User Reviews

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

Imagining… arrived with a fair degree of controversy, having been booed, heckled and subject to walkouts at 2003's Venice Film Festival. By saddling an infamous chapter in Argentina's history with a supernatural slant – Sixth Sense meets Missing, perhaps – many critics thought this was altogether a bridge too far. But was the reaction justified? It rather depends on whether you prefer your politics served up in an allegorical sauce or red and dripping on the bone. An adaptation of Lawrence Thornton's award-winning novel, the story begins in 1970s Buenos Aires, with dissident journalist Cecilia Rueda (a waveringly-accented Thompson) kidnapped by the fascist junta to join the ranks of the 30,000 'Disappeared'. As her bereft theatre-owner husband Carlos (Banderas) searches in vain, he develops psychic powers, enabling him to witness what happened to his wife and her fellow detainees. Laying his hands on their relatives he glimpses horrifying images of torture, rape and death at the military's hands, galvanising a traumatised public into motioning the government. In Thornton's magic-realist hands, Carlos's clairvoyance was a metaphor for the struggle against state repression, as he 'imagines' scenarios running counter to the official line: 'if you live in a nightmare, you have to re-imagine it.' While playwright-turned-director Christopher Hampton (who also wrote the screenplay for The Quiet American) cannot hope to replicate the novel's tender touch – the voyage from page to screen being a tricky one at best – the intentions are heartfelt, and the film does make salient points about the importance of empathy and memory as powerful and long-reaching political instruments in themselves.

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.

Emma Thomson, Antonio Banderas, and the dark period of 1976-1983 in the history of modern Argentina, would be adequate elements in the hands of director Christopher Hampton to produce a very interesting motion picture without mixing any clairvoyance in the script. However, the film documents with some success an appalling portrait of the brutality of General Videla's regime, and gives the opportunity to the oblivious onlooker to get a shocking glimpse of the methods employed by the military to secure their stay in power. The core issue in the movie is the so called "El Proceso," or the "Dirty War", when almost 30,000 people were kidnapped by the regime's secret police, tortured and ultimately "disappeared" by their abductors. Some scenes, particularly the repeated rape sessions, are pretty dreadful, but they communicate the right message to the viewer and record for the sake of history what was happening in Argentina at that time. Emma Thompson in the role of the "disappeared" journalist Cecilia Rueda is always an exceptional performer. Antonio Banderas, acting as her husband Carlos, is less convincing and his act is losing impetus every time he plays the clairvoyant who can foresee what will happen to the "desaparecidos" including his wife and his daughter. You may see the film to know how it ends. It helps anyway to remember how the real history unfolded. General Galtieri replaced Videla, led his nation to a lost war with Great Britain over the Falklands, and in 1983 Argentina returned to civilian rule. Following Carlos Menem election in 1989, an amnesty law was passed remissive of the criminal acts of that period. Last June 2005, the Supreme Court of Argentina scrapped that Amnesty Law, thus lifting all protection against prosecution of the former military officers responsible for human rights abuses during the dictatorship years.

Imagining Argentina is one of those odd little features that you acknowledge is trying to do the right thing in wanting to explore the historical content it's taking and get across that sense of fear and desperation linked to its harrowing subject matter of oppression and living under a ruling state, but just generally leaves a lot to be desired. It's as if the piece exists to detail and document a happening in a place at a time but, similarly to something like 2007's Goodbye Bafana, feels as if it's the sort of thing a GCSE history teacher might put on in front of the class when the time arises on the syllabus to cover 1970s-80s Argentinian oppression. Imagining Argentina is a strange effort, the head in one place; the heart in another. Adapted from a 1987 Lawrence Thornton novel, it wants to bring to attention what happened in Argentina from 1976 to '83 between the people and The State and how the strict, authoritarian regime in place ruled with fists of iron. The trouble is, 'The Mask of Zorro played for grimaces' is the last thing we needed and the last thing the sort of talent on display needed to be roped into doing. With better direction, a more even tone and the Spanish language omnipresent; Imagining Argentina may have been a more interesting effort. As it is, it's a mildly diverting piece and achieves very basically what it sets out to do: get us to go away at the end with a forlorn expression and to feel slightly down about ourselves.

Items that gripe and frustrate arrive all too often; the fact the entire film is in English rather than in Spanish being one, an odd occurrence which has been followed through with so as to garner the widest possible audience for a subject the producers clearly think many need to be aware of, especially those whom do not have the patience for subtitles. To make the subject matter more accessible, stars such as Emma Thompson and Antonio Banderas have been cast with Banderas doing his best, but with respect: failing, in the role of the rugged; bearded; dishevelled; grizzled victim of state nastiness complete with mournful eyes and low, gruff voice. And thirdly, the film annoyingly breaks off on a number of occurrences for tidbits which shift our attention away from what's really happening within the universe of the film and onto the wider spectrum of the historical event being explored. When Thompson's character sits in jail and states something like "all this should be remembered", it's not the character in that present situation speaking – it's the screenwriter and production crew talking of the greater extent of the overall event.

