Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Jay Harris The Borgia's were one of the most infamous prominent families in the late 15th century. There have been some films in the past that featured 2 members. Cesar Borgia & his sister Lucretia. The main member of the family was usually either ignored or alluded to in the past. He was Rodrigo otherwise known as: Pope Alexander V1.For those that do not know, His Holiness' morals were not the best,in fact they were infamous.The film is takes place during his Papacy & the various intrigues he & his son Rodrigo were part of.For dramatic reasons, much of the screenplay is fictionalized & the history is sanitized. NOW this was & is standard movie procedure.Los Borgia is a excellently made & acted film. The cast has some of Europe's best actors. I recommend that you check the history of this family, It is intriguing. NOTE: Supposedly Lucretia is more accurately portrayed here than in other films.I especially like the way Pope Alexander was portrayed, Even tho he was immoral,he comes across more human that other papal portrayals.RATINGS: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

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.

ole 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.