User reviews

What is most significant about this movie is how few have seen it. Only 66 people have voted on it here whereas over 700 have voted on Z, its counterpart and also a fine movie. 'State of Siege' follows the realities and deceptions concerning the CIA involvement in South America. The movie is uplifting and depressing, humorous and appalling. Viewers are forced to meander through contrasting elements deeply personal and highly political. I saw the film once when it was first released and have not been able to find it since, yet I remember virtually every scene. It would be wonderful to restore it to full circulation.

This is not a fiction film. In fact, it reveals the way the guerrilla movement Tupamaros acted in Uruguay during the 70s. For those young people, it is necessary to remind that this left-wing movement was not a guerrilla in the mountains but an urban one, operating mainly in Montevideo. They used to kill esbirros (nasty policemen and agents) and to make justice against the existing dictatorship whenever it was required. The movement operated in a secret and compartmented way, i.e. many of the members did not know each other, thus avoiding to be eliminated by denunciation. Costa Gavras was able to draw the way Tupamaros acted in Uruguay, and also an important happening of those days, the way the CIA agent Mr. Dan Mitrione (Yves Montand) was killed. In fact this movement was disarticulated once new police agents infiltrated in the movement, and the main leaders were discovered. Mitrione was killed but this did not prevent that another CIA "pinch-hitter" for Mitrione came later to replace the dead man. The film may seem as sympathetic to Tupamaros, partially it might be, but this is rather a subtle critic to their methods than congratulation for what they did.

Costa-Gavras' movies are often the best examples of how art can be used to educate the audience. And, State of Siege is certainly one of the most ambitious and focused attempts.

The movie is a careful presentation, an expose, on the methods and procedures of law enforcement and state police in Latin America. Furthermore, it paints the picture of a kind of American neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism.

The movie is bold, the movie is courageous, but most of all it is smart and intelligent. That being said the strength of the film is the attention of detail and it's patience. Every situation is set up and for everything, there is a payoff. Nobody does films likes this nowadays, with hundreds of extras, everything shot on location. This is one extreme form of filmmaking, where there is the least amount of shortcuts and trickery. The movie almost feels like a film version of the Grand Reportage of old. A careful mix of investigation and photojournalism. That is why you do not mind being lectured. Because the film is beautiful and has rich texture, you do not mind sitting through police violence, death squad meetings and political corruption. The text of the movie might be heavy but is balanced by the visual style.

It may be at times too smart: some of the scenes may be too wordy and whenever there is action, it is subordinate to the dialog between characters. There is a lot of expository dialog in this film, and usually this a fault, because it goes against "show don't tell". Yet, here it does not harm the argument. The way the situation is laid out in dialog between Santore and his captors is initially dry and infuriating, but as Santore perception shifts it becomes engaging. The other channel of exposition is the reporter who is merely covering the story from the outside. It almost feels as it is the most interesting part of the film given that Santore's plot is rather stale, he gets kidnapped and they talk about it for an hour. The political plot could have been the meat of the movie but unfortunately, it does not go far enough, it is treated as B-plot. However, it still functions for its political themes. My favorite scene is the sequence where all the government ministers climb out of their cars. That is cinema in its purest form. It is complete fiction but it feels real.

You can regret that the movie is not as strong narratively. There is no a lot of action, in terms of narrative. Nothing happens in the course of the movie, only minor events. The story should be the last days of Phillip Michael Santore, but it is not what the movie is about.

For that reason it does not stand at the top of Costa-Gavras' oeuvre. On the topic of government corruption and the police and fascism love story, Gravas' "Z" is the best.

In the early 70's, in Uruguay, the revolutionary group Tupamaro kidnaps an American trainer of torture and the Brazilian consul, and through the interrogation of the abducted American, the big picture of Uruguay (and other Latin America countries) is reported.

"État de Siege" is a testimony of the history of Latin America in the 70's, during my childhood and adolescence. All the democratic governments elected by people were discharged through coup d'état by military dictatorships supported by the American government, the police and military forces trained in tortures by American advisors, student and union leaderships destroyed and revolutionary groups unsuccessfully fighting against the dictatorial regime. The fantastic director Costa Gravas exposes this serious wound in Latin America and this denunciation shall never be forgotten by the next generations. This movie remains amazingly real and important, sometimes recalling a documentary. Only this month this film was released on DVD in Brazil, and it is a worthwhile investment. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): 'Estado de Sítio" ("State of Siege")

"State of Siege" is a terrific movie with the same look and feel as Costa-Gavras's other classic of the period, "Z." Set in Uruguay, "State of Siege" was actually filmed in Chile during the Allende presidency, and was ironically released shortly before the coup that overthrow Allende (the subject, of course, of "Missing," another Costa-Gavras film).