The film begins with stock footage of police battery and oppression mixed in with protesting people as Banderas' character Carlos Rueda informs us of the 'need to confront the past'. Thompson plays his wife Cecilia, a writer whom is taken by the police and suffers in prison to the brutality of the guards, later with daughter Teresa; this after some problems the state had with a recent article she wrote. Thompson's character's marriage to Banderas' character is systematic of the co-British/Spanish partnership the film has with its origins, two of the best of either nations' acting talent coming together just as two respective film industries are to produce. The people are powerless and the police seemingly come at will to take individuals away, but the film gives its protagonistic group an odd quirk of an advantage in Carlos: someone with strange telepathic abilities to 'see' where he is not and consequently what it is that's happening many miles away.

Like his role with the people in their ongoing fight for justice with their protests and placards, Carlos is an-oft distanced contributor at a local performance theatre when it is revealed he plays acoustic guitar to various plays, thus contributing to an overall cause or incident of spectacle but keeping his known presence to a minimum. The fact that Carlos is still essentially working for a theatre group, of whom produce specific texts, acts nicely as a slow burning item when we remember wife Cecilia was taken on a count of desired state censorship for an item or text she produced. The burning question is, as to when the state will or might come for Carlos given his link to the publication of texts.

After the early exchanges of how Carlos and Cecilia fell in love, emphasis shifts into a wider context of struggle; an entire nation's representative burden placed onto the shoulders of one man in Carlos. His nightmares; his fears and his difficulties to function, at one point ending up at a bird sanctuary with two immigrant Holocaust survivors and sharing a quiet moment of solace in a place you feel The State wouldn't go anywhere near out of lack of necessity. They both share a space; both victims of a greater extent of power and control issued by a ruling force, although there will be those who find issue with this attempted link in that Carlos is only a victim through his wife and daughter's taking, therefore is not a first hand sufferer. The film is not some gripping yarn about someone trying to make sense of the political situation as well as find one's wife, but is a more sombre piece encompassing Buñuel-inspired breakaway moments and a light hearted tone crammed in amongst a flurry of grimy, tough content linked to all sorts of sordid acts playing out in the prison that houses Cecilia and Teresa. Why The State never actually go out there and apprehend Carlos, despite knowing of his abilities and his location, I'll never know and why the makers of this went down the easy, accessible and wavy route they did with this subject matter is an additional puzzler, one that only they will really know the answer to.

The first thing I'd like to say is I've been reading people's comments about this movie, and I'm really touched at how much people round the world know about the worst period in Argentinian history. As regards the movie itself, I wouldn't like to disrespect anyone, but I think it is a lousy portrayal of real events. I agree with someone that the title allows for the viewer to expect a free interpretation rather than an accurate historical account. I disagree with someone about the images of torture being too many and too cruel. I think they were too soft. I've seen at least twenty Argentinian movies dealing with this topic (actually, I'd say nine out of ten Argentinian movies have at least one referent to it). The point is, no one can make a movie about "El Proceso" but an Argentinian citizen. It's nothing to be proud of, but it's our burden. I didn't have anyone missing, but I grew up with this, and it'll never be over for us. I understand the good intentions of everyone involved in this movie, and I think it's important that people in other countries let the world find out what happened here, but if you really want to know, you should see local accounts, without fake accents (subtitles are not that bad once you get used to them). Oh, and just for the record, the oppressors were ten times more somber and disgusting than what the movie shows. Most of them still feel the same way about everything they did, and as someone said, justice in this country is a lost cause. I just pray it never happens again. Thanks for reading.

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.

Imagining Argentina turns out to be exactly the movie suggested by the title... a not-too-literal outsider's take on what the extra-judicial disappearances in 1970s Argentina might have been like. As a result, it will potentially be highly annoying to anyone with any connection to Argentina - not only do the actors contrive to speak in an irritatingly accented English, but several key scenes play (deliberately?) fast and loose with history. This in itself is not necessarily a problem - after all we were warned by the title not to expect a historically literal film - but in my view the resulting mish-mash of the plausible and the implausible is not particularly successful.

That said, the film does fulfil the director's stated purpose of drawing world attention to a dark period of Argentina's history - maybe it's worthwhile just for that.

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.

Someone -- either the novelist or the scriptwriters -- tried very hard to come up with a viable interpretation of an episode in history that, like so many others of its kind, offers no easy narrative. The horrors of war, genocide, class conflict, and other human excesses suggest many scenarios that translate easily into dramatic versions, but few result in successful or satisfying exposition. This one is no exception.

