbulent European history, some three decades of a long Spanish Catholic struggle against the Protestant heretics of the Low Countries. And this, perhaps, is the film's greatest flaw – the screenplay is a pull-together of some of the most dramatic episodes from a clutch of Arturo Pérez-Reverte's Captain Alatriste books, and the joins show badly. Sub-plots come and go in a tangle, and the film develops its undoubted dynamism from a regular dripfeed of another bit of swashbuckling, or whispered courtly dirty deeds, rather than the convincing development of any interplay between the characters themselves. For such a valiant warrior, poor Alatriste doesn't seem to have much say in his destiny.

That said, the film looks fabulous, from the opening misty waterlogged shots off the Flanders coast, to the final crunching battle of Rocroi. Director of Photography Paco Femenia -- responsible for the similarly atmospheric Carmen and Juana la Loca -- takes his inspiration from the contemporary canvases of Velásquez to evoke an atmosphere painted in rich earthy tones; the camera conveys the glittering sterility of the Spanish court as tangibly as the dirt that Alatriste and his ever-dwindling band of chums are forced to eat – so often without pay -- to enable their lordships to live in the appropriate style.

The film, at two hours and 20 minutes, rattles along well, but is too long. If only director Augustín Díaz Yanes had the faith in the attraction and bankability of his lead character to take a deep breath, and slice the action up into more manageable chunks: a trilogy, even. Why not? Everybody else seems to be doing it, and so often with inferior material to this.

I enjoyed Alatriste; it's not your typical fast-paced Hollywood action flick (if you go see it expecting something of the sort, you'll probably be disappointed and bored) and the plot is not too clearly defined, but it has an excellent cinematography and costume design that recreate Velazquez's Spain, and most of the actors are very good. Mortensen is an awesome Capitán Alatriste despite his slight accent. You can see he took this role very seriously. He fits perfectly into the roguish, ruthless but noble character's skin. The sword fights are nicely choreographed. The atmosphere of seventeen-century Spain and the historical context are superbly recreated. Actually, I find there are interesting parallels between the decay of the Spanish Empire and present day United States, between the "tercios" and the US Marines.

I recommend this film highly to anybody who's interested in period films, or who likes Mortensen as an actor.

The film concerning captain Alatriste (Viggo Mortensen), a Spanish soldier turned into mercenary . The picture is developed through the Spanish empire which took a time for the decadence and downfall , however during century XVII it was a battleground for rival powers : Luis XIII with his favorite Cardenal Richelieu who are backing Flandes independence against Philip IV and his Count Duke Olivares (Javier Camera) . The movie is set throughout the ¨Thirty years war¨ (1618-1648 ) between Catholics and Protestants which finished in the treatise of Westfalia . The flick describes various events and battles from the epoch as the ¨Breda surrender¨(in 1625 and Spanish army commanded by Ambrosio Spinola) that imaginatively is brought the life on the famous Velazquez picture , as the ¨Rocroi battle¨ (1643) which signified the fall Spanish main and pretty well filmed in spectacular and violent images as the last stand for the imperial Tercios .

Scenarios are breathtaking but no the plot , it is slightly confusing with some flaws ; besides , being sometimes slow-moving that makes it a bit tiring and dull . Screenwriter-director Agustin Diaz Yanes tried to condense the five novels from Arturo Perez Reverte in a runtime of two hours and some but it is a little embarrassment . However , the production design including palaces , streets , slums , homes , canteen , rooms are sensational and realized by the great designer Benjamin Fernandez who has got a successful American career (Man of fire , Uprising , Enemy of State). Painting-photography and colorful cinematography by top-notch cameraman Paco Femenia (Juana la Loca) though a little dark and excessive use of interior . In addition , brilliant and luxurious costume design was made by Francesca Sartori , she is a great specialist on Italian costume films . Atmospheric and sensitive music score by Roque Baños (The machinist , Crimen Ferfecto , 800 bullets) is finely fitted to the story . The motion picture was well directed by Agustin Diaz Yanes , as it is entertained for the Spanish history buffs . At a cost of 24 million Euros, this is the most expensive Spanish film ever made. Director Agustin called that amount enough for 'a European super-production and an American rubbish-production'. Agustin Diaz Yanes has directed some good films such as ¨Don't temp me¨, ¨Solo Quiero Caminar¨ and ¨Nadie Hablara con nosotras cuando Hayamos Muerto¨ . Rating : Acceptable picture , well worth watching

'Alatriste' is a film based in a series of novels by Arturo Pérez-Reverte (five until release time, with a sixth published four months later) which is hugely popular in Spain. But undoubtedly it was the news that Viggo Mortensen was to be playing the title character what put the project onto the international radar.

