a film with many virtues. care for historical accuracy, costumes, music, tension, performances. and wise manner to propose a fresco about the ambition and self definition.. but not enough to be a great film. because it seems be only a beautiful sketch, full of good intentions, seductive in few scenes, saved by the presence of Angela Molina but too tensioned for present the story more than as a kind of parable about power. a film who impress for the detail's exploitation. for the ambition to reflect the spirit of a period in the inspired manner. and for the new perspective about Borgias, realistic, interesting, cold, with few drops of romance.

'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.

Once upon a time there was a lazy director who always lost his morning bus and arrived so late at the filming sessions that they had to be filmed without him. I can't imagine any other reason why the acting is so soft and unconvincing. In fact, most of the actors/actresses could have been removed from the scenes, and you wouldn't have noticed almost any changes. Any of them stands out amongst the others (with some respectable exceptions as Angela Molina, who is quite under-used in the cast).After seeing half of the picture (yes, you are correct: I won't stand the fully 140' runtime) I really can't say what is this movie about. Neither can say anything about the characters. I just remember a boring, boring, boring feeling during the past 1h10': There are just two or three different scenes, repeated and combined until you certainly know what's coming next. Music is exhaustingly dramatic and monotonic.The good thing: The epoch costumes and the sets, which is not still enough reason to watch this movie.I haven't seen any passion, power nor interest. And I don't care where the plot is going to the other half picture; It shall go without me.

Reading El_Choco's comment, I thought of yesterday, telling about the film to my SO, who did not see it. I said it was a beautiful film, with nice photography, the music did seem nice to me (although yes, I realize now it was the same music once and again) and... well, I managed not to get asleep.I don't know about historical fidelity. But even if it was good, it is not enough.I found myself thinking that something is missing in the film. You can not just take some people, put them in nice costumes and locations, even give them a story, and just shout Action! I thought of the voices, the interpretation in general. As said, you did not care much about the characters; they are not believable.Fortunately I saw a trailer and realized I should not go to the theater to see this film. I went to the Filmo and, at least, did not expend the full usual ticket.