The Dancer Upstairs (2002) User Reviews

An Actor's Showcase and an Excellent Thriller

[eht5y · 8/10 · 5 July 2005]

'The Dancer Upstairs' marks John Malkovich's debut as a film director, but it's hardly his first time in the director's chair: Malkovich was a charter member of the now-prestigious Steppenwolf Theater Company in Chicago, where he split time between acting and directing, developing the versatility that has earned him regard as one of the best character actors in the business. He brings a stage director's consciousness to this fine, unexpectedly suspenseful and complex thriller, a fictionalized dramatization of events surrounding the rise and fall of the Shining Path revolutionary movement in Peru.

In the lead role of Detective Augustin Rejas is Javier Bardem, already an established star in his native Spain who is gaining increasingly wide notice in the US for his award-winning turns in Julian Schnabel's 'Before Night Falls' (2002) and Alejandro Amenabar's 'The Sea Inside' (2004). Bardem, like Malkovich, is a wonderfully versatile actor, and this film offers him another fine opportunity to display his range as Rejas, an idealistic police detective who abandoned a promising career as a trial lawyer in the hope that he might be able to work within the system to heal the corruption of his native country (left unnamed, though the story clearly borrows from actual events in Peru).

The film opens on the high plains at the foothills of the Andes, with Rejas working at a highway checkpoint station. He encounters a vehicle bearing a mysterious undocumented passenger. While Rejas follows procedure, his colleague accepts a bribe, and allows the vehicle to flee the scene.

Years later, Rejas has advanced through the ranks and now works as a detective in the nation's coastal capital. He and his partner Sucre (Juan Diego Botto, making the most of a small role) gradually begin to discover evidence of a burgeoning revolutionary movement led by the enigmatic 'Presidente Ezequiel,' whom Rejas eventually realizes to be the same man he met briefly years earlier at the mountain checkpoint. The followers of Ezequiel--a former college professor and Marxist who went underground ten years earlier to foment a 'fourth wave' of communist revolution (the first three being the USSR, China, and Cuba)--begin to terrorize the capital and outlying regions with suicide bombings and brutal assassinations. Rejas must uncover the secret of Ezequiel before the President enacts martial law and turns the government into another version of the brutal dictatorships previously seen in Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina.

As the Ezequiel mystery deepens, Rejas begins to develop an infatuation with his daughter's ballet instructor, Yolanda (Laura Morante), with who he shares an unspoken bond and who seems to be an attractive alternative to his own wife (Alexandre Lencastre), a sweet but superficial woman who obsesses over fashion magazines and makeup and begs her perpetually broke husband to let her get a nose job. Rejas begins to court Yolanda, and as he becomes more deeply involved with her, he begins to discover evidence that she may be knowingly or unknowingly connected in some way to Ezequiel.

The political dimension of the story is fascinating, but the main source of conflict is the interior world of Rejas, a sensitive, morally decent man who is torn between his faith in the law and his sympathy for the people who suffer at the hands of corrupt government officials. Rejas is also torn between his sense of honor and decency and his profound emotional attraction to Yolanda. It's a tough role to pull off, and Malkovich gives Bardem the time and opportunity to draw the character's emotional complexity with subtle, patient, expressive moments and line deliveries. Bardem has the rare ability to convey distinct emotions or states of thought with subtle gestures and nuanced facial expressions, and Malkovich demonstrates an actor's trust in another gifted actor to accomplish the film's emotional subtext.

There are a few problems here and there. Rejas' attraction to Yolanda is understandable, but their burgeoning relationship feels a bit forced and underdeveloped at times. A subplot involving the Chinese embassy is introduced but left more or less unresolved. The plot is vaguely predictable, though, in the film's defense, the suspense has more to do with how Rejas will deal with the revelations his investigation will uncover than with what will actually be revealed.

Even with the flaws, 'The Dancer Upstairs' is a highly intelligent and entertaining film, and offers yet another opportunity for American audiences to become acquainted with the fabulously talented Javier Bardem, who is my pick to be the next Marlon Brando.

Gripping

[ian_harris · 8/10 · 31 December 2002]

Very closely based on Guzman and the Shining Path Maoist terrorists in Peru, this movie is compulsive viewing.

The plot is fairly standard good cop tracks down bad guys - there are no bonus points for this plot. Indeed, some of the coincidences that arise as the film goes on are the weakest link in this otherwise near-flawless movie.