In fact, had it not been for Mortensen's acceptance of the role, the film would not have been made at all. Director Agustín Díaz Yanes, who also adapted the script, condensing the five novels into 134 minutes of action, said from the beginning that the film would be made only if a major movie star fronted it, and the search soon took him beyond the Spanish frontiers. To his credit, Mortensen accepted to follow up his stardom-achieving role in 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy (the clinching conversation for 'Alatriste' took place during the Berlin premiere of 'The return of the king' in December 2003) with a daring move that raised many eyebrows: starring in a non-English language film, and speaking his whole part in Spanish with his own voice, whose accent he had to change from the South American he knew since childhood to the Old Castillian his role demanded.

The film follows 40-something Diego de Alatriste y Tenorio through 20 years of his life, from the wars in Flanders in 1623 to those against France in 1643, when Spain, under king Philip IV, accelerated its decline from its position as the world's dominating superpower. The film is bookended by two spectacular feats of arms taken from each of these conflicts, but in the middle we get to know the man under the wide-brimmed hat and the long cloak. When not in the thick of the action, he has to make a living hiring his skills, and those involve killing for a few gold coins back in the dark corners of Madrid or Seville: not for people of his type the kind of glamourised glory depicted in victory-celebrating murals. Mortensen's portrayal - raspy voice, cold-eyed gaze and menacing professional manner - is every bit what the role demands, and his performance is one of the triumphs of the film.

However, he is not all there is, even if the hype has made it seem that Mortensen was all that mattered in the film. He is surrounded by a crew he has celebrated as being as fine as any he's worked with anywhere, and a cast of the best 'hidden' talent Spain has to offer (no Antonio Banderas or Javier Bardem here). Accompanying the 'tired hero', as he is described in the books, we have Unax Ugalde as Íñigo de Balboa, the young buck Alatriste raises in lieu of his dead father; Elena Anaya as Angélica de Alquézar, the scheming ladyservant of the queen; and Ariadna Gil as 'la gran actriz' María de Castro, Alatriste's luscious love interest. They form the heart of the film from the perspective of personal relationships. In none of their hearts love for each other is the only ingredient by any means, and negotiating their twists and turns can be as dangerous as avoiding sharp and pointy steel objects in the street. In fact, they don't stay sheathed indoors all the time either…

The rest of the painting is full of extraordinary nuances and details. And 'painting' is the right word, because none other than one of the greatest masters of the trade ever, Diego Velázquez, has been the visual inspiration for the film, with his grave palette of black and brown colours, a world away from the splendour and shine of previous and later historical films. Spain was wealthy on the outside but poor and rotten on the inside, and his paintings show this, as does the film. The novels mix the imaginary characters hitherto mentioned with real-life figures, and two of the supporting ones are brought to life directly from his canvases. These are Javier Cámara as the Count-Duke of Olivares, the mover and shaker behind the throne, and Juan Echanove as the writer and poet Francisco de Quevedo. The first one is, as can be expected, important to move the political plot forward, and the second might seem peripheral and time-consuming, but his picture and verses are in every school textbook in Spain, so for Spanish people these two play the important role of making Velázquez's paintings move and speak, bringing closer to home the other characters. It's been Pérez-Reverte's aim from the beginning of the saga to use Alatriste's stories to re-educate Spanish people in their own history, too neglected in recent years (see trivia section on this site) and this is a way of seeing what could have happened 400 years ago in the streets one can still walk today. Not for nothing the premiere was planned, old fashion style, in La Gran Vía, in the heart of El Madrid de los Austrias.