So while I award it points for intent, I cannot regard it with the same awe and appreciation that some others have expressed. Mistaking the subject for the production is a common error.

The production is flawed here by departing from actual representation of events in order to magnify them through the prism of artistic pretense. Remembering evil and savoring the courage of those who oppose it imparts more dramatic impact when it is underplayed, when it emphasizes the banality of that evil (a phrase I borrow often from, I think, Hannah Arendt). One reviewer has made a very good point by suggesting that, rather than showing an unconvincing Banderas clairvoyancy, this story could have relied on demonstrating the suffering and ultimate resolution of character as lived by its survivors.

Another problem with the production (and I confess this is another of my pet peeves) is that it panders to a primarily Anglophone audience. Like its companion Banderas opus Of Love and Shadows, it fails to appreciate the intelligence of the Spanish language in its own voice. Subtitles are not so bad, after all, and surely Emma Thompson has enough work coming her way to have given her some pause before taking on this odd piece of acting.

Still, the sentiment is true. But how I wish other commentators would get off their soapboxes on the issue of scapegoating the USA for everything bad that happens in the world and concentrate instead on homegrown villains. Argentina and the rest of Latin America have their own duplicity to answer for.

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.

It's good I didn't read the critic reviews before watching the movie. I don't understand why they are so poor. This is a heart-breaking movie about the tragic times of Videla's dictatorship. I can't judge the accuracy of historic events. But the movie is able to convey the dramas lived by the people affected by the horrors of the regime. It worth watching.

The military dictatorship of Argentina 1976-1983 is indeed, horrifying, and deserves to be condemned and not forgotten; the stated purpose of this movie. The problem with this film is that scene after scene of unending brutality, including the torture and murder of a child, is unbearable. The torture, rape and murder sequences are too graphic and too long. It is possible to make a film that publicizes and condemns the crimes of a military dictatorship without having the bulk of the film consist of torture scenes. Also, the plot itself leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. Two better films on the subject of the abuses of military dictatorships in South America are Kiss of the Spider Woman and Missing.

This riveting film demonstrates why great actors and actresses such as Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson perform in "popcorn" movies -- it allows them the financial freedom to make truly important films. "Imagining Argentina" is just such a film. Passion, suspense, devotion, romance, and probing insights into human nature -- the best and worse within us -- make this film a tremendous credit to those who made it. What's amazing is how little press this received. It's beautiful; it literally kept me on the edge of my seat for more than half the movie. The acting is superb, the story-line captivating. Highly recommended. The DVD will be part of my permanent collection.

Argentina's Dirty War and the regime of the Generals from 1976 to 1983 is one of the dark secrets of history and has been examined by poets, writers such as Colm Toibin (and here, Lawrence Thornton in his novel from which the film was adapted), and journalists. And yet the silence about this period of time is deafening, especially since the amnesty this past June releasing the perpetrators from all responsibility of this terrifying activity and time in Argentina. Now, with the current 'silencing' of our own covert CIA activities and tortures in the name of a fight against terrorism, this overlooked film takes on particular potency. And for whatever reasons the film doesn't succeed as a great movie, at least it is a red flag bravely waving.

In 1976 the intellects, professors, journalists and writers began disappearing, kidnapped, taken to secret hideaways, tortured, raped, and disposed of all in the guise of protecting the viability of the military regime. Carlos (Antonio Banderas) runs a children's theater and is married to Cecilia (Emma Thompson) who writes articles about the "desaparecidos" despite the warnings from Carlos and their close friends Silvio (Rubén Blades) and Esme (Maria Canals). Their daughter Teresa (Leticia Dolera) is a young girl who is conflicted about the feelings of her parents in this scandalized government. Cecilia is abducted, becomes one of the dreaded desaparecidos, and Carlos commits himself to finding her. He discovers he has clairvoyant powers and holds meetings in his garden to help parents and loved ones of the desaparecidos to cope. Working with Teresa he tries to envision Cecilia's whereabouts and the film's dénouement and conclusion deal with this breathless seeking.

The acting if good as expected from this cast. The direction is fast paced, but the problem is one of distance from the passion of Carlos. For some reason Banderas elected to keep such a low profiles that his desperation to find Cecilia is somewhat muted. But as stated above the real success of this fine little film is the message it carries and that message is too close to home to ignore. The musical score and cinematography (and the incidental wonderful Tango dancing) are superb. Recommended. Grady Harp

This was a bad movie on a very serious subject. The acting was awful (particularly Banderas, who is arguably the worst male actor ever) and the characters were cartoonish. Whoever directed this movie has obviously never been to Argentina and his mental image of the place is based on childhood memories of Speedy Gonzalez and Ricky Ricardo. Armed gauchos swooping down on Ford Falcon-driving oppressors and shooting them dead? Salsa music and plumed Carnaval carioca dancers in the streets? I thought any minute Zorro too would show up, bravely engaging the oppressors with his gay sword. This movie is offensive and an insult to the memory of those who died in the Dirty War. Shame on the directors and the cast.