There has been much talk about the violent scenes in this movie, which are many, but especially the scenes with animals. My view is that it is no more morally wrong to depict violence to animals than it is to depict violence to humans, as long as no animal (or human) is actually harmed in making the depiction. We are told that none of the animals were harmed in the making of the film (and presumably also none of the people). As far as I am concerned that is the end of that matter - the use of animals, unhamred, for this purpose is acceptable. To argue otherwise I find, frankly, daft. However, I would recommend that people who get particularly upset when violence to animals is depicted should simply avoid this movie.

Back to the movie - the acting and the cinematography are superb. It is gripping - the film is 135 minutes long which is well past my attention span unless the film is really good. This film is just that.

Bardem great

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 28 December 2016]

It's Latin America in the Recent Past. Agustín Rejas (Javier Bardem) is a Sergeant manning a road check. The country is corrupt with a militaristic Presidency. Rejas is a former lawyer ready for a promotion in the capital. A mysterious man with others and a dead dog in a truck escape the checkpoint. Then it's five years later. He's a police Lieutenant. With his young partner Sucre (Juan Diego Botto), he's investigating a mysterious revolutionary group led by Ezequiel. They hang dogs from the lamp posts. The violence escalates as leaders get assassinated. Yolanda (Laura Morante) is Rejas' daughter Laura's dance teacher. He begins an affair with her as he suspects her connection to Ezequiel.

The non-specificity of the time and place could have been improved by weaving the real story into this movie. It doesn't have to be perfect and most movies aren't real biographies anyways. The great aspect of this is Bardem and the sense of Latin America that this projects. John Malkovich is directing for the first time and he shows some competency. It is well-made and most importantly, he focuses on Bardem. The story does leave some questions. The ballet teacher's connections to everyone is very convenient. The investigation is not that clear. I don't know how nebulous the book is but adapting may have left something out of the movie. It would help to have great clarity, and better intensity.

Plod got there in the end - no fancy steps required

[Philby-3 · 5 July 2003]

I suppose this could be described as an off-Hollywood detective story with political overtones. It is based on a book by Nicholas Shakespeare (a part-time Australian) who has in turn loosely based his story on the rise and fall of the `Shining Path' or Sendero Luminoso insurgency in Peru (1980-1995). As rendered on film (Shakespeare also wrote the screenplay), we have an immensely likable policemen, Rejas, played to perfection by Javier Bardem, literally searching through the rubbish to find the shadowy Ezequiel, leader of a movement with a fine record of atrocities, but no program or real philosophy.

Nicholas, alas, is no Shakespeare, and the film becomes very slow in parts, though there are plenty of dramatic moments and some crisp editing. Bardem gets good support from some of the other actors such as Juan Diego Botto who plays his sidekick Sucre and Laura Morante as Yolanda the enigmatic ballet teacher he becomes involved with. Most of the cast are Spanish but the prodution was filmed in English, which has created an intermittent audibility problem. The film is also beautifully shot, the locations in Ecuador and Oporto, Portugal, being used to great advantage.

While the film succeeds quite well as a detective story it telegraphs too many punches to work as a thriller. However it's the politics that really let it down. Clearly, we have a not very nice, if elected, government under attack, and it's almost inevitable that the even more not very nice Army is going to step in. Against who? People who load up dogs with dynamite and send them in to crowded marketplaces. People who send in 10 year olds into village cafes to blow up themselves along with some local notables. The explanation for this comes only in one-liners such as `I am already dead, I live only for the revolution.' When Ezequiel, the former philosophy lecturer is finally captured, all he can say is `You cannot capture this ` (tapping his forehead). `We are already part of history.' Surely there is a better explanation for `Shining Path' than this. My own theory is that it is a rather nasty combination of French post-modern philosophy (Derrida, Foucault etc) mixed up with Marxism and Maoism and served up to people with not much to lose. If you are already dead you might as well die for the revolution. It's either that or slave for the whites.

Actually, `Shining Path' had some competition in the shape of Tupac Amaru, who captured the Japanese Embassy in Lima and held 70 or so people hostage for over 4 months in 1996-97, until being overwhelmed by Peruvian commandos who tunnelled in beneath them. None of the guerrillas survived. By the time I visited Lima and the Cuzco area in late 2000 all was quiet on the revolutionary front, though President Fujimori, hero of the embassy siege, despite having won a recent election was on his way out. I haven't read it yet, but I'm told Gustavo Gorriti's `The Shining Path: A History of the Millenarian War in Peru' is a good history of the era.