This is the first English review of the film ever written (as far as I know), fully one week ahead of the official Spanish release, so it is mostly introductory and I am not going into more details on purpose. Outside Spain, the film will be seen mostly in festivals, with foreign releases happening gradually towards Christmas 2006. Just to say that those who have read the books will find, as it usually happens, many changes among a genuine attempt to be faithful to the spirit of the original material, and that one thing you should avoid doing is seeing it under the shadow of 'The Lord of the Rings', because of Viggo, or under the shine of glossy Hollywood historical recreations full of dizzying light and colour. The scale is much smaller, the atmosphere darker and grittier, and sword master Bob Anderson, who crossed blades with the likes of Errol Flynn (not to mention humming lightsabres and Elvish-lettered weapons), has never been happier teaching people 'a matar, y mucho'.

Congratulations to the marketing department. I bit the hook and contributed my 6.5 Euros to this calamity. Awfully acted out sketches of what should have been characters, disastrous editing, horrible script, dreadful muzac, even the locations are terrible and terribly shot! What a sad joke. Worst of all: boring. Even the darkest epic needs some humor and wit. Quevedo on prozac? Let's forget about it and let the great man rest in peace. Sorry about that, Don Francisco. The premise was inspirational, the money was there, of course that alone does not produce another "Barry Lyndon", "Master and Commander", or "Unforgiven", not even "Cyrano", but at least I think we could expect something better than "Curro Jimenez", a Spanish TV series about andalusian "bandoleros". "Curro" turns out to be a grand epic when compared to this fiasco. 10.000 extras? Someone ran away with their paycheck or the dp forgot to bring the wide angle that day to fit them in. I firmly believe the problem is the same as always. The same "amiguetes" with their unresolved complexes, telling each other how great and daring the other is. Bring a friendly international Star to the mix (one that is acceptable because walks barefooted, drinks mate, and again, tells all the others how great they are and how great it is to be in such company) and see how it adds to the disaster. Viggo (as every amiguete "in the know" friendly calls him) can't pronounce a decent syllable, but he is, oh well... VIGGO, and that's what matters to our provincial "you are so great o' you" actors and director. I heard a few of the actors talking about how wonderful "Tano" (the director) had been on set, letting every one contribute and understanding how film making was a team effort. Yes, film making is a team effort, as well as a classical orchestra is, but IT NEEDS A DIRECTOR. Where were you Mr.Tano? If you ever have another chance (of course you will, you are an amiguete and a great guy), please at least DIRECT. Really "triste".

This is, to date, Spain's most expensive film, a two hour fifteen minutes long story based on some of the most important bestsellers of the country, the series of Alatriste.

Whichever point you look at it, the film becomes disappointing. The pace is slow, the story gets twists difficult to follow for non readers, and there are some sequences where there is an important lack of realism.

Still, it has some strongholds. The photography is good, and it draws a good painting of what Spain was at that moment. Most of the film is watchable, although we were expecting much more from it. I also think actors and actresses could do better, even Javier Cámara and Elena Anaya look impressive.

Firstly, I must say I haven't read the Alatriste books, so my comments are not based at all in the classic 'book into film' translation disappointment.

As a trained professional filmmaker my opinions can't be and are not based in personal taste; they actually are not opinion, but fact analysis: This film, which I really, really expected to be a very good one, specially after watching the cinema trailer (which is really good, something exceptional, as Spanish trailers go), got me shocked when I saw it on its premiere day in Spain: It is really, really bad. Why am I saying this? I'll summarize it within the supplied word allowance: The script and direction (from a technical point of view) is just plain bad storytelling. The film being just a succession of events loosely related, like scattered paintbrush strokes which just give a vague impression of a whole when seen in its entirety from a distance (too many books to condense into a single film?); and mostly poorly covered, with far too many close shots and close-ups (some of them really painful to watch) and an acute scarcity of wide coverage, in part probably due to lack of big enough period locations and sets (a not big enough budget???), and in general Diaz-Yanes shows a constant clumsiness in terms of telling through a meaningful succession of shots; apparently more interested in portraying period scenarios in a painterly manner (mostly a là Velazquez) than in actually telling a story.

Another example of this is the scene in which the interior of a Spanish galley is shown just to tell us the character played by Unax Ugalde is to be released from his chained rowing penalty. An incredibly expensive scene which adds nothing to the film but a nice-looking moving postcard.

The 10,000 extras who worked in the film were not used very wisely. While there were far too many in some Madrid street scenes, both the Breda scenes and the long shots, specially in the Spainish side coverage of the battle of Rocroi scenes showed a ludicrously small amount of extras - casualties included (they could have even multiplied digitally the number, but no - ???!).

