Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

t_atzmueller Turning the live of Pablo Escobar – for most, the most ruthless drug-lord in history, for others, mainly his countrymen, a form of Robin Hood – into a motion picture, would conjure up images of a Columbian "Scarface". Unfortunately the director, obviously rather new to his trade, has chosen an entire different direction. The first half is more or less a variation of "Last King of Scotland". As in: naïve, western simpleton (Josh Hutcherson) becomes the boyfriend of Maria (Claudia Traisac), a niece of Pablo Escobar, and soon part of the family of one of the most dangerous drug-traffickers on the South-American continent (Benicio del Toro), and eventually has the ball turned on him. Realizing that he is merely an expendable pawn for the ruthless Escobar, the second part is a thrilling, albeit predictable chase-scene between the Hutcherson-character and Escobar's henchmen.Del Toro as villain is as competent as you'd expect from the actor, but unfortunately, the script doesn't give him much to work with. We learn preciously little about the figure Escobar. Was he simply a self-serving thug, who hid from the limelight under the disguise of a philanthropist? Or were there deeper shades of grey to the character? We'll never find out (at least not through this movie). Primarily, the film focuses on Hutcherson, whose character (or acting abilities) isn't all that interesting. Again, apart from the basic premise, the film has something else in common with above mentioned "Last King of Scotland": Hutcherson is likewise a fictional character (unlike McAvoy's doctor, that was essentially an amalgamation of various real people). Though some people, like myself, aren't always comfortable with mixing fact and fiction under the mantle of artistic freedom, it at least would have been an opportunity to take a close look at the fascinating figure of Escobar through an outside eye. But once the story is turned into a pure run-and-chase-film and Hutcherson takes centre-stage, making you forget about the titular character, that opportunity is completely wasted.Rumours have it that there is another Escobar-film planned, featuring Javier Bardem in the title-role will bring. Which reminds us: one of the more memorable supporting actors, playing the role of ruthless killer, is played by Bardems older brother Carlos. Once again proves that acting-skills sometimes runs in the family. The rest of the cast simply left me wondering why I should care very much about them in the first place. Same goes for the chemistry between Hutcherson and Traisac; though no doubt a beautiful actress, there is very little depth to their relationship, which makes it seem forced, merely there to drive the basic storyline.In the end, it just seems that director Andrea Di Stefano, though technically having done an alright job, bit off more than he could chew for his debut and it doesn't surprise that "Escobar" – at least at this point in time – has remained his only film. So, to see a grand epos on the life and times of Pablo Escobar, we'll probably have to wait a little longer (whereby I have not yet seen the TV-Series and cannot judge on that). I'm probably not the only viewer who sees the whole deal as a huge waste of opportunity, especially in light of having such a fine actor as Benicio del Toro in what could have been the role of a lifetime. A mediocre 5/10, sad to say.

xin The movie is definitely not as bad as the critics have said. For example, I don't see any POV problem. It might not satisfy some audience by telling the story from the perspective of a Canadian surfer boy. But it fits reasonably well with the theme of the movie and the true story it wants to tell. Besides, it makes it possible to tell the story of Pablo Escobar with a much lower budget than a real full scale bio piece on him would allow.It is obvious that the director truly loves his actors and actresses giving the amount of screen time he allows the main characters to play out their emotions. But unfortunately the emotional display was neither necessary to carry the main plot, nor does it contribute much the thriller aspect of the movie. It distracts the audience more from the main plot, and make the already weak plot even weaker.Talking about the plot, it is the weakest aspect of the movie. Half of the story is spent on events that are before the movie's inciting incident. The writer might think it is absolutely necessary for setting up the story and the characters. The truth is that it only shows the lack of skills of the writer at handling its plot.The movie is not really a linear piece as many of the reviews have claimed. There is only one real flash-back at the end of the movie which is put there in place of the real ending to create a more subtle and more literary ending. Most of the confusion is caused by the movie's choice of putting the real inciting incident at the beginning of a story, as an attempt to keep the audience's attention before delving into a backstory that covers half of the movie, an exact signal that the backstory does not belong there, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the story. This choice of plot line might not be a bad one for a romantic movie or an art-house piece, but definitely should not be there for thriller. It makes the movie feel like a badly stitched together piece of two very different movies from completely different genres. I understand the creators of the movie want to create a contrast to convey a stronger message. But this is not a novel, or a play which is split explicitly into three acts, and the audience get to take a thirty minutes break. Keep one of the two as the main plot, and the other as a subtext, either one will be much better than what it is now.I would not recommend that the writer to go back to school to really learn how to tell a story, that would be too mean. But at least send the script to a real expert who would very likely have pointed out the flaw in the plot at very beginning, and subsequent rewrites might have guaranteed a much more successful movie.I am not sure how to comment on the acting. The movie is doomed by its plot from the beginning, there is not much the actors could have done to save it. The director made a reasonable choice, to give his stars enough freedom to create the characters. Unfortunately, when it is overdone it becomes too much a distraction and makes the plot even weaker.The only acting in the movie that really deserves accolades is from the actor who played Drango. Del Toro obviously had a lot of fun playing the character Escobar, but the end result is not proportionate to the amount of creative freedom he was given. Hutcherson did a reasonable good job at portraying the emotions of the pov character that fits the "innocence lost" theme of the movie reasonable well. But he needss a better command of how to use his body to convey his emotions. Acting is not carried out only by the muscles above the neck.

Paul Allaer As "Escobar: Paradise Lost" (2014 release from France and Spain; 120 min.) opens, we are told it is "Medellin, Colombia, June, 1991". We see Escobar making a phone call to his old mother, informing her he is going to prison tomorrow. On this last night of freedom, Escobar gathers his closest aides, including Nick, and everyone is assigned a particular task to hide the economic wealth of the cartel. Escobar tells Nick that he needs to kill his guide after the loot has been hidden, much to Nick's horror. We then go back "A Few Years Earlier", where we see Nick, a Canadian surfer, and his brother Dylan building a surf camp. Nick meets Maria, a beautiful local girl, whom we later learn is related to Escobar (he is Maria's uncle). At this point we're 15 min. into the movie. Will Nick kill the guide? What becomes of Nick and Maria? To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: first, the movie's main events surrounding Escobar are based on facts, including the historical surrender in 1991. But I have my doubts that the parallel story lines involving Nick and Maria really happened. If they had, we probably would have b told at the beginning that this movie was "based on true events" or something like it. Not that this diminishes the enjoyment of the film, as somehow this mix of facts and fiction works great. The relationship between Nick and Maria is fun to watch, in particular as Claudia Traisac (playing Maria) is nothing short of a glowing presence on the big screen, what a delight! Benicio del Toro, portraying Escobar, is a heavy-weight and overpowers everyone, similar to what Markon Brando did in The Godfather. Josh Hutcherson is okay as Nick. His best moment in the movie is when he and Maria attend a birthday party for Escobar, and along the way Nick comes to the realization of what is really going on and what Escobar does. Priceless! The last 30 min. of the movie provide a nice pay-off and will have you on the edge of your seat."Escobar: Paradise Lost" showed up without any pre-release fanfare or hype at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati last weekend, and I finally had a chance to check it out. The matinée screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. I must say that I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie, which turned out to be much better than what I had expected. If you are in the mood for a tough-as-nails crime drama with several top-notch performances, I encourage you to seek this out, be it in the theater, on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. "Escobar: Paradise Lost" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

subxerogravity Josh Hutcherson plays a surfer living in Colombia, who falls in love with a girl whose uncle is a politician attracted to drug trafficking, played by Benicio del Toro.It's a dark tale about getting caught up with the wrong crowd and not being able to get out. The moral of the story is there but I really got nothing out of it. A period piece set in the 80s, the movie does feel a little chopped together. A lot of Background story seems to go by so fast that I barely notice it from all the one-liners used to tell it.But the hunger games star showed he could front a movie. He was charming and capable of a lot of dramatic tension. Good for him that he does have a seasoned award winning actor like Del Toro supporting him in this movie, but for the most part the whole thing falls on Josh's performance and he came through for me by getting me all up in his situation. Depending on weather you like or dislike Hutcherson, or like me, don't have any feeling for him at all either way, will sway your opinion on the movie. The story is weak and the film making is very centered on the leading man's ability to make you like him.