"Z" was released on DVD last year in a newly restored version with excellent additional materials (modern interviews of Costa Gavras and Jorge Semprun, who wrote the screenplay, as well as interviews with the actors). My question is, when will "State of Siege" receive the same treatment? It is not available for sale in the US in any form, and is almost impossible to find as a rental. Now that "Z" is available in such an excellent edition, its about time "State of Siege" was too.

In May, 2002 they are fulfilled 30 years from beginning filmation of this movie in several leases of Chile (Santiago, Viña del Mar, Valparaíso and its "Independent Playa Ancha Republic).

Was in the second year of the socialistic government of the President Allende and the tension that is perceived in the movie was the one that already was living through the country a year before the military coup of 1973.

Chileans 🇨🇱 only could see this movie un automm 2001 and only in Normandie art cinema, in Tarapacá stret of central Santiago, that exhibited it for two weeks.

In 2001'winter an extensión of this review was published in the political magazine "El Periodista", with the list of 34 🇨🇱 actors who had participated in the film. Today, july 2024, only 11 survived.

In may, 2002 the channel of French cable TV5 exhibited "State of Siege" four times, which has allowed a deeper critical review and to recognize a series of places of the Chile of 30 years ago, which already do not exist or which are now deeply modified. Besides the climate of the epoch there is perceived the precarious or simple car equipment that Chileans were having in that epoch in which the cars of luxury were the Dodge Dart Chrysler (assembled in the northern port of Arica) and the Peugeot 404 (assembled in Los Andes, 100 kms. From Santiago). The car of the well-off middle class was the Fiat 125 and en their juvenile sectors the ideal was a Mini Austin 850. In the installed middle class there were meeting old Renault 4S (the "renolas" o "renoletas"), VW beetles, Simca 1000 and principally the popular one Citroen 2CV, known like "citroneta" o "citrola". The movie allows to see brief the juvenile or young faces of approximately 30 actors, the majority today mature and well known and to wonder for the identities of others that probably retired, they did not come back from exile or were murdered or disappear during the dictatorship. In short an intelligent and nervous "thriller", in "Z" style, which showing the hard political reality of Uruguay between 1970 and 1972.

"Etat de Siege" allows a nostalgic look and indicative on the Chile that was on the way to disappear due the coup d'Etat 11 september 1973.

I agree that this film should be released on DVD. It is a great companion piece to Z and Missing.

Costa-Gavros managed to produce a stinging indictment of US involvement in South American politics, without drawing his villains as caricatures. His characters, policemen and revolutionaries, come off as profoundly human, flawed but not themselves monsters, though they are involved in monstrous acts. The torture scenes are grueling, and were probably as responsible for the film's official reception.

I saw this at the age of 15, when it was in the theaters. I confused it with the Eric Ambler novel of the same name. It had a profound personal influence on me. I was able to rent it once, about 15 years ago but haven't run across it since.

This is a thrilling and moving film concerning a conspiracy-theory premise . It is based on actual facts and set in Uruguay in the early 1970s , upon the kidnapping carried out by the leftist terrorist Organization Tupamaros on three notorious men , and one of them : Yves Montand suspected to be involved in murder and torture in Uruguay in the 60s. In 1973 the CIA called it propaganda . See it now . From the team that made "Z" . Any resemblance to actual events or to anyone living or dead is not accidental.

Stunning third collaboration between Costa-Gavras and Yves Montand about the real-life of USAID (US Agency for International Development) employee Daniel Mitrione who is abducted by a bunch of urban guerrillas , being adapted from a true story , entirely filmed on location in South America . It contains a conspiracy-theory in similar style to subsequent Oliver Stone's JFK and similarly twisted and disturbing , whether you believe it or no . Displaying snazzy editing , adequate musical score by Mikis Theodorakis and atmospheric cinematography by Pierre-William Glenn . And shot on location in region Valparaíso, Cerro Playa Ancha, Viña Del Mar and Santiago De Chile. However , the movie sacrifices analysis and integrity in favour of an exploitative and popular polemic. Yves Montand gives a good acting , as usual . Being well accompanied by a fine support cast , such as : Renato Salvatori, O. E. Hasse , Jacques Wever , Jacques Perrin and Jean Luc Bideau .