Most of the cast is both not very good but quite famous, a fact sadly usual in Spain; but to be fair, both a good deal of their dialogue and scenes and their direction were also quite bad, something which is a real handicap, kind of 'Mission: Impossible'. But not all of them rated so low: Javier Cámara (in the role of the Count-Duke of Olivares) was not too bad, even better was Juan Echanove, who plays the role of writer Francisco de Quevedo, and specially Eduard Fernández's performance was a fine one. Viggo Mortensen's is good as well, but his effort at adapting his Spanish accent with a harsh voice does not quite work and in some places his forced speech works against a proper intonation.

The editing of the film is just plain rubbish. The story simply doesn't flow; the scenes just bump one against the previous. Though I have the suspicion it is probably about the best any editor could have made out of the material supplied and also that he probably had to follow wrong directions and clean out loads of out-of-focus shots, of which nevertheless the final cut is still well supplied. All that would exonerate the editor. You just can't cut into the film what you don't have available.

Regarding the cinematography, leaving aside the usual corrected clearly underexposed shots (which an untrained eye can't detect as such), it is a mix of very good work and wrong choices: The lighting in the night battle scenes is just too clichéd in its intense blue-hued over-lit lighting. The general dark shadowy moody style was appropriate in most scenes, but in others it is just excessive. And then, the tavern scenes are far too bright when they naturally asked for a dim atmosphere.

The film's best asset is undoubtedly its art direction. A first class work with little to object if at all.

But disappointment is not the worst the film raises. The saddest thing is that if the film fails at the box-office it will work against future efforts by other filmmakers in getting the industry to back ambitious high budget projects and thus it would have helped the Spanish film industry to remain at the low level in which it keeps stagnated.

In the other hand, if all the hype surrounding the film and the unusually high promotion it's been given, together with the almost sure success the film will have at the next Goya Awards (the Spanish Academy Awards), results in a big box-office success; as quality is never what drives the interest in film investment, it could lead, paradoxically, to a positive change in the Spanish film industry.

Let's hope it works for the best.

All the time complaining about the lack of commercial movies in the Spanish industry, and when a nice effort comes trough, everybody is bashing it!! Now, it's true that the movie has his share of flaws: The story feels disjointed, but in the second part it takes more time to develop it; There's a well known actress playing a man ( which is something obvious). But the main reasons of complain seem to be two: The action sequences: The intention of the filmmakers was to make them look raw and cruel, not stylish and hollywoodesque. This is not Kill Bill, or Lord of the rings. The story takes place in a real time in history, and i'm sure that the sword-fighting wasn't like in the middle earth.

And Viggo: I think he's great in the role. Yes, the voice, the pronunciation of the "s", is strange. But the stance, the expression, the looks, and the physical work in general is pure gold.

Final conclusion: This isn't a great movie, but a good and solid commercial one, a movie that needed to be made ( and to be watched and discussed). A movie that, finally, we Spanish people need to support. Don't let the envy blinds you, and take out your own impressions.

The word is that this film takes material from five different novels. I finished reading the first one about five minutes before the director and cast members arrived for the Toronto International Film Festival Screening, and was grateful to have done so because the book filled in both character development and plot information that enriched what I saw on the screen. The first novel was dispensed with (much truncated) in about the first twenty minutes of the film, but was helpful for understanding a lot of what followed.

Much of what makes the novel delightful would be unfilmable-- it constantly takes side-trips on every subject tangential to the plot, characters, and historical period-- and the reader comes to realize that there isn't nearly enough plot in the one book to fill out an adventure film. So the screenplay writer had no choice but to expand his sources-- however, in "Alatriste" he has bitten off more than one film can successfully chew. The film takes pains to display historically accurate 17th century Spanish fashion (making brilliant use of Golden Age paintings, by Velasquez and others), but with the unfortunate result that many bearded men in black or dark leathers are introduced, who become difficult to distinguish-- not enough time has been allowed to develop their identities. Compression of material also leaves certain characters' motives (Angelica) and certain scenes (Philip IV hunting) quite inexplicable.

