Armand impressive cast. honest story. and desire to present with great accuracy a very complicated tale. and the result is not bad. but it is too correct. the preoccupation of director to not make errors is first cage of its potential. so, the gestures are almost theatrical, the performance is limited, the story is prudent and action , in few moments, not credible.so, it is a good film but not more. too long and too short in same measure, not really profound but full of good intentions, it remains sketch of a fresco who can present essence of a powerful family.and its perfect ingredient is Angela Molina in a delicate - subtle role.is it enough ? I do not know. but I think than Lluis Homer can be more credible in this kind of role and the art of Paz Vegas is not indicated for a shadow - role.

Chrysanthepop 'Los Borgias' is a nice film to look at. The sets, costumes and art direction are quite good and I think they fit with the time period. I also think director Antonio Hernandez has tried to make the film as historically accurate as possible. However, even though the film spans more than 2 hours, I felt that it was lacking in something. The characters aren't properly developed. The relationships between the characters are displayed quite well. It was rumoured that Rodrigo had an incestuous relationship with his daughter and the director too remains ambiguous in his depiction rather than 'taking sides'. I felt that the writer could have done more to delve into the psyche of Rodrigo and Cesar. Further on the technical side, the cinematography is inconsistent and the soundtrack is very standard. The performances at times appear theatrical. Lluís Homar is passable. Sergio Peris-Mencheta fits the part. The best performance comes from Angela Molina but her role is tiny and almost insignificant to the story. María Valverde performs decently. Paz Vega is wasted. As some have mentioned, 'Los Borgia' may have work better as a longer feature film (with adequate story and character development) or a TV series. Hernandez's film is a good enough one-time watch that attempts to provide some historical insight. At least it got me interested in reading about this dysfunctional family.

jotix100 When we first meet Rodrigo Borgia at a papal election, little prepare us for what this man would turn out to be after he gets to be Pope. His main rivals were Ascanio Sforza and Giuliano Della Rovere. The time was the last part of the XV century. Rodrigo, who was born in Spain, under a the name of Jofre LLancol, changed the name to Borja after his uncle Alfonso Borja was elected as Pope earlier in the century. His ambitions were enormous, and having served five different pontiffs before his own elevation, gave him a taste for power. After his election, Rodrigo took the name Alexander VI.It was common practice at that time that Popes, as well as members of the Catholic elite had families on the side. No one objected because it was a reality as members of that select group came usually from rich and powerful families. Rodrigo was no exception. After being enthroned, he set out right away to consolidate his power because his ambition was to rule the church as well as the rest of Italy. He sired four children, Cesare, Giovanni, Goffredo, and Lucrezia. For purposes of this film, the names of the children were changed to the Spanish version, thus they became Cesar, Juan, Jofre, and Lucrecia. Rodrigo had formidable enemies, but being a sly operator, he decided to marry his favorite daughter, Lucrecia to Giovanni Sforza, a match that should have consolidated his powers. Rodrigo was rumored had incestuous relations with his own daughter. Lucrecia in turn seemed to be quite taken with her brother Cesar. In the meantime, Rodrigo was happily distracted by Giulia Farnese, a gorgeous creature. The Borgias were one of the earliest dysfunctional families in history. The behind the scene machinations were the order of the day in the Rome of those days. All what mattered was how much power anyone had and whose loyalties the people in power had. In turn, their own ambition did them in. Rodrigo died poisoned and the children's fates are well known.Antonio Hernandez, the director of this ambitious film, centered the action around Rodrigo, who had his hands in everything imaginable. This is a biographic account of a family that was doomed because they had it all, but misused their power. Mr. Hernandez, who co-wrote the screen treatment presents a great spectacle to dazzle the viewer. Working with his cinematographer, Javier Salmones, he places the action in palaces and castles that lend themselves to the story. Sergio Peris-Mencheta makes a good impression with his take on Cesar. He casts a fine figure as the favorite son of Rodrigo. LLuis Homar's Rodrigo is perhaps the most dominant appearance in the film. Mr. Homar does a good job convincing the viewer he is the villain everyone felt he was. Maria Valverde makes a delicious Lucrecia, but Paz Vega has nothing to do."Los Borgia" is a spectacle for history buffs. Although running more than two hours, it packs so much action so no one will feel bored.

epimedium-1 I have just finished watching the "versión extendida" of Los Borgia, the 2dvd-set lasting 92+93 minutes respectively. Was it too long? Not really. The story spans about 14 years (1492-1506), has three or four main characters (pope Alejandro VI with his children César, Lucrecia and Juan), each with their own plots and subplots. While I haven't seen any of the previous, shorter versions, I suspect they were too condensed to give much room to characterization and plot development. In fact, had Los Borgia been turned into a television series twice as long, it might have been better still.What did I like about this film? First, the way it was photographed, the sets and the dresses, that really looked like clothes made for wearing. Second, the acting, which was modest and unobtrusive. The characters -- usually taken to be the personification of all that is evil in the Roman Catholic Church -- were depicted as fully human, at times even likable, without taking away anything of the gruesomeness of their deeds. And that is the third thing I like about this film: the way the makers have turned a black page in church history into a lively period piece, without resorting to cheap pornography, as could easily have been the case.Some minor quibbles: the DVD does not have any extras, which always is a shame, and subtitles (Spanish or English) are sadly lacking -- a drawback to those who, like me, aren't Spanish and might have difficulties understanding everything that is said. Also, for those that are not well up in history around 1500, it might have helped if the makers had inserted dates every now and then. If I remember correctly only once a specific date (1503) is mentioned by one of the characters.In conclusion, I really liked this film. It gives a fresh and lively look on a controversial episode in the history of Europe.