Maybe it's asking too much for political explanations, though the director clearly wants the film to be compared with Costa-Gravas' excellent `State of Siege' (which is shown briefly at one point and provides a vital clue as to Ezequiel's location). As to the direction, Malkovich seems a little uncertain whether he is making a thriller or something more reflective but he has a good sense of dramatic timing and a good visual sense. Perhaps more attention to the editing would have sharpened up the mood.

What about motivation?

[Ataraxia-1 · 6/10 · 16 May 2003]

It was interesting, with some beautiful footage and an interesting, slow pace given the intensity of the plot. However, Malkovich seems to have forgotten an important component of the film: namely, the motivation of the characters. We learn nothing about the characters or their lives or their country. We don't know why there is a Revolution. We don't know why Ezequiel is a compelling leader to this revolution. We don't know why Rejas works so hard at finding Ezequiel, given a total lack of support for his efforts on behalf of his country. We don't know why he is dissatisfied with his relationship with his wife. We don't know why he is drawn towards his daughters ballet teacher. We don't know why she is drawn towards Ezequiel.

Adding all of these unknowns up made for a story and characters without much substance; it caused me not to be able to identify with them, and in the end, the story felt as "fake" as the unnamed latin country. I kept thinking of "Moon Over Parador" which I am certain is not the imagery that Malkovich wanted me to have.

Takes restraint to an entirely new level

[Rogue-32 · 6/10 · 15 June 2003]

This film, John Malkovich's debut as a director, seems to go out of its way to be everything a commercial film is not, which is a hugely commendable thing up to a point. Bardem is unbelievably restrained in this exercise; in fact the entire film is an exercise in restraint. I think what the movie needed was just a little more passion, some change in tone at some point to truly bring it to life.

A very interesting movie with a semi-political subject

[philip_vanderveken · 9/10 · 18 December 2004]

Having seen "Being John Malkovich" recently, I expected a lot from "The Dancer Upstairs" and I have to admit that I really was enchanted by it. Even though it never says which country in South America this story is based on, it's clear that it must be Peru. There just are too many references to the rebel movement The Shining Path, president Fujimori... But it's good that it never says that it is actually Peru. There are more South American dictatorships, more rebel movements...

It tells the story of an ex-lawyer who has become police officer, because he wanted justice to be done in the right way. He has to hunt down and arrest a revolutionary guerilla leader, but as he digs deeper, he'll find out that more people are actually supporting the rebels than he thought, even the people that he never suspected...

What I liked so much about the movie is the way it portrays everything. It doesn't fear to show the violence committed by both sides, but also shows the beautiful side of the country (its landscapes, its culture,...). Some say this is clearly a right-wing movie and that Malkovich is right wing as well. What has the political preference of the director to do with it? This movie isn't right-wing, nor is it left-wing. It clearly shows both sides, giving you the police detective who works for the right-wing government, who falls in love with the left-wing activist.

If there is one remark that I have to make, than it must be the fact that the actors didn't speak in Spanish. Now they had some weird Spanish-English accent. But all the rest was really very good. I give it an 8.5/10.

Who's a rebel?

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 24 February 2007]

John Malkovich's directorial debut casts Javier Bardem as Agustin Rejas, a cop in an unidentified South American country trying to find members of a revolutionary movement (which seems to have been based on the Shining Path). More than simply a good-cop-versus-bad-guys story, "The Dancer Upstairs" shows how Rejas understands his job, but has to deal with corruption, intrigue, and other things. One might say that Rejas sort of becomes as revolutionary as the people whom he's seeking, given how he comes to question the legitimacy of everyone and everything around him. Or maybe I'm going too far in analyzing this movie. It's worth seeing, if only once. Also starring Juan Diego Botto and Laura Morante.

You must be able to dance in the political world!

[taxrice · 9/10 · 10 June 2004]

I would expect a movie directed by John Malkovich to be intense and specific. The Dancer Upstairs is that. It is a political movie that while popular in Europe, does not tend to draw well in the United States. Too bad.

