Watch The Dancer Upstairs For Free

Such a frustrating disappointment

A Major Disappointment

The movie's only flaw is also a virtue: It's jammed with characters, stories, warmth and laughs.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

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!!!!

In 2002 we are at the turning point of out understanding of what violence used for political objectives is: not revolution at all of any type, just plainly terrorism. But in These years of the beginning twenty-first century we were inheriting a whole set of misconceptions and deeply rooted movements all over the world that had been inspired by various brands of Marxist revolutionary tactics and strategies from the past. If you add to this set of Marxist or Maoist revolutionary movements the newly constituted al-Qaeda movement on a completely different ideological line but borrowing the methods of the previous movements plus some more spectacular ones, you have the situation around 2000-2002. But it is a turning point in history that some will try to use to their political and electoral benefit if not profit, particularly in the USA. These radical theories and uses of violence to impose a change that is then, if not at once, hijacked by some power hungry people or movements are coming to an end. The world has changed and the technology of information and intelligence collecting and processing has changed so much that there is practically not one single spot in the world where anyone, not to mention a movement of any kind, can hide for long periods of time. If Bush had not tried to force history in Iraq after Afghanistan things would be a lot better today, but as I said before some could not resist playing politics with history. That will not change the outcome but that will slow down the process.This film is dealing with that anti-terrorist action that has to be managed case by case, one after the other. There is not one single method for all cases but there must be one specific method for each case. Here we are in the Andes, probably in Peru where the fight is against the Shining Path Rebellion that organized hundred of small terrorist actions with a limited underground apparatus and a very limited number of leaders totally isolated or rather insulated against any security intelligence, or at least, so they say or think. The method in this case is to track these leaders and little by little surround them and take them in one single operation; As soon as the movement is totally beheaded it peters out because there is no second line commanding unit that can take over. Totally different would Al-Qaeda be because the top leadership has several hierarchical layers and it has been decentralized in the world with several regional, at times even local leaderships. To behead the top movement does not stop it because a new well trained leader steps into the shoes of the lost leader. And in the world the various regional branches are autonomous. Then they have to be weaned and their weapon or ammunition supplying routes have to be dried out or destroyed. It takes more time. Gaddafi's regime was brought down and he was a main provider of weapons to a whole set of movements and countries around Libya, but the arsenal was not destroyed or captured and then it moved across the desert and reappeared in Algeria, in Mali, now in Chad and Central Africa, probably in Sudan too, though it does not seem to go further. This explains why destroying the arsenal, chemical weapons first, of Syria is important. If it fell in extremist hands it might be used in any reckless way.If you take the case of Sri Lanka, nothing was possible when the ceasefire was broken in 2006 if the sea was not under control. The USA provided the Sri Lankan government with the information that enabled the armed forces, navy and air force to sink all the ships that were supposed to supply the LTTE, an old Maoist-inspired movement. Then they had to control the sky and that was done by the destruction of the only important air strip the LTTE had. Planes and pilot training were provided by Ukraine and Russia. It was also necessary to have some satellite surveillance to track all movements and concentrations of vehicles and personnel on the ground, under the canopy of jungle vegetation. Though it has not been so far acknowledged, it is probably China who provided that support. And yet it took three years to defeat LTTE terrorism. In Nepal the Maoist movement re-entered the political arena with a compromise that eliminated the feudal monarchy. In Myanmar the military dictatorship had to be pushed aside and democracy reestablished. That was done in a couple of years this time with strong international support of not pressure. In these cases it is the economic incentive that was the motor of such changes. The Chinese need to close up the violent Maoist movements in the world that are incompatible with their policy, their public image and the main commercial routes they want to re-open: the one across Tibet needs peace in Nepal. The one through Myanmar needs democracy there. In the same way some entrenched communist, or ex-communist regimes have to open up to market economy to simply survive or remain independent. Laos is changing because of the enormous amount of electricity they now produce and mostly export, which gives them the money they need to develop the economy. Vietnam has to move fast along that line to follow the trend in Asia and to be at the spear head of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Even Thailand has been obliged to find a compromise to stabilize their politics. [...]That's what is behind this film, at least one case, and it is interesting to see it since the Shining Path Rebellion has been defeated in the meantime. So enjoy the film. The sound is not very good due to the cultivation, of some rather fake English accent to sound realistic in Latin America. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

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 etiquette 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.

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.