>_"What you're saying is modern bullshit."_

This is the second time I watch _NERUDA_ and the second time I'm left with the same afterthought: I'd like this focused more on Peluchonneau and, ironically, less on Neruda himself. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a bad movie. In fact, I find it to be a refreshing experimental approach to Neo-noir that is also in part biopic. A movie that blends between reality and fiction, both in its story and in its look. And it is precisely because of this, that I believe _NERUDA_ would have benefited from focusing more solely on Peluchonneau. When the story focused on Peluchonneau, Larraín got room to speak through the images we saw, it had room to breathe, and the story moved even though it was slowly but it build up the intensity of the persecution, as the Neo-noir romanticized the narrative of the two men on opposing sides of the law. But when the story focused on Neruda, at times it felt dull and at times it felt like it was going nowhere, he visited places and read poetry but it stopped the narrative and took all the room, so he had to speak because the images stopped communicating the message as a result. With Peluchonneau not only was Larraín able to speak through the images while Gael García did virtually nothing, but García's presence intensified the narrative making it more interesting, and blending fiction and reality more intensely as each minute passed. In the end, however, the stories of both Peluchonneau and Neruda fall secondary to the style and, although this isn't as much of a problem with García's character, when it started to become apparent was when trying to focus on and show us both characters equally as much, removing whatever mystery there is left to the story.