The story tells the tale of a lawyer who has left the law looking for a better system. I don't know that becoming a police detective is that much better, but it serves the story. The story is set in a nameless Latin American country -- which also suits the story line.

Detective Lt. Agustín Rejas (Javier Bardem) has left a law firm where he was a junior partner, to join law enforcement -- with a conscious. He can give a break to a traveler whose papers are not quite right and he can be relentless in his pursuit of a terrorist.

Rejas has been victimized by the politics of his country. His father lost his coffee farm to the soldiers. His view of the judicial system has seen a rapist become president of the country. But still, Rejas finds joy in his beautiful dancer daughter and his wife -- who has a political mission of her own. Then he meets the free spirited dance instructor for his daughter.

Rejas works in a corrupt society where the fiscal corruption goes hand in hand with the moral and political corruption. The central government is all too ready to suspend civil rights and to put military law into effect. The military killing innocent people is fine as long as it suits the party.

Rejas attempts to live the just life and must deal with the corruption the best he can. This conflict is the heart of the movie. As he says, he has feelings about his father losing his farm and he is the Gary Cooper type.

Javier Bardem is excellent in the pivotal role. Juan Diego Botto does a very credible job as Detective Sgt. Sucre. Laura Morante is intoxicating as dance instructor focal point of the story.

I give this move a 9 for great story and suspense, excellent direction and fine acting. There is no sex and very brief nudity. The violence does tend to be horrific and there are depictions of cruelty to animals -- both central to the plot. This is far less than the typical Jason or Chainsaw movies gore.

I consider this an excellent direction debut for John Malkovich and look forward to his next feature film effort. It feels like Malkovich will fill a role similar to Robert Redford in films he has directed.

A classy, empty dud

[=G= · 6/10 · 24 September 2003]

"The Dancer Upstairs" (bad title) takes us to a fictitious Latin American country governed by a harsh, if not evil, dictator who is plagued by an evil revolutionary known only as Ezequiel. The plot develops around a cop who is charged with tracking down Ezequiel, a difficult task in spite of the fact that mysterious revolutionary has no problem rallying grass roots support and recruiting suicide bombers making one wonder if the government ever heard of such antiterrorist tactics as "undercover" or "torture" or "snitch"...etc. Classy but superficial, "The Dancer Upstairs" gives the illusion of quality film making as slogs tediously to its anticlimactic conclusion without every having developed a human story worth the 2+ hour wait. Recommended only as a curiosity for those interested in what it's like being John Malkovich, the director. (C+)

The first and only film directed by John Malkovich

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 6 July 2004]

The movie centers upon investigations to find a terrorist brain . The starring is Javier Bardem who makes an excellent interpretation , the support cast is good : Juan Diego Botto, Elvira Minguez ,Natalia Dicenta , among others .

The yarn talks about Alberto Fujimori and his time . In 1990 is elected President of Peru. In 1992 carried out a state's coup and he ruled over steadily , fought against the terror and vanquished ¨Sendero Luminoso¨ terrorists and imprisoned to the chiefs . In 2000 he runs away to Japan framed of corruption as his assistant Montesinos . The flick specially deals with difficulty to discover the black hand to run the awful murders mostly placed on Ayacucho.

In the film there are thriller , drama, action , suspense , love , but is a little bit boring . Direction by John Malkovich is slow-moving , Alberto Iglesias's music is nice but downbeat , Jose Luis Alcaine's cinematography is good . John Malkovich is better acting than filming.

Rating : 6/10 average .

An impressive, deep, and finely constructed movie

[Chris_Docker · 9/10 · 8 December 2002]

Javier Bardem plays a head of police in an unnamed South American country that is teetering between a corrupt government and an even more corrupt revolutionary movement. The film's preoccupations, however, are moral dilemmas and the nature of corruption, the movie's bent is primarily aesthetic, and the acting, screenplay and direction are simply little short superb. The characterisation of a man deeply torn in a search for decency and ultimately failing somewhat through his own higher aspiration is, by Hollywood standards, monumental. This is a film that is at once gripping, original, deep and subtly crafted. The role of the dancer is also, in its own right, a complex one and one which begins to address the nature of evil, the ability of art to take us beyond logic (in both a positive and a dangerous way) and also underlines that art generally, unless specifically directed, is neither good nor evil, but more a door that we can open.