That having been said, the film can still be enjoyed on many levels, and the lead character is an attractive creation, well-realized by Viggo Mortensen, whose gruff-voiced and grizzled middle-aged Alatriste transforms the matinée-idol qualities of his actual appearance. Spaniards seem to find his Argentinian accent ludicrous, a criticism entirely lost on the rest of us, for whom it is no obstacle to appreciation. Their further comment that Mortensen's acting is vocally somewhat "one-note" (perhaps due to the accent struggle) is not totally off the mark.

In general, the atmosphere, characters, and plot of this film are much darker than one might expect from a swashbuckling period piece-- not just in the "grit and grime" sense, but in the inescapable melancholy and the consequences of vice. But I agree with one commentator who notes that the setting is unrepresentative of Golden Age Madrid, insofar as the city is almost all dark alleys-- no colorful and bustling open spaces or public pageantry, which would have been appropriate not only for contrast and accuracy but as an avenue to further develop the nature of the decadence of the age. Spain is shown to be in cultural free-fall from such vices as greed, territorial aggression, and a cheapness of human life manifested in an astounding level of bellicosity at the most trivial provocation. It would have served the film to also show the kind of lavish and beautiful excesses, such as public festivals that even the poor and exploited revel in, which are part of what seduces and deludes a society into collapse.

I gather that the Alatriste books are wildly popular in Spain, and thus the Spanish audience will probably be at an advantage in both following the movie's plot and appreciating its historical and artistic references. (Where did they find that modern-day Habsburg to play Philip IV? incredible!) But they may also be disappointed at how much of the charm of author Arturo Perez-Reverte's discursive style has been sacrificed, in the cause of a film which is plagued with spasms of incoherence. However, it remains a work which is as thoughtful as it is entertaining-- go and see it, and enjoy.

Viggo Mortensen stars as the veteran soldier and brawler in this Spanish language adaptation of the novels by Arturo Pérez-Revete. As the film opens Alatriste has been asked by a dying friend to raise his son when he returns from the war. Back in Madrid Alatriste begins to care for young Íñigo Balboa while trying to earn a buck as a hired sword. Quickly things are set in motion as Íñigo spies the girl who will haunt his life and the good captain gets involved with some intrigue that will play out over the next decades.

I like what I've read of the first book and my enjoyment of that made me go out and pick up an import DVD of the film. What I had seen prior to actually watching the entire film made me think that this was film that got the look and feel of the novel right. Now that I've seen the entire film I can honestly say that the film looks and feels exactly as I had pictured it my mind. We are in Spain and Flanders and everywhere else in the seventeenth century. This is a gorgeous film to look at.

The performances are dead on and everyone seems to inhabit the their roles. Viggo is excellent as Alatriste and I can think of no one who could do it better. He's a wonder to watch in both the dramatic scenes as well as the numerous sword fights and action sequences (which are excellent)

The problem is that the script doesn't work. I mean it really doesn't work. Pulling material from several novels there is no plot as such. Things happen, people come and go; and then we're on to the next episode. I kept waiting for things to tie themselves together and they never did. There is no sustained drama, its incidents in the life of Alatriste.The result is what should be emotional high points and hooks just sort of lay there..The romances of Alatriste and his actress paramour (wife of a good friend) appears in fits and starts. The other romance of Inigo and Angélica skips through the tale in such away that nothing is ever resolved and you have no idea what they see in each other.(certainly her early lines about keeping Alatriste alive to raise the boy for some grand plot comes to naught.) We skid through the life and times of the Captain to no clear purpose. It might have helped had the film had the same sort of narration that the novels do, the stories are told from Inigo's point of view, since it might have been used to bridge the many "What am I missing"moments.

Who's idea was to do all of the books in one 140 minute movie? It was a major mistake and it makes the entire enterprise feel as though it was three days long. The movie doesn't end it just stops, which kind of makes sense since the movie is so bland and flat there is no way it could ever have a climax since it never builds to anything.(even if the sequences them selves-like the opening attack in and out of the water are mini masterpieces) A major disappointment. I can't recommend this. Its simply too dull to be much more than a sleep aide.

4 out of 10 over all.(higher in parts)

I was really looking forward to this and I think that it would have been great if the film-maker had taken the risk of making a single - or two - books of the series and then hoping it made enough locally and internationally to warrant sequels. As it was it felt like it was doing too much with too little time, it felt dragging and in the end I got little more than a terrific headache. Which is a pity because I really wanted to like this more than I did.

