Our Lady of the Assassins (2000)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

i hated this movie. it is shot with digital video, and it looks a lot like a home video. perhaps that was the intent. i was certainly surprised to see the credits that suggested a lot of people on the production and a lot of post-production work.perhaps i've missed something. for me, this movie came across like a first film, filled with pretense, grand and overbearing monologue, plus poor acting.perhaps that was the point. maybe someone thought that a degree of realism could be achieved with poor light, sound, film, and 'special effects'. instead, it looks like a gay porn video, without the porn: leaving an dull romance between an old, self-absorbed whiner, and a rent boy.

After reading these comments I am completely shocked that those of you who insulted it even saw such an exquisitely accurate and cultured film. As for those who dismissed it as a tale about love, loss and revenge, these themes are minute compared to the overwhelming issue that is raised in the film. When Alexis kills his first victim we are shocked, as is Fernando. 'Que hiciste?' he asks him, when he returns from shooting the punk rocker next door. But as the film progresses and we witness countless murders the viewer becomes anaesthetised (sorry if i spelt that wrong im only 18 and not great with words!) to the horror of these increasingly violent and pointless murders. It is only when Fernando is about to shoot the injured dog that we are disturbed by the violence. What does this tell you? The director has led the viewers to a state of moral panic! Suddenly the sights of human death do not trouble us but we are moved at the euthanasia of a dog! As for the poor acting.. there is only one professional actor in this entire movie, the director made the correct decision by choosing real street gang members, real people who live in the streets of Medellin. How on earth can you use a professional actor with probably no experience of any real danger into Medellin and ask him to understand the idea of 'life as a commodity'. If you have seen The Rose Seller 'The Vendedora de Las Rosas' you will see just how crucial it is to use these real people. The protagonist in The Rose Seller (Leidy Tabares) has a real life story much more violent and gruesome than her tragic story in the film as a 13yr old glue-sniffing rose seller.This film is awesome, (if a little long) it shows how the institution of the Church has completely failed, as it is now used for drug exchange and other illegal activities. The homosexuality plays no significant part in the film as the couple are never marginalised by their orientation, on the other hand it is as if homosexuality is an expression of their masculinity.Anyway... im feeling rather angry that no one really understood this movie apart from the few people who have made some really interesting comments. Sorry for venting my anger! But hope you can look at the film from a totally different perspective.

This movie is modest, and certainly flawed in some respects, but overall very impressive, and very disturbing. I cannot speak to how accurately it depicted Colombia, or Medellin in particular. What struck me was that Fernando, brooding and cynical in his middle years (not "elderly"--please!), often bringing up his own wish to die, is at first reinvigorated by his relationship with Alexis--young, enthusiastic, seemingly almost angelic--but completely absorbed into the culture of death that surrounds him. Fernando is disturbed by the anger and the callous, nonchalant attitude toward death and killing that he encounters everywhere he goes, and even in Alexis. But he is less disturbed by it as time goes by. And at times Alexis kills on his Fernando's behalf--for instance, shooting a neighbor about whom Fernando complains because the neighbor's late-night drumming keeps him awake at night. As Alexis's companion, Fernando himself is drawn into this culture of death. And at times, his own anger and his inability to keep quiet about his contempt for many of the people he encounters incite the situations that result in Alexis killing "for" him. This, to me, was a particularly compelling aspect of this film--the way in which Fernando, shocked and disgusted by the death and killing that surrounds him, becomes so much a part of it--and, at times, is even exhilarated by it, even as he sees the moral dilemma his "participation" in it represents for him.When Fernando shoots an injured, suffering dog as an act of mercy--yet something which Alexis, so callous about killing people, cannot bring himself to do--he (Fernando) is so bitter and upset that he threatens to take his own life. When Alexis wrestles the gun from Fernando, the gun is lost; Alexis loses his protection and is soon shot and killed. By saving Fernando from himself, Alexis loses his own life.Fernando later meets Wilmar, another teenager who at first seems so sweet and innocent that it seems almost jarring (to me, at least), when he later removes his gun. And, yes, it is a bit soap-opera-ish to learn later that it is Wilmar who had shot and killed Alexis, but when he explains to Fernando--who is ready to kill Wilmar when he learns that Wilmar is the killer--why he had killed Alexis, his answer seems so simple, and so devoid of emotion, that it is truly disarming--literally, in fact.As disdainful as Fernando is of his countrymen, and as aloof of the anger, callousness and death around him that he pretends to be, in his attempt to regain his own life and happiness, he finds himself more and more a part of it. To me, that is what is so artfully, even masterfully, shown in this film. That is what makes it moving and disturbing.And I thought the acting rocked. Also, I cannot understand comments about how this movie is filled with gay sex scenes. There is a little bit of embracing, a little kissing, a few scenes of Fernando lying in bed with Alexis and/or Wilmar, and a lot of scenes of Fernando walking around town with one or the other of them.I do agree that the English subtitles are pretty awful. My Spanish isn't good enough to have been able to do without the subtitles completely, but it is good enough to realize how much dialogue was missed, or poorly translated.

A complete disaster. "How much time is left?" was my constant question after the first 30 minutes... I still don't know if the center of the movie was the gay affair between the "writer" and the gay gang, or the violence inside Medellin.The performance for the gay affair is excessive, morbid and gross. There are many subtle and intelligent ways to represent homosexuality, without the need of using too obvious scenes (passionated kisses or nudity), or vulgar phrases like "Which butterflies? The butterflies are us!" or "I like women only if they have little brothers"... On the other hand, the plot is too simple and recurrent (most of the film is the scenes of the gay affair), as well as little credible: Alexis dies and the next day the protagonist finds another gay with similar dress, gang and gay! And immediately they fall in love!! Give me a break! So easy is to find gay gangs in Colombia? Finally: The supposed point of the movie (or al least, what the title means), the violence inside Medellin: Is this? Only that chain of shootings without sense? And what about the drug problem, the cartels and the FARC? It gives the impression that people kill each other for nothing...Conclusion: A very bad way to represent the violence problem inside Colombia and the homosexuality. A complete disappointment. Avoid it at all costs.0/10