Gabriel Azorín and Celso Giménez’s film frames its central group as soldiers recounting past tactical glories while searching for a lost ancient thermal bath. Yet what initially presents itself as recollection quickly dissolves into something far more abstract. These are not soldiers in any conventional sense, nor even men grounded in lived experience. They function instead as vessels of memory—figures suspended between myth and performance, where the idea of conquest carries more weight than any tangible reality.
“A film where the idea of experience outweighs the reality of it.”
That distinction defines the film’s tone, and ultimately its central failure.
By intentionally stylizing and mythologizing these characters, the film creates a false sense of presence—one that gestures toward emotional truth without ever fully embodying it. The result is a work that feels curiously hollow: conceptually ambitious, yet dramatically inert. The men at its center are not observed so much as constructed, and that construction keeps the audience at a distance.
The first act reinforces this disconnect. Its rhythms evoke a familiar coming-of-age looseness, recalling films like The Kings of Summer or Stand by Me, but filtered through a more aimless, stripped-down sensibility—closer to Clerks, albeit without the sharpness of its dialogue or the specificity of its voice. Scenes drift rather than build, leaning on the assumption that presence alone can substitute for narrative or emotional progression.
“Conceptually ambitious, yet dramatically inert.”
It cannot.
The dialogue, in particular, undermines the film’s ambitions. Rather than feeling like men recounting something lived—something scarred by time and memory—it often resembles a group casually narrating a fictional campaign, closer to a tabletop role-playing session than to any grounded experience of war or history. Conversations float in abstraction, detached from emotional consequence. What should feel reflective instead feels performative, and what should carry weight becomes curiously weightless.
This lack of grounding extends to the characters themselves. Their mythologized construction strips them of interiority, leaving little room for development or connection. The bonds the film seeks to establish—friendship, shared history, masculine intimacy—remain fragmented, never fully cohering into something the audience can invest in. The film gestures toward a richly textured character study, but ultimately fumbles its own premise by refusing to anchor its ideas in lived reality.
And yet, from a technical standpoint, there are moments of genuine clarity.
The cinematography plays a crucial role in shaping the film’s visual language. Wide compositions frequently position the characters as figures moving through space rather than centers of it, reinforcing the idea that the environment itself carries narrative weight. The world is not merely a backdrop—it becomes a kind of silent protagonist, dwarfing the men who traverse it.
A striking overhead shot, following the group through the swamp, crystallizes this approach. The distance of the camera amplifies an already present sense of detachment, visually articulating the emotional remove that defines the film. It is one of the few moments where form and theme align with precision.
Similarly, the film’s pacing and tonal consistency reflect a clear directorial intent. Azorín demonstrates control over the film’s rhythm, allowing scenes to unfold with deliberate restraint. But control alone cannot compensate for the absence of emotional grounding. The film moves with confidence, yet often toward nothing.
At its core, the film is concerned with the nature of male friendship—its unspoken bonds, its emotional limitations, and the difficulty men face in articulating vulnerability within those relationships. It seeks to capture the fleeting, often unacknowledged intimacy that exists beneath shared experience, presenting friendship as one of the few connections unbound by obligation or utility.
“The mythic framework that defines the film ultimately undermines it.”
In theory, this is fertile ground.
In practice, the film struggles to translate that idea into something felt. While it gestures toward the rhythms of male bonding—the casual interactions, the performative bravado, the avoidance of deeper emotional expression—it never earns the emotional weight it reaches for. The mythic framework that defines the film ultimately undermines it, distancing the characters from the very humanity the narrative depends on.
By operating within this heightened, almost allegorical space, the film dilutes the pain and disconnection it seeks to explore. Emotional beats register as concepts rather than experiences, making it difficult for the audience to reciprocate what the characters are meant to feel.
What remains is a film caught between intention and execution—one that understands the themes it wants to explore, but never fully finds the language to express them.
Related Reviews