The motion picture was compellingly directed by Constantine Costa-Gavras and it won Bafta , Golden Globes , New York Critics Awards . This veteran director who goes on shooting has filmed important , polemic and controversial movies , such as : "Z", "The Confession", "Special Section" , "Missing" , "Betrayed" , "Music Box" , "Against Oblivion" , "Mad City" , "Amen", "The Axe", among others . Rating : 7/10 , better than average .

Yes, a Costa Gavras movie is always recognizable, as a Yves Boisset one, the ONLY two French directors who dared speaking of political actual facts which other directors were afraid to talk about. In France, it's not like in America, where film makers are free to speak of everything, see for instance ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or EXECUTIVE ACTION, speaking of Watergate file or JFK assassination...In France, if you except Yves Boisset or Costa Gavras, no one, even today, would dare to speak of this. OK, I admit that Costa Gavras, in this film, doesn't talk of French events, nor as he did for Z, but when he made UN HOMME DE TROP or SECTION SPECIALE, that was directly related to French history. The Costa Gavras scheme is here the same as in Z. He uses an event to emphasize the political dimension just afterwards. Even in using a thriller topic, see Z for instance...I would have loved seeing Costa Gavras directing a film about war in Algeria and OAS organization. I don't think he did. I won't repeat what the other users told about this one, but I repeat, you deal here with a typical Costa Gavras' feature, which I could tell the director's name without seeing the opening credits.

Yves Montand relinquished his membership of the Communist Party following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He became slightly more conservative with the years but never ceased to speak out against political corruption and social injustice. His working-class credentials of course gave his opinions greater credence. Having worked with Costa-Gavras on 'The Sleeping Car Murders' he gave his name and talents to that director's 'Dictatorship Trilogy', comprising 'Z', ' The Confession' and 'State of Siege'. Costa-Gavras maintained that Montand's choices were artistic rather than political. That may or may not be but there is no doubting that Montand's star status and charisma made these films more attractive commercially. Needless to say Montand is splendid and sympathetic in the role of Michael Santori whose character is based upon American counter-insurgency agent Dan Mitrione who was kidnapped, interrogated and executed by left-wing Tupamaro guerillas. At first he insists he is simply a 'technician' but is soon revealed to have played a much more sinister role and ends up declaring that whatever methods he employed were justified in order to defeat the enemies of civilisation. Good performances also from an unrecognisably young Jacques Weber as his interrogator, an unrecognisably middle-aged Renato Salvatori as a hard-nosed security chief and an instantly recognisable O. E. Hasse as a journalist who asks Government spokesmen too many embarassing questions. As a film this is probably the weakest of the three as it lacks a certain focus but the editing by Francoise Bonnot is as always exemplary and it holds one attention. Costa-Gavras has made the right call here by showing us Santori's corpse at the outset and by not showing his execution. IMDB is a forum for those who love Film and is not a platform from which to air ones political views so whether this film has a 'bias' is neither here nor there. What it does is to remind us of Jean Renoir's chilling observation: "Everyone has his reasons".

State of Siege is an exceptional account of how the Uruguayan underground revolution (Tupamaros) developed an extremely challenging resistance against both Uruguayan dictatorship and other parties such as USA and multi nationals who financed such dictatorship. The film describes in great detail the meticulous process used during the resistance, which in turn was adopted in other parts of Latin-America and Asia. Having lived in Uruguay during this time (1970s)i was amazed at the accuracy of the story and the ability by the story teller and the characters to convey a story/narrative that at the time of filming was very much a well hidden secret by both the establishment and its supporters, and the Tupamaros. Great research, and a great opportunity for those who are interested in Latin America political system as well as getting an effective snapshot of a time in history.

I struggle a bit with most films directed by Costa-Gavras, and with State of Siege, things felt a bit different because I struggled a lot with the film. It feels passionate and does cover a wide range of political topics, often quite explicitly. I appreciate how blunt it is and, like usual, I feel Costa-Gavras is much better at making a social statement than he is making something that's actually engaging to watch on a more immediate, attention-grabbing level.

