Co-stars: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek
Plot: In 1973 in an unnamed Latin American Country (really Chile) an American writer goes missing during a Military takeover. His father (Lemmon) joins with his daughter-in-law to find out what happened.
Pros: Lemmon and Spacek, Atmosphere
Cons: Too Talky, Supporting Characters, Slow pace, story structure
"Missing" is one of those films that doesn't improve on repeated viewings, quite the opposite. The plot holes and political dishonesty become visible, and knowing Charlie's fate, makes much of the story, boring.
The Good
The best thing about "Missing" is Jack Lemmon. Lemmon not only shows Ed's frustration, anger, and sadness - and he makes an obnoxious character almost likable. The same is true of Spacek. Her character, as written, isn't particularly likable or interesting but Spacek makes her so.
Also good is the film's atmosphere. The film really makes us feel we're in a dangerous, unsettled situation and that a bloody coup d'etat has taken place. The scenes of the morgue, the stadium, the machine gun fire at the two graffiti artists, the Beth's hiding during curfew.
The Bad
1. The structure of the film is flawed. Instead of starting the story with Ed's arrival in Santiago and search for his son, the movie gives of 30 minutes of Charlie and Beth *before* his disappearance and with a few exceptions its not very interesting. This first 30 minutes also more less gives away Charlie's fate, which in turn diminishing the impact of the ending. Finally, we get too many boring conversations between Ed and the obviously lying Diplomats.
2. The American supporting characters are badly directed. Charlie's friends are more obnoxious than likable, while the American military and diplomats are all obvious cold-hearted, lying weasels, or blabbermouth moron's who tell complete strangers that they are involved in the Coup. Totally unrealistic.
Dishonest Portrayal of Charlie
And then there's "Charlie". The film really tries to have it both ways. "Charlie", you see was a cutesy, naive character who wrote children's books, kept a pet duck, loved his wife and recited dialog from Duck Soup. Yet, he worked for a ultra-left-wing newspaper (sometimes 18 hours a day without pay), had a Che poster in his Kitchen, and asked the American military about the Coup and takes detailed notes. So what is he? The director tries to address two audiences. He wants the general audience to like "Charlie" and feel outraged he's 'missing' - so we get all the "he was a just an overgrown kid who loved his wife" stuff. Meanwhile, he's winking to the left-wingers by showing that Charlie as a hard-core lefty - aka 'one of the good guys'.
Ed is really a Jerk
And "Ed" - despite Lemmon's taking the edge off - is really a jerk. He's hostile to Beth, demands that all the Chileans and the Embassy staff "give him answers -right now", and seems completely unconcerned about all the non-Americans being killed. Which mirrors the movie. We focus far too much on one American, who didn't have to be Chile. Its weird that the movie focuses in on Charlie, as if one Gringo is more important than thousands of Chileans.
Summary: An uneven movie with some good performances by Spacek and Lemmon but too long, too talky, and too boring. Rating **1/2
Also good is the film's atmosphere. The film really makes us feel we're in a dangerous, unsettled situation and that a bloody coup d'etat has taken place. The scenes of the morgue, the stadium, the machine gun fire at the two graffiti artists, the Beth's hiding during curfew.
The Bad
1. The structure of the film is flawed. Instead of starting the story with Ed's arrival in Santiago and search for his son, the movie gives of 30 minutes of Charlie and Beth *before* his disappearance and with a few exceptions its not very interesting. This first 30 minutes also more less gives away Charlie's fate, which in turn diminishing the impact of the ending. Finally, we get too many boring conversations between Ed and the obviously lying Diplomats.
2. The American supporting characters are badly directed. Charlie's friends are more obnoxious than likable, while the American military and diplomats are all obvious cold-hearted, lying weasels, or blabbermouth moron's who tell complete strangers that they are involved in the Coup. Totally unrealistic.
Dishonest Portrayal of Charlie
And then there's "Charlie". The film really tries to have it both ways. "Charlie", you see was a cutesy, naive character who wrote children's books, kept a pet duck, loved his wife and recited dialog from Duck Soup. Yet, he worked for a ultra-left-wing newspaper (sometimes 18 hours a day without pay), had a Che poster in his Kitchen, and asked the American military about the Coup and takes detailed notes. So what is he? The director tries to address two audiences. He wants the general audience to like "Charlie" and feel outraged he's 'missing' - so we get all the "he was a just an overgrown kid who loved his wife" stuff. Meanwhile, he's winking to the left-wingers by showing that Charlie as a hard-core lefty - aka 'one of the good guys'.
Ed is really a Jerk
And "Ed" - despite Lemmon's taking the edge off - is really a jerk. He's hostile to Beth, demands that all the Chileans and the Embassy staff "give him answers -right now", and seems completely unconcerned about all the non-Americans being killed. Which mirrors the movie. We focus far too much on one American, who didn't have to be Chile. Its weird that the movie focuses in on Charlie, as if one Gringo is more important than thousands of Chileans.
Summary: An uneven movie with some good performances by Spacek and Lemmon but too long, too talky, and too boring. Rating **1/2
