This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Absolutely Brilliant!

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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is one of those odd little features that you acknowledge is trying to do the right thing in wanting to explore the historical content it's taking and get across that sense of fear and desperation linked to its harrowing subject matter of oppression and living under a ruling state, but just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.

Not a masterpiece, but an interesting approach to the horror that cloaked Argentina during the 1976-83 military dictatorship, when people disappeared by the thousands, most being killed without leaving a trace. A great reminder of what civil rights are worth for. This movie drifts a little, to some viewers, in injecting a psychic element, however this too arguably gets some credibility within the setting, and does remind us of how impossible it would be to actually find the disappeared people. And, among those who survived, so many shattered lives! Anyway, the emotional impact is surely strong, and the disgust with the nazi-like characters in all kinds of uniform is something to be remembered. The most important here is to pay attention to history. Remembering is the one thing the real-life criminals are most afraid of. Even if they remain unpunished and everybody prefers to move on and forget, remembering is the right thing to do. As said on a line, the horror goes away only until a next time.

I was truly saddened as I watched this--as it hit me that the real tragedy of this time period was being used as a backdrop for a suspense story about a man who discovers his powers of clairvoyance. See "The Official Story" or "Missing," as another person mentioned on this message board, for a real sense of what happened.The gratuitous scenes of torture and death reflect a terrible lack of understanding of what went on in that country.The purpose of this film does not appear to be to shed light on any sort of reality of what happened, but rather to tell some sort of fictitious hero's story. It plays upon the deepest wishes of the victims of a tragedy for an outcome different from what really happened. Ridiculous and infuriating.

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.