Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Mike Allen A quick history lesson...On Sept 11 (yes indeed) 1973 at the direct behest of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger... A coup was actioned in the sovereign country of Chile... Something to do with the people electing someone who intended to put people first... Can't have that now can we? Crazy idea.So is this film about how that coup which killed thousands affected the people of Chile.Well don't hold your breath coz this is Hollywood.No this film is about how a single American family was personally (sob) affected (sob, sob) by the events (oh the tears). Didn't Chile's military know that in the American passport it says "No Americans To Be Affected? Duh.So if your looking for the thought provoking historical drama that this could have been then you're in the wrong place.If you want to celebrate spreading freedom and democracy at the barrel of a somebody elses gun then get your pizza, your freedom fries and your cool beer and sit back.All topped off with a typically manipulative soundtrack by Vangelis of course.

GrigoryGirl I watched this film when I was younger and loved it. Seeing it again after many years, it's still riveting, but it has flaws in it, mainly the motivations of Charles, the man who goes missing. Why was he killed so indiscriminately? It was a pretty well known fact that the CIA and the US were behind the 9/11/73 (yes, the Chilean coup happened on Sept. 11th), and as far as the movie goes, Charles was never threatening to expose what was happening. There's even a NY Times reporter in the movie covering the coup, and she's never messed with. Plus there was a coup attempt a few months prior to the September one, and it (obviously) failed. The country was also in turmoil during the Allende years (lots of strikes, some local, some manufactured by the Americans), so the portrayal of Charles as a naive idealist strikes as false. Plus 2 other men who write for a left wing publication that Charles does are arrested, one is executed, the other is set free. So why was Charles considered such a threat? The movie never really explains.Lemmon's character naivete works well (and it's one of his best performances). He's just a man who is looking for his son, and is outraged not only about his son and his son's fate, but of the sheer brutality (very well depicted in the movie) carried about by the coup leaders with backing from the US. Lemmon is a very proud American, so his beliefs are pretty much shot to hell by the end of the film, which shows the ugly side of US foreign policy. The official run around is in full swing and Lemmon's gets more and more infuriated at the lies and obfuscation of the US officials, and then it turns to fury as he discovers his son's fate.A flawed but still great movie. As a man looking for his son, the film works wonders thanks to Lemmon and Spacek. As a political thriller, it works less well.

evening1 Imagine living in a country whose Socialist government is toppled in a US-backed military coup. Here is the based-on-truth story of Charles Holman, a somewhat naive New Yorker who, for unclear reasons, is living in Chile when a ruthless junta takes over. Suddenly anyone out on the streets after curfew is in danger of being shot. Probably Holman, who dabbled in writing, saw things that were threatening to the regime or its ties to the US. He winds up being one of thousands summarily executed under Pinochet's reign of terror, only to be buried in a wall. There is a convincing performance here from Jack Lemmon, who starts out being resentful about the inconvenience his only child has brought about. Gradually he comes to admire the feistiness of his cynical daughter-in-law, played a little tediously by Sissie Spacek, as they try to learn the fate of their loved one. Experiencing the horror of a society under siege is the most memorable thing about this film. =================================== From Wikipedia: "Missing," a film based on the life of U.S. journalist Charles Horman, who disappeared in the aftermath of the Pinochet coup.

imbluzclooby Whatever happened during the Allende regime and The Coup De Etat in Chile in the early 70's is open for conjecture in regards to US involvement. I saw 'Missing' in it's initial release back in 82' at the age of 14 and it was a bit over my head. Having watched it again made me question my beliefs and overall ethos of political views. This story, which is adapted from a true story, is intended to assign blame directly at the political powers that be. Whether you are right or left winged in your political stances, you should definitely be concerned about what can possibly happen if you think that being an 'American' automatically protects you from harm by default.What really makes this movie memorable is not so much the political story, because it happens to be very confusing. We are caught in a mishmash of conspiracy theories, paranoia and bureaucratic floundering. If you try to analyze the politics and make sense as the story progresses you will only get more confused and bewildered. Politics is a dirty game where duplicity is prevalent. The average Joe who falls victim will have to bite the dust and be labelled as an anonymous sack who ran in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Charles Horman's case, his quixotic curiosity killed him.What we do know in retrospect is that on one night in September 1973, 50,000 people were rounded up of which 750 were executed. Charles Horman and several other Americans where among them. Historical records are certain that the US was complicit in aiding the Coup effort, but whether they ordered a kill operation intentionally is debatable. Perhaps even implausible.Jack Lemmon is chosen for a role, in utmost poignancy, to be the concerned and frustrated father. Jack Lemmon, who was typically known for more comedic roles, gets another rare shot at flexing his acting chops and he does so with gleaming success. Sissy Spacek does an admirable job at shadowing Lemmon's character with correct composure. The story of these two, father in law - daughter in law, takes precedence while Charles character seems like an afterthought at best. The drama of Ed and beth is what really ignites this film and their personal and harrowing journey of finding Charles. There are two particularly touching and moving scenes between them that i will not mention.I have tried to picture other actors to fit those roles to see if they could have been better cast. I think Jack Lemmon was an absolutely perfect choice. There are a couple of random characters such as Janice Rule and Babcock, whose roles seem rather superfluous to the story. Perhaps they were there to fill up the screen time or help the continuity of the film.But some of these characters just added more unnecessary confusion.I even wonder why 'Missing' was ever made. It could have just easily been a segment on '60 Minutes', but it is stretched out in a 122 minute feature length film.