ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,1/10
3,6 k
MA NOTE
Un homme a le pouvoir de voir le sort des personnes disparues - à l'exception de sa propre femme bien-aimée.Un homme a le pouvoir de voir le sort des personnes disparues - à l'exception de sa propre femme bien-aimée.Un homme a le pouvoir de voir le sort des personnes disparues - à l'exception de sa propre femme bien-aimée.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Maria Canals-Barrera
- Esme Palomares
- (as Marí'a Canals)
Anthony Diaz-Perez
- Policeman 1
- (as Anthony Díaz Pérez)
Carlos Kaniowsky
- Rubén Mendoza
- (as Carlos Kaniowski)
María Nydia Ursi Ducó
- Plaza Mother 1
- (as Maria Nydia Ursi)
Avis en vedette
This was truly enjoyable movie in many ways.
The acting was great all around. Powerful emotions were realistically portrayed by seasoned actors, relative newcomers and unknown extras alike. Direction, filmography and locations really come together to set a scene more realistic than most films even aspire to.
This film succeeds in projecting, through the characters, the full range of emotions that any individual must feel when their freedoms are seriously undermined by a corrupt ruling power, the same power that they would normally look to to resolve such issues.
This is not a feel-good movie, and anyone expecting comic relief at any time may be disappointed. This movie sets out to instill feelings in the audience that may help them to relate to the people in the story. It does not abuse concepts such as violence in order to get a kick out of the audience.
Unfortunately, many of those who have posted comments on this movie have failed to grasp part of the point. This is not merely a movie designed to remind the viewer of the past. It intends to remind the viewer that such actions continue to occur worldwide, and that it is only the people themselves who can keep their governments from resorting to such inhumane measures, by reminding their rulers repeatedly that they will not stand for it, in their country or any other.
Frankly, it disturbs me that films this deep go virtually unnoticed by the masses, while flashy but hollow explosion-fests receive awards.
The acting was great all around. Powerful emotions were realistically portrayed by seasoned actors, relative newcomers and unknown extras alike. Direction, filmography and locations really come together to set a scene more realistic than most films even aspire to.
This film succeeds in projecting, through the characters, the full range of emotions that any individual must feel when their freedoms are seriously undermined by a corrupt ruling power, the same power that they would normally look to to resolve such issues.
This is not a feel-good movie, and anyone expecting comic relief at any time may be disappointed. This movie sets out to instill feelings in the audience that may help them to relate to the people in the story. It does not abuse concepts such as violence in order to get a kick out of the audience.
Unfortunately, many of those who have posted comments on this movie have failed to grasp part of the point. This is not merely a movie designed to remind the viewer of the past. It intends to remind the viewer that such actions continue to occur worldwide, and that it is only the people themselves who can keep their governments from resorting to such inhumane measures, by reminding their rulers repeatedly that they will not stand for it, in their country or any other.
Frankly, it disturbs me that films this deep go virtually unnoticed by the masses, while flashy but hollow explosion-fests receive awards.
I am pretty sure that it is not possible for someone other than an Argentine to make a film about this subject and have it matter. These are people who at the beginning of the terror supported it wholeheartedly. The military simply responded to what they saw was a terrorist threat by arresting without process and torturing. Starting small means starting; once you cross the line, everything else is trivial. And so 6 years of what ramped up to 3o police murders a day in Buenos Aires.
So this thing lacks power as a story about Argentine horror. But even through all its faults, it still rings true and haunts about things at home: power corrupted and evil. Torture to protect citizens never does.
The film is incredibly muffed, in pretty much all dimensions except...
There are two good scenes. One is when the husband of the newly missing wife is comforted by his daughter in a somewhat sexual way. This was made for American consumption, and though the interaction may be genuinely Latin, the implication in this context is plain. It was a powerful scene and sets up all that follows.
The second powerful scene is the unveiling of a spy. There is only a second that matters, when the man knows he is revealed and you see not panic but blame to his informant. It happens fact but it matters.
Otherwise, what we have is a powerfully conceived set of folding narratives: a man as a playwright (precisely as in "The Lives of Others") in a film with deliberate dissonance. And him further as a psychic, telling the story to us and other characters as it happens to him. In other hands, this could have worked, especially with the intended fold from then there to now here.
Tangos, l'exil de Gardel, was not good, but still better and at least genuine.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
So this thing lacks power as a story about Argentine horror. But even through all its faults, it still rings true and haunts about things at home: power corrupted and evil. Torture to protect citizens never does.
The film is incredibly muffed, in pretty much all dimensions except...
There are two good scenes. One is when the husband of the newly missing wife is comforted by his daughter in a somewhat sexual way. This was made for American consumption, and though the interaction may be genuinely Latin, the implication in this context is plain. It was a powerful scene and sets up all that follows.
The second powerful scene is the unveiling of a spy. There is only a second that matters, when the man knows he is revealed and you see not panic but blame to his informant. It happens fact but it matters.
Otherwise, what we have is a powerfully conceived set of folding narratives: a man as a playwright (precisely as in "The Lives of Others") in a film with deliberate dissonance. And him further as a psychic, telling the story to us and other characters as it happens to him. In other hands, this could have worked, especially with the intended fold from then there to now here.
