Watch State of Siege For Free

I love this movie so much

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

In Uruguay in the early 1970s, an official of the US Agency for International Development (a group used as a front for training foreign police in counterinsurgency methods) is kidnapped by a group of urban guerrillas. Using his interrogation as a backdrop, the film explores the often brutal consequences of the struggle between Uruguay's government and the leftist Tupamaro guerrillas.This film was so incredibly timely, it is a little amazing it was made, and somehow even almost ended up getting played at the Kennedy Center. Not only is it critical of the United States' role in South America (even if fictional names are used), but it was released right in the middle of it. We were still actively pushing regime change through the 1970s... (and the 1980s, though we moved north).

In what could be considered a follow up to his classic Z, Costa Gavras yet again tackles the political thriller genre with great mastery.In Uruguay, an American with a somewhat vague and mysterious background but who is held in high esteem by the ruling powers is kidnapped. The kidnappers start interrogating him and through this backdrop, we are introduced to the struggles between leftist rebels and a right wing government in the Latin American country.As I said before, the film is very similar to one of director Gavras's earlier efforts, Z. Like that film, this too depicts the struggle between two powers, one represented by a US-backed right wing government, the other a slightly leftist liberal resistance movement. Although the government is shown in a bad light here, neither side is overly demonized or depicted heroically. Instead, both have their motives which are ultimately quite noble so the viewer can identify with both. It is this tendency to show both sides of the story that makes Gavras a great storyteller and why both this and Z succeed so well.Like in Z, Gavras likes to keep the camera at a distance giving us a good overview of events like for example riots in the street and how the police deal with them. The film also keeps away from unnecessary subplots and instead focuses on the story, just the way I like it. Music is used minimally and when it is used, it is effective, instead of having a constant background jingle.If you liked Z, you will like this and if you like this, you will like Z. Or if you just like a good intelligent political thriller, this is the film for you.

A superior film in every way. I last viewed it Stateside, dubbed into English, on a public-television broadcast perhaps 25 years ago. It appears available on VHS at collectors' prices, but I'd very much prefer to see it treated on DVD as was lately done to "Z," remastered, subtitled, and with as many bonus features as possible.You may recognize more of Costa-Gavras's stock players besides Yves Montand. One noticeable stylistic difference: Given the grimness of its scenario "Z" occasionally bemuses, but State of Siege does not, even when Theodorakis's theme song tries to distract you.This said, for its narrative style and documentary look, is State of Siege a representation of a true story or merely "based upon"? At least this American chooses not to judge without having the unalloyed facts arrayed before him. The film did succeed in the sense that it made me want to learn more about its subject.The long out-of-print companion book contains Solinas's screenplay, stills from the film, a statement by Montand, and supplemental published materials presumably used in research with an extensive bibliography. Perhaps its most revealing component is the transcribed interview by Nicholas Ray of Solinas and Costa-Gavras, which mentions among other things tape recordings of the captive on whom Montand's character is based. Yet it is Costa-Gavras' final statement on the choice of filming location that is at once funny, sad and chilling in hindsight, and provides ample proof that times change.

I watched this movie for a class I am taking at the University of Texas, and it is a good movie. However, people who use it as proof of US intervention in Latin America should check out the facts behind the movie. No one has ever provided any factual evidence that Mr. Mitrione, the actual person the Santore character is based on, ever was involved in torture. The leader of the Tupamaros, Raul Sendic, was released from prison in 1987, and he stated that torture had nothing to do with the Mitrione kidnapping and murder. He states that it was the riot control tactics Mitrione was teaching the police were the reason he had been kidnapped. He goes on to say that they were not going to kill Mr Mitrione, but keep him indefinitely. However, he and the rest of the leaders were captured, as is shown in the movie. Therefore the leaderless movement had no idea what to do, and killed him. This does not detract from the movie as a great work of fiction, however, obviously it cannot be used as any sort of proof of American injustices.