As such, I feel like State of Siege is still an arguable success, functioning as a political drama that gets a message across, but I otherwise found it a bit dull and tiring to get through... sorry!

Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.

Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.

As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.

All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.

State of Siege shows how the U.S. aided and abetted right-wing dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War. Yves Montand plays an American sent by our government to teach torture techniques to police in Uruguay. He is kidnapped by Tupamaro guerillas, interrogated and presented with proof of his activities. We witness how the military, the diplomats, and the press deal with the crisis. State of Siege generates a great deal of tension and suspense, even though we know the outcome. Director Costa-Gavras tends to romanticize the Left, but what is presented here is now widely acknowledged as fact. State of Siege is a film of historical importance that deserves your attention.

Both political act and historical testimony, this magnificent film by Costa Gavras must be shown to the younger generations and even be part of history lessons! It is a real immersion in the fight between the far left activists of Tupamaros in Montevideo in the 1970s against an authoritarian and repressive state apparatus. Above all, it describes in detail the parallel structures set up by the American services under the disguise of assistance and without any legality, like death squadrons as they will be called in other Latin American countries. The methods are shown in all their brutality: violence, torture and arbitrary assassinations. The film's script is based on actual events, only the names have been changed. Yves Montand's performance is all the more impressive when you consider his political commitment against fascism and arbitrariness. Other excellent cast include Jacques Weber, Renato Salvatori and Jean-Luc Bideau.

This is Costa Gavra's finest film. Not only its message, and the brilliant actor's are world class. Also the cinematography, the script and the cut. Yves Montand's character is one of his strongest performances in his whole career. The whole cast is great. The guerrilla's as well as the secret police and the army generals. And of course the legend of German Cinema, O.E.Hasse as the intellectual journalist investigating the truths behind the kidnappings. State of Siege is probably not 100% objective but it shows the truth exactly. It's not speculative, naive or heroizing at all. a true intellectual film, but as exiting and riveting as a perfect Hollywood blockbuster. It's actually a quite cold blooded view at the history of that era. The story plays in an anonymous country in Latin America, and that's a great move by Costa Gavras because the events shown in the film did happen the same way not only in all countries of Latin America but also in many other countries all over the world. I had to leave Turkey after the coup d'etat in 1980 and I can tell you that the situation in Turkey then was exactly identical to the events that take place in this film. The dark atmosphere, the oppression and the violence are always the same. I watch this movie every time it's screened on German TV. And that's at least once a year. Z is another flawless masterpiece by Costa Gavras, and much more popular than State of Siege. But State of Siege has a melancholic atmosphere that I love so much. So it's not only a great experience for politically interested viewers. Also I want to mention that there's NO American movie in the same quality. and modern cinema is not able to produce such fantastic movies anymore.

this movie lacks a bit of focus , but the photography , the music , the concise dialogues make it quite an experience , maybe the only thing that does not convince me is the fact that we see a French -speaking latin-american country , anyway anyone who wishes to know about what happened in almost all south america , will find a great movie. I would like to point the fact that this movies was censored for being very radical due its left-wing tendencies .

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.

In an unnamed Latin American country, American government aid agent Philip Michael Santore (Yves Montand) is killed and there is a widespread military crackdown. In flashbacks titled after the days of the week, Philip and others are kidnapped by leftist urban rebels. He is interrogated with evidence of his involvement in torture in Brazil. The aid agency is shown to be a front for American support of right wing military juntas in the region. It gives rise to death squads and repression.

This is an anti-American treatise on its involvement in Latin America. In general, I don't have much issue with that as long as it's good. My biggest issue is that this does seem to be a treatise more than a dramatic story. Quite frankly, the movie reaches its high point or low point with the torture seminar. It is visually horrifying and Orwellian. The movie can never get as high or as low as that point. Instead of a narrative story, it's more a litany of American inspired atrocities. There is some great filmmaking and compelling individual scene. I will never forget the comedy of the military ransacking of the university. There are interesting vignettes throughout this movie.

A very politically driven film about South American guerrillas kidnapping targets who they believe are involved in torture tactics, in particular a US communication specialist. The film moves fast and talks faster, relying on the viewer to keep up. Almost a documentary feel it tells the story well with sometimes hundreds of extras on screen moving with seemingly un-choreographed fashion.

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).