Tangos, l'exil de Gardel, was not good, but still better and at least genuine.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Imagining Argentina (2003)
The story, and the facts behind the story, of innocent people being kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Argentina is so disturbing and emotionally draining it's hard to see this movie objectively. I wish it was a better movie, both in its construction (the filming and editing) and in the storytelling decisions (too much emphasis on empty searching, and too much torture, even after we get the point).
Cruelty needs no sympathy, and this movie gives it none. But it gives it attention, offering only a solution in perseverance and romantic love. There are lots of evocative scenes of dancing and music, of wide open countryside, and of warmly lit interiors. It paints a picture of a beautiful country with a beautiful culture, just to show how a small tilt in a great place can turn to horrors.
The final statistics of all the people "disappeared" under the Argentine dictatorship is an indictment of cruel dictators. The movie serves to remind us, and to paint the horrors, and it goes half way. I wish it had been a poetic, or raw, or inventive success as well.
The story, and the facts behind the story, of innocent people being kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Argentina is so disturbing and emotionally draining it's hard to see this movie objectively. I wish it was a better movie, both in its construction (the filming and editing) and in the storytelling decisions (too much emphasis on empty searching, and too much torture, even after we get the point).
Cruelty needs no sympathy, and this movie gives it none. But it gives it attention, offering only a solution in perseverance and romantic love. There are lots of evocative scenes of dancing and music, of wide open countryside, and of warmly lit interiors. It paints a picture of a beautiful country with a beautiful culture, just to show how a small tilt in a great place can turn to horrors.
The final statistics of all the people "disappeared" under the Argentine dictatorship is an indictment of cruel dictators. The movie serves to remind us, and to paint the horrors, and it goes half way. I wish it had been a poetic, or raw, or inventive success as well.
Please excuse my English, now that it is my third language. I was born and raised in Argentina; I currently work in Buenos Aires at a café, until I get my bachelor degree in naval architecture. As crazy as it might sound, my grandfather disappeared in the 1970s, and never came back. Perhaps to you
this was just a movie, you can rate it as you want or give the names you like to. But I found myself dumb founded with this film, I felt the worst anguish while seeing it, and forced myself to keep on watching and to keep on remembering. I can not find words in English nor Spanish to describe how deeply this movie has gotten to me. It's been a long time since it happened, but I see most of this film as my mind portraying old stories that my grandmother used to tell me when I asked about the dad of my dad. A film where reality is described at its best and where a part of me knows that justice in this country is just a word with no meaning, it was before, and it is now. I win nothing by saying this, nor I feel better, I just thought that perhaps I should comment on the impact the movie has had on someone like me, a normal guy who studies and works in country where future has little by little lost its meaning.
Antonio Banderas plays a theatre director whose wife (Emma Thompson) has been kidnapped by the Secret Service of Argentinian's Videla's dictatorship (1976-1983). Soon he discovers he has sort of a psychic power that allows him to predict the future, and to find out what has happened to her wife and to some of the other missing people (there were +/- 30000 missing people during Videla's dictatorship). Now I wonder: Is it necessary to introduce that paranormal stuff in a movie about Argentinian dictatorship? I mean, you got one of the most cruel and repressive dictatorships ever, and that's enough to make a shocking movie. The psychic powers, the vissions of Banderas' character detract the attention from the main line: the denunciation of that regimen led by General Videla and supported by USA Government, and the atrocities that were committed, the sistematic violation of human rights, and so... Especially when you have two well known stars in the cast, and the movie may have some international impact (which didn't have any of the argentinian movies that talked about the same issue).
Anyway, some parts of the movie perfectly portraits the lack of freedom in Argentina along those 7 years, and there are some sequences really shocking (in particular the ones at the prison where Emma Thompson's character gets imprisoned -and tortured, and raped-). Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson play their roles with so much intensity, especially Mrs. Thompson, one of the best dramatic actresses from the last 20 years (in my opinion).
That's all. I just want to add that this kind of movies are so necessary, people need them not to forget some of the darkest passages of human history. Especially they need them there in the United States Of America, where no one knows a thing about latin-american dictatorships (most of them supported by the White House).
My rate: 7/10
Anyway, some parts of the movie perfectly portraits the lack of freedom in Argentina along those 7 years, and there are some sequences really shocking (in particular the ones at the prison where Emma Thompson's character gets imprisoned -and tortured, and raped-). Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson play their roles with so much intensity, especially Mrs. Thompson, one of the best dramatic actresses from the last 20 years (in my opinion).
That's all. I just want to add that this kind of movies are so necessary, people need them not to forget some of the darkest passages of human history. Especially they need them there in the United States Of America, where no one knows a thing about latin-american dictatorships (most of them supported by the White House).
My rate: 7/10
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen it became clear that two additional scenes would help the script, a) the quarrel about whether Cecilia should publish her article and b) the flashback scene why Cecilia and Carlos got married, there was a little competition going on between Writer and Director Christopher Hampton and Dame Emma Thompson, who wrote their versions of those scenes. Thompson's version of the flashback scene was finally agreed on.
- GaffesWhen Cecilia is seen by Carlos in the roof of "Casa Rosada", there is a modern surveillance camera near the characters. Those cameras were not available in 1976.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Imagining Argentina?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Kayıp Hayatlar
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 8 899 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 3 752 $ US
- 13 juin 2004
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 383 106 $ US
- Durée
- 1h 47m(107 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant