Initially wanting to give this a higher mark, I seem to have settled for seven stars. I could have been influenced by some of the other reviews, although a number of them are exceedingly obtuse. Dogs die, and any city can supply a few dead dogs over the weeks it takes to shoot a film. Objections to the language seem equally misguided. Stories by English writers are written in English for their audience, even when set in different countries and different times. Should Gladiator have been acted in Latin, or Troy in Ancient Greek, The Duellists in French, Dracula in Transylvanian ? The DU is well-acted, and interestingly written, although somewhat predictable. Nevertheless it seems to need tightening, and this may be because of the relative functional inexperience of both director and script-writer. It wavers between corrupt politics and doomed romance. In essence it appears to be presenting the dilemma of the decent man, played by Javier Bardem, torn between living a moral life, an unsatisfactory marriage, and the everyday necessity of having a career sufficient to support his child. The artificial deal in the final scene about relinquishing the prospect of becoming president seems exceedingly unrealistic, although it also seems a convenient way of resolving this policeman's character. Ballet and cosmetics, the occupations of the two women in Bardem's life, are minimally brain-demanding.

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

Crime thrillers set amidst repression and political turmoil with the potential to be in the Spanish language are not the first things that come to mind when we think of the contributions to cinema by that of a certain John Malkovich. It is a credit, then, that he has created something in The Dancer Upstairs that feels like it might have come from Latin America; that feels like it may have been made by someone with an adept knowledge of things such as oppression in these places, even as a film made by someone who may indeed have lived through such periods. Malkovich is, of course, first and foremost an American actor, but he demonstrates he's more than capable of capturing on screen what oppression and anxiety bathed in a colonial Spanish nation might look and feel like in this 2003 film.The film isn't necessarily set anywhere in particular: this is a "capital city" in an unspecified Latin American country whose flag bears both the colour scheme and the potential for insignia akin to Guatemala's, although further reading reveals it's based on a chain of events that happened in Peru in the 1990's and the film itself was shot in Portugal. We kick off in the desert, several years before the main body of the film takes place: a jeep full of young political renegades crash through a small checkpoint, getting away with ruthlessly running over the lone guard. Then they reach the checkpoint run by Javier Bardem's character, a middle aged man who gave up a career in law to join these services. He is Agustin Rejas, and he is kind; talkative and understanding where those wanting to pass through are sinister and without emotion. One of those in the car needs their photo taken to advance, something they are reluctant to do but Rejas talks them through it with the minimum of fuss as if it were a child about to sit in the dentist's chair. One reviewer already pointed out how fresh this scene feels, if purely from a standpoint that generic roles have been subverted: the suited guards at the checkpoint are calm and understanding, whereas those wanting to pass through look like they just want to see your blood on the wall.Years later, Rejas is a police detective with a young assistant in this same, anonymous Latin American country. The problems in life have escalated from correcting passports to finding those whom to some are freedom fighters, but to others (including Rejas' superiors) are dangerous terrorists: a man calling himself "Ezequiel", whose forte against the state is to apply the usual threat of explosives on top of hanging the carcasses of dead animals from street lamps for the grim spectacle of it all. No one knows who he is, and the police are wide eyed and dumbfounded in attaining any sort of lead. It is Rejas' job to take him down, the safety of his young daughter and wife Sylvina (Lencastre) essentially at stake in that if this ghost-like individual sees all and knows all, then how long will it be until what matters most to our Rejas is threatened?The film is a binary depiction of this man's world in both a personal and professional sense, the sort of well-made drama you wish more people had heard of and consequently seen; the covering of someone going to great lengths to uncover the identity of this terrorist as well as deal with the ever growing feeling he has for a certain Yolanda (Morante), a ballet teacher who is educating his daughter in the art of such a thing. The strand revolving around these two is neatly attributed its own weight away from the central tract, moreover we observe Bardem's existing wife come off as a bit shallow; an image obsessed individual whom we don't especially like all that much. Where Yolanda's profession is performance, Rejas' is investigation and the dance studio acts as a fitting locale wherein the ballet apparel accentuating her figure and a bombardment of mirrors dotted around do well to hook Rejas in as much as they do allude to a man reflecting on his own marital status during which he ponders his love for this woman.The film plays like an old private eye movie, wherein the lead is looking for someone dangerous or wholly specific; has to deal with a love interest and is forced, on occasion, into cooperating with those on his own side that are not entirely helpful. Recall the opening act of Die Hard: With a Vengeance, the second sequel to McTiernan's own 1988 original, and try to re-imagine all that scooting around and puzzle solving under a cloud of potentially lethal terrorist activity without the slam-bang approach; replaced instead with something more methodical and more burning. Try re-imaging it with its lead spending the next few scenes after having had to fire a gun still shaken from the experience; picture the film stretched out to a longer running time and you have something that resembles The Dancer Upstairs, a really engaging and well made drama.

Meet Detective Agustin Rejas, (Javier Bardem) a Captain in a Latin country's Anti-terrorist police. Unknown revolutionaries have just publicly executed a cabinet minister and his wife. Given the assignment of hunting down the revolutionaries, Rejas meets interference from the nation's army and non-cooperation from the president and the civilian political establishment.Captain Rejas must recruit a team of incorruptible cops from a department that hasn't been paid in three months to find revolutionaries whose very agenda and grievances are unknown. Yet he has to prevent both a revolution as well as a military coup.Chance puts him on the track of the small circle of revolutionaries but will his moment of triumph be spoiled?