There's a lot to love here though, the swordfighting with dagger in one hand and rapier in the other was a treat (not that much going around) but the duels went too fast - I suspect because they wanted to cover so much (TOO MUCH) ground. For example the assassination attempt on the two English adventurers could have been more drawn out, more tension could have been injected there. Not to mention when we find out who these are they could have made the connections with that other swashbuckler, the Three Musketeers as well as made more reference to English history for us non Iberian types. More could have been done with the campaign vs the French (this was the Cyrano period!) which could have also helped international audiences resonate.

You didn't understand the motivation of the Dutch vs the Spanish either, the whole Dutch revolt, the religious issues, the political issues, etc. were not tackled at all, which is a pity as it would have been good to frame the action against the geopolitical situation (the ruthless mismanagement of the Duque de Alva and other issues that forced the Dutch hand) The issue of mercenaries of various countries and the type of warfare they had back then including the Tercios - we never really got to see the tercio in all its glory and see why it was, at that time, the most feared military organization in Europe. Ah to have seen a Spanish Tercio fight a Dutch battalion...

But basically, too much to say, too little time, too shallow, too little real nuance, too rushed character development. This could have been the Sharpe of Spain, Capitan Alatriste and his merry band of rogues from book's one to five. Instead it's rushed, shallow and uneven execution leaves one exhausted and glad it's over. Capitan Diego de Alatriste deserved more.

Viva Alatriste, Tom516

Alatriste(Mortensen) is a Spanish mercenary in the country's 17th century imperial wars. There are various on-going rivalries, love affairs and the like, though you'd be forgiven for having trouble following it all(even knowing the historical background for the events... heck, a bunch of it doesn't even get closure). While I haven't read the novels this is an adaptation of, I understand that this takes several of them and attempts to squeeze everything therein into one movie(as has been done with similarly poor results before and since... rather than accepting length differences and changing things to keep the core themes intact). So the 139 minutes of this(with credits... without, it's 131) seems as though it should be significantly longer, like a mini-series, and it feels unsatisfying, not to mention it taking its sweet time(and not enough of that is spent letting us connect with the characters, understanding their motivations, sharing their passions... ultimately it becomes boring on account of that). With that said, it has high production values all around. Locations, costumes, props... showing the dichotomy between the nobility(clean, prettied up) and the soldiers(filthy, in worn-out clothes). The action scenes(fencing and shooting, mostly) are tense and fast-paced, taking place in diverse places(on a ship, in a city, etc.) with a richness of detail, the one unrealistic one being thrown daggers penetrating clothing and flesh with ease. Battles are chaotic(Yanes can be counted among the numerous directors have taken lessons from Saving Private Ryan), brutal, bloody, disturbing, gripping(one sequence is genuinely claustrophobic, and their atmosphere is always suffocating) and often up close and personal. The DVD comes with trailers for this, 2:37, Alpha Dog, Lonely Hearts, Ask the Dust, Bobby and The Wicker Man. There is a some sexuality and a little topless nudity in this. I recommend this to fans of authentic war-dramas. 6/10

Just suffered the 2 hours and fifteen minutes of ALATRISTE (which means in English SAD WING, very sad movie indeed).

Where to start? the cast...apart from Viggo the rest of the cast are the Spanish actors(?) we have already seen in dozens of sub-erotic-comedies, socialist political acts and painful TV movies. We already know that these actors are not good enough, when they try to be dramatic they only can be pathetic (yes, I mean wooden Eduardo Noriega, cold as ice Ariadna Gil or overacted Juan Echanove. I'm sorry for Viggo, but after this film he will be approached in a "different" manner by the big Hollywood studios.

The script is confusing and the dialogs are cheesy most of the times...imagine a "Cyrano De Bergerac" with poor dialogs! Arturo Perez Reverte seems to be happy enough with the insulting amount of money he received for the rights of his Alatriste novels...who cares then?

ALATRISTE is going to be a disaster, is overlong, boring and, worst of all, pretentious, wants to be a historic thriller but also a romance, a action movie but with the feel and the "qualité" of the overproduced french movies...obviously too much for clumsy Agustin Diaz Yañes.

How much will the hype last?...the answer is easy...only this weekend, in Christmas 2007 you'll have it on the TV. Now you know it, save your money.

