User reviews

Lucio Urtubia Jiménez was born in 1931 in Cascante, a small town in Navarra in the north of Spain. He lived most of his life in Paris. He was a legendary bank robber, not interested in personal enrichment; the proceedings of his heists were used in attempting to bring down Francisco Franco's fascist regime and thereby free Spain.

He was an admirer of the Cuban revolution and other liberation movements and he tried (unsuccessfully) to interest Che Guevara in a scheme to bring down the US economy by circulating counterfeit dollars. He was instrumental in the capture of Klaus Barbie in Bolivia and in helping Black Panthers to flee the USA, which put him on the CIA's crosshairs.

Opinions about Urtubia vary, He rated high among his fellow anti-Franco fighters. One of them, Albert Boadella, whom Urtubia helped escape Spain defined him as "a Quixote tilting not at windmills but at real enemies." Unsurprisingly, the French police took a dim view of him as "a criminal mastermind pulling the strings of an international criminal organization." However, he had many admirers and friends on France such as Albert Camus and André Breton.

His most celebrated exploit was in 1977. With the help of master engravers he forged and circulated 20 million worth of Citibank travellers checks. Initially, Citibank tried to force the French police to make an example of Urtubia. However, the plan was too sophisticated for either the police or Citibank and they were forced to capitulate. Urtubia escaped with a short sentence and a substantial take which he distributed among guerrilla groups. Superficially one could compare Urtubia with Robin Hood, However, the latter only led a showy but ineffectual revolt against a few corrupt lords, while Urtubia dealt a lot more successfully with the real villains.

I liked this movie. It takes some liberties with the facts and the point of view is somewhat naive and hero worshipping; the psychology of the characters is not really touched or developed. But the final result is positive. Excellent acting, direction and cinematography.

This is my first time ever to come across a very interesting figure--Lucio Urtubia--and his exploits. His story is fascinating and the movie brings to the screen what is known about the man to a large extent. It's acknowledged however, that what it shown is not true one hundred percent. Still, by and large, it's out of the ordinary.

Someone has remarked that the movie lacks depth considering the rich material that is at the disposal of the makers. Yet, it's good enough considering it's running time.

The central point of Urtubia's story is how he succeeds in challenging the biggest American bank and in outwitting it in an extremely creative way. He didn't give up when an earlier plan fails to take off. What's also significant is his association albeit brief with a legendary anarchist--Quico Sabate. Their association brings out their contrasting anarchist approaches to dealing with the banking establishment. But both agree that what they're doing is not robbing banks but expropriating on behalf of poor people.

All told it's a satisfying viewing experience. Juan Jose Ballesta does a good job portraying Urtubia. Luis Callejo, Miki Esparbe and Liah O'Prey provide able support.

The first word to come to mind after finishing the movie is decent. That might not be the desirable outcome of anybody's moviemaking, but we've all seen much worse. The story is loosely based on a real person, anarchist and rebel Lucio Urtubia. We follow back and forth his path for 40 years. Nobody seems to like banks anymore, so in my book if anyone can make fools of bankers, more power to them. Unfortunately, the ultimate price is always paid by people like us, nickeled and dimed to death by them. And when all the dishonesty and greed catches up with them, we save them with generous bailouts. Decent movie, workmanlike, predictable, but not much more.

I liked this movie. It caught my interest and I set my phone down. It's a movie about a gentleman who put it to the man and walked away from it scarred by life but still able to make the world a better place. It makes me want to question my limited world view and cheer for the philosophy of an anarchist.

It makes me want to get the book now and look up the biographical account of the characters. Loosely based on a.true story,

This is not an action movie more of a drama, love story, so pour a glass of wine , relax and enjoy.. I don't post or do reviews often and typically look for movies with a 6.0 IMDB rating or better to watch.thus I have this movie 7.0.

"A Man of Action" is an amazing crime drama.

This movie is an amazing character study. It shows an important revolution time period that happened in history and how it affected individual people. The class divide, coming of the corporates, America being a super power, all these topics were discussed very effectively. The writing is awesome, the detailing of the characters and the events was very interesting. Juan jose ballesta gives an amazing performance, he amazingly portrays the characters fire to bring change in the world, and also different stages in his life.

The movie demands your complete attention to enjoy it thoroughly, and it has its pace. So, if you love slow burning biographical crime dramas, give this a try.

No pun intended - but I'll add one: you gotta cheque yourself, before you wreck your(home) self ... ah well. I can do this all day ... Captain Greece that is if you even care. But back to the point or rather the movie. Real life stories can be good - but they can also make some viewers roll their eyes ... not in a good way - also if you are thinking of anything other than annoyed, those are your thoughts and your thoughts alone.

Sorry for that, but I am certain some people have a dirty mind - shame on them. Talking of dirty ... what about dirty money? What about banks, who have too much of it? I mean it is mostly the money of workers ... but they play with it ... and they are insured ... so it is ok to .. no, do not even think about it! Especially because you'll get in prison ... which is a possibility for the main characters here ... since they are based on real people, you may already know their story.

Let's say you don't - I didn't ... and the movie was really well thought of ... and edited. Very well acted too ... and the suspense of it ... great too. Will not make my top 20 list - but it was an interesting and entertaining watch ... especially with the real life factor included ... credits reveal more ... well a bit more! It is not a documentary after all ...

Despite the interesting premise, the plot fell flat after the intriguing opening sequence. The story starts in 1962, with main character Lucio Urtubia and girlfriend reaching the Paris airport with a bag full of cash. Costumes and set look spot on and the audience is left wondering what will happen next, since the police is in hot pursuit.

