I write somewhat reticent cause I really wanted to like El Conde. Which I kinda did, thus the film has the merits for it. The photography is very powerful and the premise of the story, even its presentation in the first third, is more than effective and engaging. The performances in general are good, and Vadell's is outstanding. But the director makes the mistake of making his voice too strong at times, constantly establishing judgments, as if he doubted the viewer's criterion; bordering on a relentless condescension. The satire became rigorous and aggressive intermittently, but from beginning to end.
This excessiveness, which when used properly can perfectly be a virtue, broke the cohesion of the (amplified) reality that it postulated and ended up disfavoring the effect of the narration. The irreverence of the satire was infected with a somewhat naive denunciatory impetus, and the film ended up saying more than necessary; at times the nature of the portrait was too explicit: it is not necessary to constantly tell us how perfidious these characters are, the story is already doing it.
And it's not that it's a problem to spit the name of a dictator back and forth, cause who cares if an illiterate and delinquent old bum is denigrated. But the narrative tone and the dialogues, influenced by these somewhat emotional accusatory urges, seemed to belong to more than one film. At times to comedy, at times to cinema, at times to a documentary denunciation, at times to a political lecture on morality and ethics: it would have been good if the director had let us infer all this from the story alone; The interactions, the universe, the images that inhabited this unscrupulous and decadent family already managed to synthesize that.
Apart from this, my assessment is kinda positive. The photography is compelling, the storyline is interesting enough, the atmosphere manages to converge with the images, and the dialogues, when they are not so emphatically voluntary and instead seek to favor the narrative above all, made me laugh a few times.
This excessiveness, which when used properly can perfectly be a virtue, broke the cohesion of the (amplified) reality that it postulated and ended up disfavoring the effect of the narration. The irreverence of the satire was infected with a somewhat naive denunciatory impetus, and the film ended up saying more than necessary; at times the nature of the portrait was too explicit: it is not necessary to constantly tell us how perfidious these characters are, the story is already doing it.
And it's not that it's a problem to spit the name of a dictator back and forth, cause who cares if an illiterate and delinquent old bum is denigrated. But the narrative tone and the dialogues, influenced by these somewhat emotional accusatory urges, seemed to belong to more than one film. At times to comedy, at times to cinema, at times to a documentary denunciation, at times to a political lecture on morality and ethics: it would have been good if the director had let us infer all this from the story alone; The interactions, the universe, the images that inhabited this unscrupulous and decadent family already managed to synthesize that.
Apart from this, my assessment is kinda positive. The photography is compelling, the storyline is interesting enough, the atmosphere manages to converge with the images, and the dialogues, when they are not so emphatically voluntary and instead seek to favor the narrative above all, made me laugh a few times.