Moving to the rhythm of good film making resulting in an engrossing piece.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 22 March 2013]

Crime thrillers set amidst repression and political turmoil with the potential to be in the Spanish language are not the first things that come to mind when we think of the contributions to cinema by that of a certain John Malkovich. It is a credit, then, that he has created something in The Dancer Upstairs that feels like it might have come from Latin America; that feels like it may have been made by someone with an adept knowledge of things such as oppression in these places, even as a film made by someone who may indeed have lived through such periods. Malkovich is, of course, first and foremost an American actor, but he demonstrates he's more than capable of capturing on screen what oppression and anxiety bathed in a colonial Spanish nation might look and feel like in this 2003 film.

The film isn't necessarily set anywhere in particular: this is a "capital city" in an unspecified Latin American country whose flag bears both the colour scheme and the potential for insignia akin to Guatemala's, although further reading reveals it's based on a chain of events that happened in Peru in the 1990's and the film itself was shot in Portugal. We kick off in the desert, several years before the main body of the film takes place: a jeep full of young political renegades crash through a small checkpoint, getting away with ruthlessly running over the lone guard. Then they reach the checkpoint run by Javier Bardem's character, a middle aged man who gave up a career in law to join these services. He is Agustin Rejas, and he is kind; talkative and understanding where those wanting to pass through are sinister and without emotion. One of those in the car needs their photo taken to advance, something they are reluctant to do but Rejas talks them through it with the minimum of fuss as if it were a child about to sit in the dentist's chair. One reviewer already pointed out how fresh this scene feels, if purely from a standpoint that generic roles have been subverted: the suited guards at the checkpoint are calm and understanding, whereas those wanting to pass through look like they just want to see your blood on the wall.

Years later, Rejas is a police detective with a young assistant in this same, anonymous Latin American country. The problems in life have escalated from correcting passports to finding those whom to some are freedom fighters, but to others (including Rejas' superiors) are dangerous terrorists: a man calling himself "Ezequiel", whose forte against the state is to apply the usual threat of explosives on top of hanging the carcasses of dead animals from street lamps for the grim spectacle of it all. No one knows who he is, and the police are wide eyed and dumbfounded in attaining any sort of lead. It is Rejas' job to take him down, the safety of his young daughter and wife Sylvina (Lencastre) essentially at stake in that if this ghost-like individual sees all and knows all, then how long will it be until what matters most to our Rejas is threatened?

The film is a binary depiction of this man's world in both a personal and professional sense, the sort of well-made drama you wish more people had heard of and consequently seen; the covering of someone going to great lengths to uncover the identity of this terrorist as well as deal with the ever growing feeling he has for a certain Yolanda (Morante), a ballet teacher who is educating his daughter in the art of such a thing. The strand revolving around these two is neatly attributed its own weight away from the central tract, moreover we observe Bardem's existing wife come off as a bit shallow; an image obsessed individual whom we don't especially like all that much. Where Yolanda's profession is performance, Rejas' is investigation and the dance studio acts as a fitting locale wherein the ballet apparel accentuating her figure and a bombardment of mirrors dotted around do well to hook Rejas in as much as they do allude to a man reflecting on his own marital status during which he ponders his love for this woman.

The film plays like an old private eye movie, wherein the lead is looking for someone dangerous or wholly specific; has to deal with a love interest and is forced, on occasion, into cooperating with those on his own side that are not entirely helpful. Recall the opening act of Die Hard: With a Vengeance, the second sequel to McTiernan's own 1988 original, and try to re-imagine all that scooting around and puzzle solving under a cloud of potentially lethal terrorist activity without the slam-bang approach; replaced instead with something more methodical and more burning. Try re-imaging it with its lead spending the next few scenes after having had to fire a gun still shaken from the experience; picture the film stretched out to a longer running time and you have something that resembles The Dancer Upstairs, a really engaging and well made drama.

a shallow film by a pretentious "director"

[Rogermex · 3/10 · 26 May 2003]