There follows the first annoying flashback to 20 years previously, in Spain with teenage Lucio attempting and failing his first bank robbery to help his sick father. Move forward 10 years and Lucio is in Paris, joining his sister and working as a builder. On his construction site, Lucio meets some anarchists who introduce him to the doctrine and Lucio decides to "expropriate" bank money to help comrades in need, with the help of more skilled anarchist robber Quico.

At this stage the timeline starts to get muddles, with Lucio meeting Anne, the love of his life, robbing banks and eventually getting caught and incarcerated, then out again for another round that includes falsifying banknotes and finally printing fake travellers cheques.

The actor playing Lucio looks much older than a twenty-something in the section taking place in 1952 and still much older than girlfriend Anne, even 10 years later. Also, he's not a particularly good actor and seems to be sleepwalking through the movie. Most un-engaging, gets a couple of stars for costumes and sets.

Its a film full of entertainment, its full of funny action, and its full of stuff and gadgets that belongs to the era of time. I notice that the police used a peugout just like the one i was born into and thats cool...

its environment of autentic caracters makes me smile over and again, its rude and witty ways to slide out of the polices strongholds are just amazing, the plotspeed is up to your thyroid gland, and the actors casted for this french/spanish/navarranian/basque/catalonian anarchistic freestyler of a biographical drama is just brilliant.

So if you want to lay back to the 1960's paris environment, be my guest, the grumpy old man recommends, and catch me if you can.

A Man of Action is a biopic of Spanish bank robber/counterfeiter/anarchist Lucio Urtubia. Set primarily in the 60s and 70s, this movie attempts to get the viewer to empathise with Urtubia who is presented as a 'modern day Robin Hood' combined with activist, intent on 'bringing down the system' - most notably American style capitalism.

If you want a taste of the political angle, Che Guevara is portrayed in the movie as some sort of superstar.

As backstory, Urtubia is given motive for his actions via a childhood experience of a local bank refusing to give him a loan to buy morphine for his ailing father. How heartless and cruel of the local bank manager to do his job and protect local people's hard-earned money.

Did Urtubia's family not have any friends that could assist them? Instead of attempting to rob the bank, wouldn't it have made more sense to appropriate some morphine directly? Bad decisions fuel drama, but they are less effective at generating empathy for a character.

To be fair to Urtubia, he was also fleeing the fascist dictatorship present in Spain at the time, so in context his extremism is perhaps more forgivable.

For me, the best thing about Urtubia was, unlike many contemporary anarchists and activists, he actually built things that people can appreciate.

He worked as an ordinary builder for most of his life. He also gave away a large portion of the money he stole, although the movie doesn't expand much on who or what this money was intended for ('the cause'). It also suggests that he and his team kept a third of the proceeds for themselves - which seems to go against the real life Urtubia's comments that he never personally profited and hence 'wasn't really a thief'.

The film presents him as impetuous, naive, and rather simple, but resourceful and with decent intentions. I would suggest he was also utterly deluded. He should've stuck to the day job.

As for the movie in general, it's average in all departments. There's some interesting period detail and the pace is well handled. It's watchable, but hopefully not too many viewers will find it 'inspiring'.

Greed takes as many shapes as Satan supposedly does, and looking at political ideologies through the dollar lens reduces everything to a simple devilish financial scam! When a Spanish entrepreneur is recruited into an anarchist 'organisation', combined with his hatred of banks, he concocts a plan to destabilise the American dollar. Even Che Guevarra said that that was too hard!

As it's all based on a true story type film, the ridiculousness of the escapades feel more real than they should! Clumsy, near-sighted, or just plain incompetent, the government forces trying to catch the criminals are constantly outwitted and ridiculed at every turn. The French setting aside, the comparison to Pink Panther's bumbling detective is undeniable.

The anti-imperial-Americana that Spain's Francoist education imparted on these Spaniards living in France imbues the story with a sense of David vs. Goliath. The one-eyed giant, in this case, is a multinational bank trying to make Traveller's Cheques popular at all costs. By clever cooperation and Robin Hood-ish intentions, the small group of people (whom do not like being told what to do) follow the bricklaying Spaniard's every plan, until the bank in question gets wind of the operation.

The battle of wits is minimal as both parties are treading uncharted waters. One is creating a system to benefit the peak of the pyramid while the other does not want to be a brick in its slanted walls, although both think more about themselves than 'the masses'!

Are we just beasts of burden for those that demand everybody do what they did as men (or women or whatever) of action? It seemed the banks needed to be robbed by the poor, foreign bricklayer to support the poorer workers, and the curious French detective had to succumb to the Bank's influence, as if they all had a part to play to unburden the masses of any heavy lifting, in the thinking department! Anarchy, as depicted in this film, never looked so organised and effective in creating wealth for its leaders! If I wasn't aware of the history, it would seem the criminals in this film had more capitalist ideals than trying to put a wrench in the big cog of American progress.

The movie is successful in terms of being historically correct and one can see that they have made a lot of effort in this regard. However, it fails on so many other areas. The main character is essentially a stupid fool who doesn't understand how the world works. His viewpoint (to be an anarchist) never changes. If it was the story of his own transformation then at least there was a story to tell . By contrast his wife clearly matures in the way she sees the world and therein lies the difference. The lead actor also has no charisma or charm. He doesn't make the story interesting in the sense that one wants to keep on watching.