jgcorrea Lula is the leading and agglutinating symbol of the "cultural revolution" that gave leftists complete hegemonic control of public discussions, to the point that virtually all ideological opposition disappeared from the big picture. To confirm Karl Marx's claim that historical tragedies recur as farces, one should write a play about Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Any student of Marxism who has properly done his homework realizes that, from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, Lula did nothing wrong. Instead. He followed the recipe faithfully, with a fine dialectical sense of objective conditions, moments and opportunities, succeeding in accomplishing what was almost impossible: to save the Latin American communist movement from extinction, and put it in action in a dozen countries. The FARC themselves recognized it emphatically in a letter of thanks sent to the XV anniversary of the Forum of Sao Paulo. Lula himself, conscious of the work accomplished, celebrated his spectacular ideological victory by arguing that Brazil had reached the perfection of democracy: all candidates were left-wing. It is easy to call him a thief, a con man, a devil. But the fact is, such critique is based on a criterion of administrative appropriateness which only applies within the framework of "bourgeois morality." Lula, like Allende in Chile, had to make alliances and concessions - including the vocabulary of "bourgeois honesty" - with a firm intention of throwing them away as soon as possible. He moved amid the ambiguities of an opportunistic conciliation between the strategic demands of the revolutionary movement and the objective interests of his capitalist allies. Not even personal illicit enrichment can be seriously alleged against him by the canons of revolutionary morality. It is an historical fact that all the major stars of the communist cast enriched illicitly - Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Pol-Pot, Allende, Ceaucescu - and it was a tacit norm that they had the obligation to do so, preferably with Swiss accounts, in order to have the means to protect themselves, and eventually restart the revolution in case of failure of any local project. Only Lenin was unable to enjoy a potentate status because some time after the victory of the Revolution, tertiary syphilis, fulfilling its fatal term, reduced him to a human rag. As per Yakov Stanislavovich Ganetsky, Lenin's financial mentor, "the best way to destroy capitalism is for us to become capitalists ourselves." The revolutionary movement has always relied on robbery, fraud, smuggling, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and, in democratic countries where it came to power, assault on public coffers. Lula did not invent anything, he did not innovate at all, he did not change anything, he only demonstrated an extraordinary ability to apply good old tricks. In the court of revolutionary ethics, therefore, not a word can be said against him. His Party (PT) was not a mere case of "corruption" like so many others, but rather a gigantic plan of appropriation of public money in order to give the communist movement full power over the continent.

fabioblavic This is a terrible movie and an unrealistic story about one of the most populist president of Brazil since Getulio Vargas. Lula is a selfish person who only care about power, this movie is a completely fantasy about his history. There are some correct parts though, Lula came from a very poor family, thats true, and he also has a very strong ability for speech, but he had some bad episodes along his young life which was not presented in the movie. The movie should have been more truthful to Lula's biography. Besides all those problems regarding the accuracy of the story, the movie quality is very bad, the acting is bad, and the movie was funded with public money, which is a shame. Anyway, I don't recommend.

David Traversa I was quite disoriented reading the four reviews on this film. Only four reviews. Very sad, but I'm afraid that only Hollywood movies get hundreds of reviews, no matter how bad they are. And I say that I was quite disoriented because the only four reviews are from Brazil, and quite severe they are. Could it be true that nobody is a prophet in his own country? it has to be, because I found this movie to be EXCELLENT!!The transition between the boy and the adult Lula is quite impressive, both actors could very well be the same person when the years go by and the boy becomes an adult.Gloria Pires is such a magnificent actress!! and quite contained. The actor that plays Lula's father is really amazing, not knowing him from previous works, one believes that he's really Lula's father, fantastic interpretation!!Everybody is excellent and so is the camera work, the editing, the color photography, etc. As far as I remember I've never been disappointed by a Brazilian movie. I think that Brazilian films are among the best in the world. And the Portuguese language as spoken by Brazilians must be among the most delicious languages to be heard, not to mention their music, absolutely ravishing!! (Do I sound like a fan of Brazil?).

sardenberg_ba This movie is profoundly based on the true story of Brazil's President Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010), beginning at his birth, in the poor countryside of the Northeastern semi-arid Pernambuco State.It is not openly political, once the story ends before his political acting years in the early eighties, but it has produced some controversy in Brazil, once this is election year. Of course, he can't run for President on a third term, though.Apart from that, there is a feeling through the movie that it was meant to show some of the most important moments in his life, so there are some scenes that are short on completion. Viewers may expect something more about the short stories told as facts, like something you'd tell on a conversation.The screenwriters apply the conduct line on the main character's mother, played by Gloria Pires (great), as was done in the other heartwarming movie '2 Filhos de Francisco', but still there is some loss of bond.All the actors give their best, specially the main actor. The photography is well composed. The soundtrack, highly appropriate, though a bit repetitive. The direction, it seems to me, could have been better.Great moments bring the audience to tears, while learning about the past of suffering and poverty that built the charismatic and popular politician. As a Brazilian, I was touched when I found out that a little boy who cleaned people's leather shoes in the streets became my President. All he needed was to be stubborn.