This movie is about aging, loving, losing, and coming to terms with the world as a place of change and violence. However, it is only "about" these things and no more.
Being a "message" movie with no message, it fails to convince on every level. The protagonist's single dimension is his revisiting the city of his childhood only to be shocked by how different it is (who knew that Columbia is a violent place?) His pseudo-existentialist musings fall all over the map (humanist, misanthropic, rebellious, disillusioned) and convince his young lover even less than the audience. The young lover in question is spared the luxury of being even one-dimensional: he's a scripted appendix to the gun in his belt and the stereo blasting "rock" music (standing in for America's cultural hegemony?) The homosexual relationship between the two characters is completely unnecessary and artificial; it seems thrown in to raise the controversy factor but lacks in chemistry and credibility (why are they together - if it's only for the sex, where is the sex?) It only serves the purpose of bringing about the solitary plot twist in the narrative (namely, the second lover), which seems like a desperate attempt to save the movie out of nowhere.
The book, upon which the movie is based, has some Socratic undercurrent; the movie "cleverly" translates it into dogmatism (with a hammer over your head) rather than irony (if any questions are raised by Fernando, they just hover in the vacuum of the director's confused efforts to figure out where his movie is going.) See instead 'Amores perros' or 'Ratas, ratones, rateros' or read Fernando Vallejo's book.
Being a "message" movie with no message, it fails to convince on every level. The protagonist's single dimension is his revisiting the city of his childhood only to be shocked by how different it is (who knew that Columbia is a violent place?) His pseudo-existentialist musings fall all over the map (humanist, misanthropic, rebellious, disillusioned) and convince his young lover even less than the audience. The young lover in question is spared the luxury of being even one-dimensional: he's a scripted appendix to the gun in his belt and the stereo blasting "rock" music (standing in for America's cultural hegemony?) The homosexual relationship between the two characters is completely unnecessary and artificial; it seems thrown in to raise the controversy factor but lacks in chemistry and credibility (why are they together - if it's only for the sex, where is the sex?) It only serves the purpose of bringing about the solitary plot twist in the narrative (namely, the second lover), which seems like a desperate attempt to save the movie out of nowhere.
The book, upon which the movie is based, has some Socratic undercurrent; the movie "cleverly" translates it into dogmatism (with a hammer over your head) rather than irony (if any questions are raised by Fernando, they just hover in the vacuum of the director's confused efforts to figure out where his movie is going.) See instead 'Amores perros' or 'Ratas, ratones, rateros' or read Fernando Vallejo's book.