wintermancer Here we have a completely lopsided documentary starring Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and of course Oliver Stone as the on-camera host. It was nice to see Oliver sitting and talking to the all the major players of South America and Cuba. But so what? Stone implies that because Fox News is a completely transparent propaganda machine that Hugo is not a dictator but a misunderstood hero of the continuing Bolivarian and communist revolutions. At least he is right about Fox news. He seems to get almost every other fact about Chavez and Morales wrong. To make Chavez shine like a new penny, Stone includes interviews with Christina and Lula. Pure farce.I was hoping to learn something about Chavez and Venezuela, something that might change my opinion. I wanted to learn about the irrevocable changes to the political system there. But what I got was a pathetic excuse for Stone to schmooze with various heads of states as he toured South America as the other kind of American.This is a terrible, self-serving documentary that has no place in an intelligent discussion of Chavez. There is no journalism here, no fairness, and nothing to learn. Just a puzzle and perhaps the end of a career for Stone.

gavin6942 This film points out how Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is erroneously called a "dictator" by the media, and particularly points out how naive the Fox News network is. The morning show, in particular, is full of fools and I am glad to see them called out here.The film is also interesting in showing a very human side to South American leaders, with Chavez riding a kid's bike, and Evo Morales of Bolivia playing soccer. Particularly lucid is Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who explains his stand against foreign bases very clearly in terms that no reasonable person could reject.The film is "plagued by the same issues of accuracy that critics have raised about" Stone's non-documentaries, according to Larry Rohter of the New York Times. Tariq Ali, one of the writers, admits that the film is "opinionated" and Stone himself has gone on record as saying he was not aware of certain facts that may have changed the tone or content of the film.However, Stone did also write a lengthy letter to the New York Times, expanding on issues and citing references to refute Rohter's claims. While, in the end, how you want to interpret the film is up to you, I think by and large it is accurate, even if rosy. It is, if nothing else, a nice balance from the typical coverage of Latin America.

lonflexx Stone is a heavy name in American film. It is used here to help balance the US media's ignorance of recent South American political inclinations. He interviews many elected officials, all of whom seem to be pretty enlightened guys, just like Stone. But they are politicians, each tooting their own horn - one couldn't expect any less. Big meaningful progressive issues are bandied about with revolutionary relish. And Stone could not be less inclined to investigate the ground beneath their feet.If all this great stuff is happening in South America I couldn't be happier. But knowing how the world works I found it difficult to swallow all of the rhetoric as easily as Stone. His ear is surely closer to the ground than Fox, CNN or the NYT. But what does he need to do, as a filmmaker, to convince his audience of his point of view? He needs to show the proof in the pudding. Lets see the beans in the burrito. Not just the guacamole sauce.How are these political changes working for the citizens? Let's hear it from the ground up, Oliver. How is Bolivarianism actually achieved within a 21st century global economy? I want to SEE this. If it is happening, why not show the nuts and bolts? Why not interview the newly empowered taxpaying residents and let them show the world how the new policies are changing their lives? To hear politicians gush about it will only move audiences to skepticism. By faith alone? - that's strictly for gringos.As a fiction and fantasy auteur, it may be that Stone doesn't believe that a documentary approach can speak to the hearts and minds of a society raised on cable junk. He's probably right. But if he's a committed socialist he should work at it a little harder. Many of us are riper for it than even he may realize.

Lee Eisenberg Argentinian ex-president Néstor Kirchner's death last month brings to mind his role as one of the progressive leaders who rose to prominence in South America in the early 2000s. Oliver Stone's "South of the Border" looks at this leftward swing.Prior to the release of "South of the Border", I had heard both praise of it and criticism of it, both coming from sources that one would expect. If you know nothing about US policies in Latin America, then the documentary might be a little hard to understand. But this is definitely something that everyone should see. Stone interviews a number of the leftist leaders who rose to power in South America in the early 21st century: Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, to name a few. The leaders explain how the US had kept Latin American economies beholden to the IMF, and often kept despotic regimes in power to enforce its will. To be certain, Argentina's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner details exactly how the IMF sent Argentina's economy into turmoil.Part of the documentary's focus is on the misleadingly negative portrayal of people like Hugo Chávez in the media (and in particular, how they manipulated footage of the failed 2002 coup against him to make it look as though his supporters attacked protesters).The criticism of the documentary has been that Stone does not interview critics of the leftist leaders. Of course, we have heard mostly criticism of these leaders - of which Stone shows an example from a Fox News talk show - so this documentary IS the alternative view. As Stone also notes, the US ally Colombia always gets a free pass despite its atrocious human rights record. I certainly recommend "South of the Border". And remember: Bush, you are a donkey!