Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

sledhead535 I worked in Nicaragua from February, 1971 to May, 1979. I also owned an Island off the Southeast Coast of Nicaragua near Monkey Point.The "popular" view by most filmmakers and "news people" of the time, viewed President Somoza as an evil man. What was thought to be a "saving Grace" for Nicaragua was a new Government.What everyone there GOT was a Socialist/Communist takeover fueled by the Left and (then) President- Jimmy Carter, who even blackmailed Israel into not helping the Contras and President Somoza.I always fume when I see "stories' of people and places written by people who were NEVER THERE. I WAS THERE. I SAW it FIRST HAND.President Somoza wasn't perfect. No one IS. But what they got was FAR WORSE. Nicaragua has been in my Family since 1928, when my Father and the U.S. Marines went there to help prevent Augusto Sandino from taking the country. My Association with my beloved Nicaragua ended in 1995.

Semisonic As they like to say, war never changes. Apparently, the same goes to the civil wars. But does it mean that wealthy people are tired of watching the poor people die fighting each other? Hell no! Especially if that happens in some tropic paradise like Nicaragua.Under Fire sells itself as a gritty and unsweetened drama about people whose profession is to be the constant witness of everything ugly that's happening in the world - the war journalists. But not only we are offered the graphic horrors of the wartime, we are also promised the non-compromising story of a love triangle that takes place right in the middle of the hot zone.Given the fact that such a promising dish is served by masters like Gene Hackman, Nick Nolte and Ed Harris, who have two Oscar wins and ten nominations between themselves, one may expect a truly deep and pleasant cinematic experience. And there is nothing in the world that could stop Under Fire from being one. Yeah, nothing... but its own lazy flaws.It might seem that the story of two reporters from the hot spots - a female journalist Claire and a male photographer Russel - falling in love with each other, while Claire is being fancied by yet another journalist Alex, smart and striking but not swaggy and risky enough, is totally failproof. Just show them running around and doing their thing while the war is going on - and the profits will be ripe for taking.At least that's the impression this movie leaves. That the filmmakers were a bit too confident that the supplied ingredients were more than enough and decided not to put some real soul or at least coherence into the movie. The plot is so thin it's almost nonexistent, so that our heroes have to move from one random location to another, meet and follow random people hoping that it would bring some important revelations, with Nick Nolte's character constantly taking pictures of every little thing he sees, simply because he has no goddamn clue what he's looking for.As a result, the movie is a chaotic change of settings with too many people that come and go as they please, and the film doesn't even try to properly introduce them to the audience, not to mention to actually get inside their heads. The revolution is reduced to sporadic gunfights and a demonstration of a military hardware. The dictator is diminished to a flatter-than-paper ragdoll that is only suitable for hugging babes and doing short press conferences. Even the love triangle story is laughable, since Gene Hackman's character's love for Claire never goes beyond a few stiff and dry phrases, and, as Russel makes his move, he conveniently retreats. Totally not what i expected from the actor famous for portraying the hard-as-nails badasses from Unforgiven or The French Connection.At its climax, Under Fire tries to redeem itself sending a somewhat powerful message: that the strong of this world don't give a damn about the weak's suffering, but only interfere if their own interests are involved. Very true, and the modern history never stops proving it. But despite all these virtues, it still feels that the movie took a lazy shortcut delivering that message, simply proclaiming it verbally instead of letting us feel it through less explicit and more artistic ways. When the filmmakers, after having almost two hours of intimacy with the audience, resort to crude and direct means to say what they consider important, it is like a synonym of admitting your own failure at cinematic expressiveness.The only truly redeeming feature of this film is Ed Harris' character, cheerful and opportunistic mercenary who never takes things too personal and shoots at anything and anyone he's paid to shoot at. That big American smile and optimistic mannerisms do a better job - showing the true ugly face of any war and that the whole First World is a vulture preying on whatever's up for grabs - than the combined efforts of the rest of the cast.Unfortunately, that was the only really biting satire that made its way into this movie, despite the huge potential and initial promise. Just like Nick Nolte's character helplessly driving the streets of Managua, first in search of something worth to be shot on his camera and then trying to get back to the hotel, Under Fire is completely helpless at driving itself home as a decent drama, with only a handful of strong elements to push it above the level of mediocre cinema.

FilmCriticLalitRao American war film "Under Fire" can be read in many ways as it boasts of myriad feelings.Many cinema admirers might be tempted to call it a love story which happened during troubled times.However,this should not be construed as a comparison to classic film "Casablanca" which is still considered as the greatest love story filmed during times of war.By dint of a fresh air of genuineness,acclaimed action cinema director Roger Spottiswoode gives us a near perfect authentic version of what happened in Nicaragua in 1979 when Somoza was forced to flee to USA. Although this film has been shot in neighboring Mexico,honest depiction of Latin American topography and judicious choice of local actors are some of the elements which would make viewers feel as if this film has been shot on location in Nicaragua.Tough lives of journalists who report about war is shown through good performances by all leading actors such as Nick Nolte,Gene Hackman,Joanna Cassidy.Some screen space is also reserved for Ed Harris and veteran French acting genius Jean Louis Trintignant who play diabolically impish villains.At a time when controversial,exploitative war films such as "Black Hawk Dawn","In the valley of Elah" and "The Hurt Locker" are getting critical as well as commercial acclaim, one wonders which breed of true cinema admirers would ever bother to find out more about good war films such as "Under Fire" made in a not so distant past.

smac4250 I would like to point out under the 'errors' section that in the opening scenes, when the conflicts in Chad are picture, the elephants are obviously Asian elephants (note the smaller ears in comparison to African elephants). So much money is spent in the making of Hollywood films, it is sickening when elementary mistakes such as the error I mentioned above are included in the official release of the film...Honestly, how many man-hours does it take to determine the differences between an African elephant and an Asian elephant? Even a novice scientist such as myself can ascertain the distinctions. Significant editorial failure from an ultimately disappointing film.