In short:
After finishing this movie, please watch "The Alamo (2004)" and "300 (2006)". Then compare with this movie.
The three films dramatize a real event of a courageous deed. A group of brave men, who resist a fight to death for honour. Beyond duty.
Deeds that Universal History has recognized them.
This movie? This movie is Black Legend.
Long version: The film moves quickly and can be seen with interest ... except the last 45 minutes.
Before watching the movie I knew that a handful of Spaniards were standing still during almost one-year suffering siege by a superior enemy. They caused several casualties while defending the church in Baler.
At this point I started wondering, why the Filipinos are not attacking? If the Spanish soldiers killed around 700 people (stated by the movie), how did they die? The movie doesn't tell how. They must have died of boredom or of taking the drugs distributed by the Franciscan friar.
When I finished the movie I didn't understood what was the deed here. If the U.S. recognised this military act as something heroic, if the new Filipinas honoured the Spanish survivors and the Spanish government gave the highest distinction to the Lieutenant Martín Cerezo. Why? What was brave or noble in "The last in Filipinas deed"?
In the movie I saw only a bunch of cowardly little boys who want to flee from there, guided by a man without honour who murders a defenceless girl and shoots soldiers sleeping, while a monk takes care of their souls by hooking their fellow human beings to drugs. All seasoned with the psycho sergeant. The film shows that the only man with honour and courage is the coward who deserted at first day.
Then I look for the historical facts and everything was clear: this movie is fiction, nothing to do with the real historical deeds.
This is a manipulated and corrupted vision that perverts the real History that happened in Baler. In addition it does not explain how a bunch of cowards
It is a vision manipulated in a disgusting way, which corrupts the History that happened there and that does not explain how a group of cowards could kill 700 people defending a church. They should die alone. To breed this grotesque anti-Spanish propaganda trampling the historical memory of those who died there must be very illiterate or lack moral. Maybe the friar shared opium to get high with the director of this movie, otherwise I cannot explain this to myself.
The only honourable deed of the Director (Perpetrator) is that the psychopath character was a not real character. I guess that the Perpetrator was against into giving a real name to such a bastard character, which will offend their decedents.
The Director has reaped a resounding failure with this film and it does not surprise me either. It is poetic justice.
A historical film may take certain licenses, but it must respect a minimum of what happened there. Therefore, if you make a Jesus of Nazareth film you can show some mistakes that he could made, but you can not represent it as an evil being that makes human sacrifices imitating the Aztec Empire.
It's like showing the battle of Thermopylae in "the 300" and 5 minutes of the end show Leonidas raping a 5-year-old boy. It's like showing defenders of "El Álamo" while they eat babies. Like showing William Wallace (Braveheart) how in the end he was a coward who fled in the decisive battle. Anyone who has seen these films based on noble deeds can compare because this movie is Black Legend.
This movie? This movie is Black Legend.
Long version: The film moves quickly and can be seen with interest ... except the last 45 minutes.
Before watching the movie I knew that a handful of Spaniards were standing still during almost one-year suffering siege by a superior enemy. They caused several casualties while defending the church in Baler.
At this point I started wondering, why the Filipinos are not attacking? If the Spanish soldiers killed around 700 people (stated by the movie), how did they die? The movie doesn't tell how. They must have died of boredom or of taking the drugs distributed by the Franciscan friar.
When I finished the movie I didn't understood what was the deed here. If the U.S. recognised this military act as something heroic, if the new Filipinas honoured the Spanish survivors and the Spanish government gave the highest distinction to the Lieutenant Martín Cerezo. Why? What was brave or noble in "The last in Filipinas deed"?
In the movie I saw only a bunch of cowardly little boys who want to flee from there, guided by a man without honour who murders a defenceless girl and shoots soldiers sleeping, while a monk takes care of their souls by hooking their fellow human beings to drugs. All seasoned with the psycho sergeant. The film shows that the only man with honour and courage is the coward who deserted at first day.
Then I look for the historical facts and everything was clear: this movie is fiction, nothing to do with the real historical deeds.
This is a manipulated and corrupted vision that perverts the real History that happened in Baler. In addition it does not explain how a bunch of cowards
It is a vision manipulated in a disgusting way, which corrupts the History that happened there and that does not explain how a group of cowards could kill 700 people defending a church. They should die alone. To breed this grotesque anti-Spanish propaganda trampling the historical memory of those who died there must be very illiterate or lack moral. Maybe the friar shared opium to get high with the director of this movie, otherwise I cannot explain this to myself.
The only honourable deed of the Director (Perpetrator) is that the psychopath character was a not real character. I guess that the Perpetrator was against into giving a real name to such a bastard character, which will offend their decedents.
The Director has reaped a resounding failure with this film and it does not surprise me either. It is poetic justice.
A historical film may take certain licenses, but it must respect a minimum of what happened there. Therefore, if you make a Jesus of Nazareth film you can show some mistakes that he could made, but you can not represent it as an evil being that makes human sacrifices imitating the Aztec Empire.
It's like showing the battle of Thermopylae in "the 300" and 5 minutes of the end show Leonidas raping a 5-year-old boy. It's like showing defenders of "El Álamo" while they eat babies. Like showing William Wallace (Braveheart) how in the end he was a coward who fled in the decisive battle. Anyone who has seen these films based on noble deeds can compare because this movie is Black Legend.