BiliPiton Poor Don Diego de Gama. Both parents Spanish, but he's never been to Spain, as he is frequently snobbily reminded by the Spanish-born residents in his 1790s Argentina back country town. He's a bureacrat serving a king 6000 miles away, unable to decide anything by himself, a fish in water (in a ruling metaphor) who can't live in a wet place. He wants to leave but can't, because everything is on hold. Will a military expedition bail him out? Bitterly totally ironic, structured around off camera sounds that are never what hearers think they are. I'm now hunting down the 1956 novel by Antonio_di_Benedetto.

proud_luddite Based on the novel by Antonio di Benedetto: in the 18th century, Don Diego De Zama (Daniel Giminez Cacho) is an administrative official assigned by Spain to oversee a South American colony (later part of Argentina). His attempts to change his status, position and work location (mainly to reunite with his wife and newborn child) are met with great resistance."Zama" is courageous in exploring issues of both race and class within colonialism. The main character and those like him falsely believe they are superior to the people indigenous to the land. But this principle comes back to haunt de Zama as well. He is of Spanish heritage but was born in "the colonies" and is thus considered inferior to those who are Spanish-born. He is stuck in the middle of a deplorable hierarchy and mindset.Despite the film's assets, the narrative falls into something that is jumbled, incoherent, and sometimes incomprehensible. It is also too long. This is unfortunate considering its potential.In the later scenes, the shortcomings are appeased with beautiful natural surroundings complemented with a blue sky. This does create a pleasant serenity but at this point, the enjoyment is only a consolation rather than an enhancement.

beheld Zama gives new meaning to "A film that only a critic could like." I found it visually ugly and story-wise incomprehensible. True -- I am not versed in conquistador history and I remain so after sitting through the excruciating Zama. A. Held

thiagosblancos In spite of what critics might say, this movie does require the audience to actually take some time but not to "rejoice in a well told but a bit slow story" (sic)... You might perhaps dwell on what took you to watch this pretentious movie in the first place. But yes, you are going to remain in your seat for something close to 2 hours (if you don't leave, as some people did) to finally get... nothing. Basically, if you read the storyline here, you've already had it all for nothing else happens, truly. Nothing. There is no back story for any character. Some of them pop up and disappear just the same. With no explanation whatsover. Then, the campaign to catch the "thieve"... it happens out of the blue. I asumed something occurred in between his decision to do so but the director chose (for some unknown reason) not to make that part of the story into the final cut. However, she did decide to include something else. It seems she found a lot of beautiful places to film her movie and in almost everyone she said "gee, let's film a bit here, no, no actors, just the landscape and then I will include it in the final cut", well, that is exactly what she did. Perhaps, if you are at home and you get to press fast forward from time to time... it might (huge emphasis there) improve the experience but I most sincerely doubt it.All in all, it's a complete waste of time (and money) and *this* is what we sent from Argentina to the Oscars. Some reporter asked Lucrecia Martel why she has chosen to be absent from the cinemas for 9 years. Well, some of us haven't noticed her absence at all and would be very much welcome her to remain the way she was.