Steineded How sad is this?

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

winner55 Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.

smweaver911 The central theme in this movie seems to be confusion, as the relationships, setting, acting and social context all lead to the same place: confusion. Even Harvey Keitel appears to be out of his element, and lacks his usual impeccable clarity, direction and intensity. To make matters worse, his character's name is 'Che', and we are only told (directly, by the narrator) well into the film that he is not 'that' Che, just a guy named Che. The family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film, and once defined, the family is divided - the younger generation off to America. So cliché. Other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy's family; however the political stance of the director is murky at best, and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. So they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) - so what? Refusing to take a political stand, when making a movie about the Cuban revolution, is an odd and cowardly choice. Not to mention the movie was in English! Why are all these Cubans speaking English? No wonder they did not get permission to film in Cuba. And if family life is most important to look at here, it would be great if we could figure out who is who - we are 'introduced' to them all in the beginning - a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film! The acting was mostly shallow, wooden, and unbelievable, timing was off all around. The 'special' visual effects were confusing and distracting. References to American films - and the black character as Greek chorus - strictly gratuitous, intellectually ostentatious, and consistently out of place. I only watched the whole movie because I was waiting for clarity, or some point to it all. It never happened.

Andrea Bracho Dreaming of Julia was the title of the original script, and was filmed in the summer of 2000 in Santo Domingo Republica Dominicana. To release the picture they change the original name to Cuba Libre. The director's cut was 3 and a half hours long. It was released on the festival of Bangkok in Thailand. It was the second film of Gael García Bernal (the first was Amores Perros)and the first of Juan Gerard as a Director. In the poster the names of Diana Bracho and Cecilia Suares does not appear. Diana plays the grandmother and Cecilia the mother of the kid. They are great actresses and they keep the story together specially Diana. Check her out in other things you would be surprised.

AzraelGuevara-1 If you're expecting to learn something about History and the Cuban Revolution, this is not the movie you want to see. The movie focuses on the life of a boy and how the events of the revolution affect his wealthy family. Since the events of the revolution are unexplained it could give the sense to the viewer that what happened is not complex. There are subtle criticisms of both Batista and Fidel but they are also left unexplained. The US role is not even mentioned. For those that don't know Cuban History, there is different versions of what happened in Cuba (Cubans have one version and Cuban-Americans have another). Rating5 - 1 for NOT making the movie in Spanish - 1 for NOT making the movie in Cuba - 1 for the mistakes in acting or directing - 1 for simplistic storyline - 1 for the lack of historical background and explanation + 1 for Harvey Keitel's talent + 1 for Gael Garcia's talent + 1 for having Gael as a Revolutionary + 1 for original story + 1 for having well rounded characters and not making it a Good vs. Evil= 5Some of the historic events that are recognized by the great majority of historians that can help as background:Batista was a dictator that used torture and widely spread violence to protect his regime and the wealth of the elites. - Fidel Castro had the support of the great majority of Cubans at the time of the Revolution - The revolutionary government did execute about 400 of Batista's close allies. - The revolutionary government did expropriate all the belongings of the wealthy class in the name of the general wealth being.