A classic case of undue hype. It's difficult to itemize all the different ways that Malkovich blew it. The film is not dramatically gripping at all. Most of the scenes are night scenes or otherwise shot in darkness, probably so as to look arty but not throw too much light on the "director"s ineptitude. One of the central characters, Yolanda, appears to be in some conflict about the police investigator's romantic interest in her, but the nature of the conflict is not dramatically sensible even at the end. The ditzy glamor-obsessed wife is just that - a stereotype of a glitzy, glamor-obsessed wife. In fact most of the characters are just "cardboard" caricatures. The gratuitous scenes of gory mayhem are indeed just gratuitous scenes of gory mayhem. I have no problem at all with violence in films. But Malkovich is just cynically tossing off stuff that he thinks is "shocking." How the hell did he find a leading man chosen because he looks like a perfectly-coifed Raoul Julia? And why do we need that? Come to think of it, has there ever been a police character in any movie with such dark pits of sunken eyes as that police chief? The investigator gets a note from Yolanda at the end, and rushes off in his car. Directed to "act" heartbroken by a stunned look and doe-like eyes, he ends up confirming that the dramatic theme is his infatuation with his own daughter. Uh huh. Deep. Let's get back to Malkovich. This is making me nauseous all over again like after leaving the movie. John really ought to stay in his place, as a weird, "fascinating" screen presence himself. In interviews he has virtually bragged about how much stage directing experience he has. God bless you, John. (And John, I know you are reading this, because you are too much of an egomaniac not to read it.) But you sold and pushed a really cheesy attempt at directing a film "drama," and somehow got people to market it with colossal hype. Frankly, I'd offer this up to Crow and Tom Servo if they were still at it.

[By the way, there is a cute little scene in the middle of the movie. Traffic is all congested after a terrorist attack. In the middle of the traffic chaos is what appears to be the local schizophrenic gesturing absurdly like a traffic cop. Notice the size and body. We can't see his face because of a funny hat. I'd bet a box of donuts that Malkovich thought (auteur touch!) that he should put himself in a little walk-on cameo, with the "joke" that he is "directing" in the center of all the complexity around him.]

imperfect but intriguing crime drama

[Buddy-51 · 3 January 2004]

Actor John Malkovich makes an auspicious directorial debut with `The Dancer Upstairs,' an intriguing, if not altogether satisfying, police procedural set in an unnamed Latin American country.

Javier Bardem (`Night Must Fall') gives a richly textured performance as Detective Augustin Rejas, a man of principle and ethics operating in a world of corruption and violence. Rejas finds himself embroiled in a life-and-death mystery when he investigates an underground terrorist organization that is targeting key government officials for assassination. Who these people are is not at all clear to those in charge and even their motives can only be guessed at. As Rejas studies the clues in search of answers, he becomes drawn to a beautiful young dance teacher with whom he establishes a platonic yet highly charged romantic relationship. It is in the bringing together of these two seemingly disparate plot lines that the movie fails, ultimately, to satisfy. For roughly the first three quarters of the film, as Rejas collects his evidence and unravels the puzzle, we gladly go along where the filmmakers are taking us, fascinated by the setting, the atmosphere and the contemporary relevance of the terrorism theme. But when, towards the end, the story kicks into high tragedy mode, the movie loses us, partly because the plotting itself is not particularly credible and partly because the relationship between Rejas and the woman has not been sufficiently developed to achieve the status of genuine tragedy. The film is much better when it sticks to the business of the case and leaves all the existential navel-gazing out of the mix.

This is not to demean either the moving, beautifully modulated performance of Bardem or the stark, self-assured direction of Malkovich, who shows he knows how to function as well behind the camera as he does in front. True, the film is a trifle slow at times but this just shows that Malkovich will not be rushed when the material itself demands deliberation and care. Although the movie is about a half hour too long, real languor begins to set in only during the final stretches. Until then, `The Dancer Upstairs' makes for rewarding viewing.

Not entirely a pretty picture ...

[dkennedy3 · 7/10 · 29 June 2003]

We saw a pre-release viewing of this film, knowing nothing of its setting or context beforehand. To quickly learn that it was based in an unstable South American country was quite unexpected. In a cast of what we might call 'typical Latin Americans', we soon form an affiliation with Augustin, the local police lieutenant, and a thoroughly likeable fellow. We join him in his quest to search out 'Ezequiel', a criminal revolutionary of rapidly growing notoriety, being witness to a number of his ghastly atrocities along the way - another aspect of the film for which we were not really prepared. A more comfortable element enters the plot when Augustin meets the ballet instructor of his daughter's dancing class, and he doesn't let us down. The perfect gentleman - so seemingly foreign in his local environment - we empathize with him and the dancer, as the relationship develops and shows signs of progressing beyond the purely Platonic. The two vastly contrasting ingredients of violence and romance continue throughout, binding us increasingly into their intrigue. When the inevitable twist arrives, it is debatable whether it is Augustin or the movie-goer who is the more shattered at its revelation. We are saved from walking away with a nasty taste in the mouth by the policeman's wife and daughter, who color their final scenes in a quite agreeable manner. A rather captivating, good average film, worthy of a rating between 7 and 8 out of 10.

