Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

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.

For anybody who has no idea what has gone on in Central and South America in the last 75 years, this may not be the best place to start. We are all experts on the middle east by this point. But it is sad to say, even here in the early 21st century, nobody has any idea what is going on south of the border.Oliver Stone's documentary of sorts doesn't help fill in those gaps - watch Salvador first - but it goes a long way in illuminating the propaganda Americans are fed by cable TV "news" devoid of actual journalism. This isn't a really deep documentary, which is a fair knock. Stone is really out to just show us the other side of the mirror.Hugo Chavez is not a saint but nor is he a religious zealot sending waves of suicide bombers into crowded markets. He has done some good. And yes, he has done some bad - very little covered in the movie. There is no coverage of the rampant street violence, "secuestro express" kidnappings or incomprehensible corruption. But, I think its unfair to completely dismiss the film. it is too easy to paint villains in our society and this film gives some breath from the one dimensional views that wash up on our TV sets.If you wonder how people like Chavez take power around the world, it isn't by accident. Look at the standard of living the people in these countries live in. Americans are spoiled. Somos ricos. But a high standard of living does not grant us endowed wisdom. We don't know everything. We aren't always right. If you've never seen real poverty and strife first-hand, as much of the world lives in, then this movie can do nothing to change your mind. But hopefully, it can help you ask some questions of your own. You don't have to love Chavez, but maybe you'll think twice about how you view your own country and the garbage fed nightly to our population over cable TV.

South of the Border (2009) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Director Oliver Stone certainly isn't shy when it comes to controversial subjects but at the same time I'm really not sure he's the one you'd want to deliver a documentary. In this film he travels to five countries in order to tell the American people that the media is evil, George Bush is nothing more than Hitler and that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is one of the greatest men on the planet. Look, I don't know how much truth is in this film and let's pretend that every second in the 78-minute running time is nothing but the truth. That's fine but I have a hard time believing anything here because Stone clearly didn't set out to make a documentary but instead he wanted to give his political point of view without any other opinions coming in. I was a little surprised by the short running time but I guess that should be expected because we never hear from the "other side" and instead we just hear from the main guys as they tell us why they're so great and why the American media wants to paint them as monsters. Again, I'm perfectly fine in someone telling me that these guys are angels but at the same time I want to hear from those who are trying to paint a different picture. Stone clearly wants this film to be a love story to Chavez, Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, Evo Morales, Fernando Lugo and Rafael Correa. He interviews all of these people and they tell us all the great things they've done and inform us (again) that the American media has them all wrong. The film spends plenty of time telling us why Bush is evil and we hear why the American people are simply being fed lies and are too stupid to figure anything out on their own. SOUTH OF THE BORDER is a decent movie and I must admit I had a good time watching Stone interview these people. Again, perhaps everything said here is true but I still want to hear from the other side. I also have a hard time with any documentary that tries to show the subjects to be "down to Earth" by having them do childish things. This includes a scene where Stone directs Chavez to ride a bike like a kid and another scene where he plays soccer.

Hugo Chavez is by all means an interesting figure in today's politics. As a matter of fact, I began to like his shameless "in your face" attitude, mostly uncommon in today's decadent global relations, and his quite magnetic charisma. You will notice Chavez whether You like him or not. Anyhow, after seeing "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" which thrilled me, and the previous Stone's documentary dealing with South American issues "Comandante", indeed I expected "South Of The Border" to be an exciting yet profound content. It wasn't really.I did like the documentary, no doubt about that, still, it lacks depth and structural analysis of something that presents much more than a certain politician's biography and the surrounding he's creating. Stone obviously had intended to criticize the American capitalist system of global domination, and show Chavez together with other Latin American leaders as an alternative. Yes, the critic is quite direct, although a feeling remains that the whole concept is made to be superficial, in order to bring the film to a wider public with lower cognitive capacities. I know, it's all about profit, but still, a documentary is supposed to be about the essence, is it not? The whole story line and the narration make the story predictable, it sounds partial, whereas way too much material was taken from "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Sometimes it seems Stone had made nothing more than a paraphrase of things already shown and told. The biggest disappointment though is the end, with the classic Obama cliché and the "New yadiyadada Hope" story which by now makes me wanna take a bucket and throw it all out.In short, I did like "South Of The Border", yet the expectations were much bigger though. Sorry Oliver, you could have done a far better job.