ThiefHott Too much of everything

Steineded How sad is this?

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

dromasca 28 years before 9/11, there was another 9/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future.

palmiro This is a tragic, moving tale of a courageous political leader who tried to make the world a better place for the most disadvantaged of his country's citizens. Ironically, it's the interviews with the US ex-ambassador to Chile which seem the most insightful. The ambassador got it exactly right: Allende never had a chance. The forces arrayed against Allende in his attempt to transform Chile into a democratic socialist regime were simply overwhelming: the US, international finance capital, the Chilean bourgeoisie, most of the Chilean middle classes, and the Chilean army. In a sense, Allende should have known better: he had before him the unsuccessful examples of republican Spain in the '30s and Guatemala in the '50s. In neither case had it been possible to introduce far- reaching social and economic reforms which aroused the unconditional hostility of the capitalist ruling class and neighboring reactionary states. And Allende would have had no more success if he had armed the workers and campesinos, since the Chilean army showed no signs of demoralization and disintegration—the conditions under which a "people's army" has a chance to triumph over a well-armed, disciplined professional army. The people in the people's army would have been slaughtered tout court. Perhaps his only chance came with the assassination of Rene Schneider, Allende's pick as head of the Chilean armed forces. He could have used the assassination as an excuse for a thorough house- cleaning of the military high command, assuming he could have found some of Latin-America's famous "left-wing colonels" who would have been necessary to carry out the purge. But it would have been a risky proposition that just as easily could have precipitated the military coup that came 3 years later. The film should also prompt some rethinking of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"—a concept that's had rather bad press in recent decades. One of Allende's closest friends tells us that Allende was a committed Marxist socialist but certainly not a Leninist, because he did not believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Allende, we're told, believed in democracy. But the problem was that the democracy Allende believed in was in reality a dictatorship of another kind: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Despite its façade of multi-party elections, Chilean democracy was a stacked deck, inevitably manipulated in favor of the ruling classes.So Lenin was right: only by forcing the collapse of the coercive apparatus sustaining the rule of the bourgeoisie could the working classes create a state that serves their interests. What distinguishes the dictatorship of the proletariat from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not that one is a multi-party system and the other a single party system (there's no lack of single-party states in the history of the rule of the bourgeoisie). Rather, it's the stacking of the deck in favor of working people versus stacking it in favor of the owners of capital.

boudu Few more interesting political personalities of the 20th century than Salvador Allende, and few has been least debated and spreaded, maybe due to the subversion that yields in his ideas. Patricio Guzman, a Chilean filmmaker, has based almost all his work on him. Allende won clean democratic elections and assumed the presidency with a socialist program, which was deeply resisted by the Chilean bourgeoisie and the United States, afraid of the growing USSR influence on the region. This documentary shows priceless images and details of his life and presidency, for example:Direct witnesses of Nixon and Kissinger's meetings planning Allende's overthrown, giving details like Nixon usually referring Allende as "that Son of B*itch". - Extracts of the famous Allende's speech in the UN denouncing the abusive power of multinational corporations, which was his 'death sentence'. - Leonardo Henrikssen, a journalist, filming his own execution by a Chilean soldier.It is sad how the illegal overthrown is justified and neglected by certain people. I found a typical remark on this in an IMDb's user commentary: "There was abuse of authority, I don't accept it, but try to make understand somebody with a gun or a fusil in his hand that his old lifestyle was over..." Well, I understand somebody who didn't like government's measures, but justifying this way the murder of thousands of people, and the exile of other thousands is criminal. The contrast between the popular political Chilean participation of those days with today indifference and unworthy mere-decorative Latin-American governments is awesome.

stursan The film takes the spectator, but especially the '68 generation back to those years when youth, in many parts of the world, was so far from each other in distance, yet so close to each other in their ideologies. I feel grateful that Guzman has produced this film to renew our memories; to show and remind the younger generations what their parents had suffered in such countries for their thoughts or ideology. A respectful tribute and a powerful example of a leader with dignity.Last but not least, the music of Quilapayun, Inti Illimani, and Victor Jara is bound to create a bitter-sweet nostalgia in anyone who had admired them in those years.