Good, but perhaps a bit soggy

[chaswe-28402 · 7/10 · 2 November 2017]

Initially wanting to give this a higher mark, I seem to have settled for seven stars. I could have been influenced by some of the other reviews, although a number of them are exceedingly obtuse. Dogs die, and any city can supply a few dead dogs over the weeks it takes to shoot a film. Objections to the language seem equally misguided. Stories by English writers are written in English for their audience, even when set in different countries and different times. Should Gladiator have been acted in Latin, or Troy in Ancient Greek, The Duellists in French, Dracula in Transylvanian ?

The DU is well-acted, and interestingly written, although somewhat predictable. Nevertheless it seems to need tightening, and this may be because of the relative functional inexperience of both director and script-writer. It wavers between corrupt politics and doomed romance. In essence it appears to be presenting the dilemma of the decent man, played by Javier Bardem, torn between living a moral life, an unsatisfactory marriage, and the everyday necessity of having a career sufficient to support his child. The artificial deal in the final scene about relinquishing the prospect of becoming president seems exceedingly unrealistic, although it also seems a convenient way of resolving this policeman's character. Ballet and cosmetics, the occupations of the two women in Bardem's life, are minimally brain-demanding.

A great directorial debut in a film of rare sociopolitical richness

[ALauff · 8/10 · 15 February 2005]

John Malkovich's directorial debut is this deeply lyrical character study of a morally upright cop (Javier Bardem) trying to make sense of an inexplicably violent world. As played by Bardem, Augustin's face registers a near-constant state of moral warfare-redolent of Benicio Del Toro's work in Traffic-even as wry grimaces betray the absurdity of his situation. In an unnamed Latin American capital, asphyxiated dogs hang from light poles, placards featuring baleful epigrams written in blood drooping from their necks. It is the calling card of mysterious revolutionary leader Ezequiel, whose seemingly limitless queue of self-effacing disciples-including suicide-bomber children and machine gun-wielding Catholic schoolgirls-uncomfortably echoes radical groups in the Middle East and many points between. But what raises this film above topical exploitation is the provocative decision by screenwriter Nicholas Shakespeare-who also wrote the novel-and John Malkovich to disregard American foreign policy completely (not even a mention of the UN) and to only address the story in localized terms. Perhaps it is specious of me to assume the U.S. would jump into such a hotbed environment of interior social discord, but judging from its parallels with Haiti, both the location here and the situation-revolutionaries rebel against an elected (an appointed?) president-seem eerily ripe for external overhaul.

The film's perspective of self-reliance is illustrated in Augustin's decision to bring Ezequiel down without reporting to the president-a breach of protocol that circumvents state-appointed justice and speaks to a desire for a unilateral democracy empowered by the people. This idea of unilateral democracy is fresh in its refusal to blame anyone-including the shadowy, nominally communist radicals who kill with startling stealth and brutality-for the problems of the world. Shakespeare and Malkovich's idealism in this regard is tremendously heartening: The assumption that countries not only take pride in resolving their own conflicts given the chance-and not without significant losses, as an early montage illustrates in gruesome detail-but desperately need to, lest they remain fledgling nonentities into the foreseeable future, strikes me as a very reasonable progressive idea. Anyway, breaking away from the soapbox, it is clear in those penultimate scenes that Bardem faces a unique existential crisis-what is the price of selling out? And the last shot, punctuated by the strains of a probing Nina Simone ballad, is the work of a seasoned humanist.

Interesting, intriguing drama

[grantss · 7/10 · 17 July 2018]

Interesting, intriguing drama. On the surface a police-vs-terrorists/revolutionaries thriller, but it is much more than that. Emotional, human drama too.

Good performances by Javier Bardem and Laura Morante in the lead roles.

Only big negative is with the production quality - sound level is quite low.