XVII Spanish Century is too rich to be told in two hours and a half, and that's what the film has tried. Perhaps too many characters that unable us to be identified with them. Alatriste is too many things in just one: the brave, the hard, the rebel, the lover, the good father... but far from us. I don't think it is Viggo's problem. If you read the novels you will find the same lack. Although we have expected more of this film, it would be unfair to say that this film is not worthy watching it. Actors are great, also wigs and customs (sometimes Spanish people cannot forget them without wigs!). Battles and photography are excellent. The films' atmosphere is much more better than other history films, the fog, the use of light. Go, watch it and make your opinion!

Viggo Mortensen plays (very well) Diego Alatriste, a soldier in the Spain of the 17th century, with his blade and his wits he must not only survive battles but also political intrigues in the Spanish Court. A fine historical movie with very good production and acting and an exquisite atmosphere. Far better than most "hollywoodized" movies playing in European historical times. Worth your attention - if you like to watch such kind of movies.

It's 1622. Spain is ruled by King Philip IV. Diego Alatriste (Viggo Mortensen) leads his feared Spanish soldiers on a raid in Flanders. He returns to Madrid and gets caught up in an assassination attempt with Gualtiero Malatesta. His young charge Íñigo Balboa is taken with Angélica de Alquézar. He and his men are sent back to Flanders.

The plot is jam packed and disjointed. It's hard to follow. It skips time. The story simply doesn't flow. Apparently, this encompassed several books and it shows. The actors are game. There are compelling fighting scenes. It's just a pain to keep track of the characters and their story lines. Without the flow, it's hard to feel for these characters. It has to be much more compelling to do a smaller part of the story and let the sequels come if they're able. This is good for fans of the books but I doubt others would find this compelling.

Just saw the movie today and have to say that it was a very nice surprise.

Two years ago I read a couple of books within the 5-books saga by Spanish writer Arturo Pérez Reverte and have to say that the movie captures the complexity of Capitán Alatriste and the rest of characters as well as recreates the atmosphere that is present in the books in the 17th century of Spain. Quite difficult deals bearing in mind the ambitious narrative line traced in the books, were good and bad concepts are just embossed (I guess it was like that in Spain 3-4 centuries ago).

There would be a lot to say but just briefly, the story is good and entertaining, the movie is brilliant recreating the books (in my imagination, Alatriste is exactly Viggo's characterization/performance), script is powerful, actors and actresses performance's are in average good, remarking Viggo Mortensen (Alatriste), Javier Cámara (Conde-Duque de Olivares) and Juan Echanove (Francisco de Quevedo). Special mention to the clothing, light, ambiance and the interiors. Just exactly the same you can see in Velazquez and Goyas pictures in the Prado Museum in Madrid! In the bad side, I felt the rhythm was bit slow a few times, and maybe more digital effects to recreate opened scenarios would have been good idea. But maybe these are just personal feelings (used to megaproductions!).

Nice surprise from the Spanish industry. Entertaining. I will definitely read the three books left in the saga!

I didn't expect very much of this film, because of the previous experiences with films based on the Perez-Reverte's books. I was right. This film, even with the amount of money it's made, has disappointed me. I will say only the things i've disliked the most: -Continuity of the story. It looks like the film was made of different storys (the differents books, actually) and after they have joint with no sense of an complet story. -Fray Emilio Bocanegra (Blanca Portillo). Aren't there in Spain actors to play this role?. I've never seen a monk after the face and the false hair of Blanca's character. It seems ridiculous to me. -The accent of Viggo. You never get used to this strange way of speaking. He don't looks like an Spanish soldier of the XVII

The movie is pretentious, boring and lacks a plot. The attempt to condense five books in one movie results in a hard to follow story, or even more, the lack of a proper story, with action being replaced by steady shots and characters becoming extreme simplifications. Viggo Mortenson acting is poor, and his speech is often inaudible, and he ends up muttering one liners, which gives little clue of his true feelings, making him a flat, hard to like, character.

None of the five stories it tells is properly developed, so we end up having the feeling of having a Powerpoint presentation full of Velazquez inspired pictures, which not only fails to entertain, but also to give a balanced view of the complex times when Spain was the leading power of its time, relying instead in easy stereotypes.

Small wonder if the end you feel cheated, and only wish the movie to finish.

A pity.....