I've read Romulo Gallegos' book translated in my language (Slovenian) and I was fascinated with deep characterizations deriving from fewest possible dialogs and the philosophy of a life, driven by honest instincts, liberal thinking and wide fan of feelings of a man torn between duty to his roots and environment imposed on him. In the movie, dating 10 years after the book, all those subtle tones are lost in a Hollywood-like display of a black-and-white hero and much much talking. From the technical point of view, the movie is almost perfect, great cinematography, music and direction, even much altered dramaturgy (storyline) is good, as it is adapted to a different medium (film). But it shows here, how written word made much more progress to this point in history than moving pictures. The novel even today isn't out-of-date, whereas the movie plays rather like a curiosity and display of good filming techniques of the time, than a work with some weight, especially intimately expressed ideas, that were also recognized widely by the Venezuelan people after the book was published(Venezuela being homeland of both Gallegos and Marcos Vargas, hero of the novel/movie.) But it is not an excuse to make an average movie out of a perfect book, just because a canon of making movies was such and such in those times. This movie was made in Mexico, so please look at Bunuel's early work and compare, and one other example comes to mind: Mizoguchi's 47 Ronin from 1941 (!) is a great example of how a simple story, told before a hundred times, can live forever on a new medium if there is a genus at work.If there is someone from Venezuela who wishes to comment on the movie and on my comment, please do so, I would like to hear how you see it.