Starts in Garcia Marquez territory to build up toward a Graham Greenesque finale

[paolo_bf · 10/10 · 3 April 2008]

The movie starts in a Garcia Marquez dreamy South America, or, for people versed in Italiana, like in a Fruttero and Lucentini Turin-based political thriller where esoteric philosophical notions mix with reality, but things soon hot up and, hey presto, we find ourselves in Graham Greene's 'Honorary Consul' territory. Where 'Ezechia' philosopher and revolutionary leader bear more than a little resemblance to Peru Sendero Luminoso's Abimael Guzman. It is John Malkovich's second time in the Director chair, and he deserves great credit for his decision to almost single-handedly bring Nicholas Shakespeare's novel to the silver screen. People may argue that this movie is stylistically and formally floored, I personally don't care, I loved this movie, it is absorbing with a complex, unconventional plot which makes you think. And by the end we all, like Xavier Bardem's Captain Rejas, will end up falling for vulnerable femme fatale Yolanda, beautifully played by Laura Morante. Purists may object to an English language movie set in South America and where the actors are mostly Spanish, but nowadays this seems to have became, alas, fairly common! On the whole, highly recommended!

Scenes from a dictatorship

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 5 October 2008]

You've got to give John Malkovich credit for his directorial debut: instead of making some corny, expositionary thriller, he instead made this stylised, impressionistic film that eschews conventional causality and contrivance in favour of showing us just a scattering of glimpses at an elusive story. And the piece definitely has an atmosphere, but watching it, one has the feeling one might have at an art gallery, the images are powerful but lack connections, and the closed characters also give little away. The fact that the drama takes place in an unnamed South American country, and one whose inhabitants speak English in a (presumably deliberate but still bewildering) variety of accents maybe doesn't help; that in the absence of specifics, this is a story taking place in a country of the mind. It's still an intelligent and occasionally beguiling film: but I'm not convinced of the substance behind the effect.

Painfully slow and predictable

[arouet · 4/10 · 5 May 2003]

This movie has a good look and good dialogue, but the plot sinks it. It just never goes anywhere and there is not one surprise in the entire movie. Certainly, it tries to be intelligent with references to Kant and political ideas, but that is not enough to save it from mediocrity.

It is advertised as a tense thriller, yet there is nothing thrilling about it at all. If anything, it is a botched romantic drama. It unexpectedly falls apart in the last 15 minutes with strange behavior by the lead that is hard to explain, much less fathom. If you are looking for any sort of twist, don't waste your time- it never comes. Everything here is precisely as it seems.

I'm amazed Malkovitch is involved in this. Perhaps on paper, it works better than on screen. At any rate, it's the plot drags it down. Malkovtich needs to look for a better screenwriter.

Top 10 Javier Bardem movie

[cowboyerik · 10/10 · 9 May 2014]

Easily a top 10 movie for any Javier Bardem fan, most incredible drama based on a true story. Incredibly well done movie on the part of John Makovich, should be a solid 8.5 rating. Suffers from 7.0 due to poor distribution network. Supporting roles are well cast, movie is well thought out and executed. Worthwhile addition to any Javier Bardem collection! I hope to get my copy autographed one day!

While not really filmed on location in Peru due to security concerns, the producers and directors went thru great lengths to make the movie feel like it was shot on location in Peru. Choice of English for primary language and the native tongue Quecheun for key dialogues was GREAT!!!!

Pretty good, but...

[cyberpix · 7/10 · 12 January 2003]

I may be called a language extremist, but I was very disturbed by the fact that they were all speaking English. Yes, Malkovich speaks English, as most of his potential public. But still, there is no reason for Spanish-speaking actors in a Spanish-speaking story set in a Spanish-speaking country to do so !!! Apart from this, the film itself was good, well played and with an interesting construction.

Pretty good, but

[blaine3-2 · 5/10 · 6 October 2005]

Pretty good, but..., 12 January 2003 7/10 Author: cyberpix says....

>"I may be called a language extremist, but I was very disturbed by the >fact that they were all speaking English. Yes, Malkovich speaks English, >as most of his potential public. But still, there is no reason for >Spanish-speaking actors in a Spanish-speaking story set in a >Spanish-speaking country to do so !!!"

Are you disturbed by so many English Speaking films set in English speaking countries that are dubbed into Spanish?

Why am I required to post ten lines when cyberpix got his posted with less than ten lines?