A film about Videla's dictatorship. Powerful for few real impressive scenes , admirable for the fair job of Emma Thompson and Antonio Banderas, precise definition of the essence of dictatorship ( Viela's case being , in some measure, reflection of an entire century expressions of terror and controll of people ).

The psychic aspect gives more bitter poetry to story and defines in proper manner the connection between couple partners.

Obvious, it is a manifesto , defining a regime's abuses .

It is a warning, in same measure, about the effects of no limits power. It is a hommage to the victims.

But, first, it is one of films for remind .

Id say 4/10 is a generous rating for this one. The subject the movie is based on is a very serious one, and most importantly, something that no one ever talks about.

Around the 70s most Latin American countries turned to socialism/Marxism governments, but by the time it was 1975 all of the same countries were under a harsh right-wing dictatorship supported by the U.S., in cases like in Chile or Brazil, the U.S. spend millions to overthrown socialist governments. It was the middle of the cold war and the battlefield was third world countries, for us Latin-Americans, we only get one side of the story, and usually is the American side.

The best weapon of any harsh dictatorship has always been to suppress anyone who speaks against it. It happens in Cuba with dissidents, it happens in Middle East with "infidels", it happens in Asia with communist regimes and those who want to turn them into democracies, it happened in Nazi Germany and it happened in Latin America as well.

Imagining Argentina is about that, is about people who "disappear" and about the government who then lies shamelessly about it. Its a great material for any movie, yet its just so poorly treated on this movie.

Banderas is a man who lost his wife, and suddenly gains the mysterious psychic power of miss Cleo and can see what happened to people who disappeared, so he makes up a support group on Thursdays to share his talents with others like him (who have also lost a loved one). The directing is amateurish as the acting of the thing, we see talented and gifted actors like Thompson, Blades and Banderas acting very woodenly (specially Thompson), to top that the soundtrack is very generic; if there is a sad scene, guitar will do it, if there's an even sadder scene, violins will do then.

One thing to reckon to this type of movies that seem to come straight out of "Amnesty International Films", is that they WILL educate you about what is wrong with the world and that you haven't seen (such as the current genocide in Sudan for example, which although takes the life of 10000 people every month, is still labeled as a "clan war" by U.S. media), yet devices, tricks and metaphors are usually used to accomplish that, yet none of that is used on this movie and when it is, you bet your first born you've seen it before in "Schindler's List". There was a tremendous opportunity on this movie, yet a crappy production and a even crappier direction ruined that. I wouldn't recommend this one, these are serious issues that should be taken seriously, not with psychic powers...

Dear iggimarco, Coming from a country that has a similar past with Argentina i can say that the movie touch me deeply like you. Greece experienced its 7 years of cruel dictatorship 1967-1974. Seven long years that left too many scars.

Every now and then i will hear someone of my family talking about the suffer of those years although they rarely talk about what they've been through.

Indeed those who don't know, who are lucky (or not) enough to come from countries that never experienced that kind of horror will judge the movie based on script, lighting, acting etc. Those who know will feel the movie evoking all those feelings of deep sorrow and pain.

Movies like this should always be made. It is another way to maintain memory of the fallen alive and to make sure that...never again (as the movie tells us in the end)

First of all, let's address the fact that this movie is not as bad as I'd heard it was. That being said, it wasn't amazing either. I think they had their heart in the right place in that they tried to convey how horrible and inhumane the climate was in Argentina during the military dictatorship, and I especially liked that they tell the viewer all the places where this is happening right now or has happened. The one major complaint I have with this movie is the whole magical realism/clairvoyance deal in the plot. It detracts from the message of the film. I love Emma Thompson and as usual she's great in this film. She shows grace and humanity in situations that are not easy to handle. Antonio Banderas is great too, but unfortunately his character gets saddled with the aforementioned psychic type deal. I think if that had been left out Banderas would have had more to work with. The rest of the characters come across as more symbolic than anything. I wish we could have seen them as individuals instead of as standing in for the many "disappeared". It is said that sometimes the victims of crimes become faceless, but here they become only a face. I think the victims are owed a little more than that. Overall, it wasn't bad, but two far better films would be Missing with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek, great film. and The Official Story. Those two manage to not only convey the horror, but the human aspect as well, or rather the dehumanizing aspect. See this movie if you like,you could do worse, but if you want the real deal, go for Missing or The Official Story.