UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

James The first thing to say about Brian de Palma's "Redacted" is that it is - in my view - a good film, so the low average it has gained on IMDb might be treated with a pinch of salt. Doubtless this is also a controversial film, but that does not negate the fact that it looks like well-done cinema to me, if maybe only to me! Rather uniquely, and mostly I feel very persuasively, it purports to bring together a soldier's own video diary account with footage from French documentary-makers and international news organisations, reporting in Arabic and even illicit Islamist websites celebrating the deaths of American service personnel. This imparts a very fresh, different and multi-faceted look to the movie.Needless to say this is the Iraq War, the year 2006, with Amman (Jordan) standing in very effectively for Samarra, Iraq. The makers are very cagey here about what they are portraying, using quite contorted phrasing at the start of the film to suggest - if I get it correctly - that they are fictionalising in order to offer an account of events quite closely resembling a loathsome incident that actually happened. The title "Redacted" is of course a different take on that well-known quote in fact appearing early on in the film, to the effect that "the first casualty of war is the truth".The quote in fact comes as our team of US Army personnel is first being presented, and what is clear at this point is that they are inexperienced, lightish-hearted and upbeat, rather cohesive as a unit, and still imbued with a sense of mission. And it is here that the first "timeless" elements make themselves felt.Perhaps it is cliché, but more likely just the real story that teams of non-commissioned military everywhere from Sharpe and Hornblower to "The Cruel Sea" to "Platoon" to "Mash" to you name it tend to include the handsome one, the educated one, the cynical one, the crafty one, the fat one, the naive one and so on. It is no different here.Even more compelling and moving is the way we quickly home in on what has been the fate of the occupying soldier for centuries (though let's elect to leave Nazi Germany out of the comparison). If war in general is famously "boredom punctuated by moments of terror", how much more is that true for the soldier in an occupying army? At least anyway where that army hails from a democratic country seeking to portray itself as a world policeman, rather than any kind of hideous and ruthless dictatorship?To begin with it's of course hot and alien and protracted and one feels bad most of the time. But that's just the physical conditions. The film sets about showing us more-experienced, several-tour NCOs encouraging the new guys out of fraternising or attempting to win over hearts and minds, and of course out of lowering their guard ... for even a second. For the no-win truth here is that most local people do not want the Americans to be there, and there has to be a reasonable suspicion that some will actively seek to kill them, others will assist in that killing, still others will not stand in the way of that killing, while very few indeed (though not of course zero) will have much interest in bridge-building. At the same time, ordinary Iraqis will naturally be trying to get on with some semblance of normal life, which the heavy-handed presence of US forces will tend to obstruct severely, only encouraging further resentment.There's just no way through this, then, is there? So our soldiers' hearts and minds harden; boredom, tension, regular exposure to death and cynicism do their work; substances are resorted to; and the effect may be to raise their survival chances, but only at the cost of yet a further deterioration in relations with the Iraqi people. And of course mistakes are made.All this leaves an occupant soldier's options (from deep in history through to the present day) as to desert and face the dire potential consequences, to get out (eventually), to be invalided out, to come back in a body bag or to engage in the step-by-step sacrifice of chunks of humanity. Interestingly, officers may enjoy certain real chances to work to improve relations over time, but this is not much the lot of the "PBI" routinely required to do the dirty work...Given the film's well-known subject matter, it is loss of humanity (and decline of esprit de corps) that we witness above all, as well as attempts to conceal bad things. Yet, while one certainly admires greatly - and thankfully identifies with - the several members of the team whose view of right and wrong remains less jaded (despite losing friends and colleagues in hideous ways), it (rather shockingly) does not seem quite as easy as it ought to be to point the finger at their colleagues who go off the rails and commit awful war crimes. For we have seen - step by step - how people we could wave the flag for and admire have been brought low by circumstances beyond their control, and somehow we have slightly shared in that process. This is not exactly a comfortable sensation for the viewer, who has clearly also been partly dehumanised by even 80 minutes of (of course vicarious!) exposure. But war is indeed hell, and many in it end up doing evil things; and we who have never participated need to be put in the picture better before casting too many stones... Such is my take on what I would regard as the worthwhile film "Redacted", which mostly features little-known actors, and was panned by many critics, most typically for lack of reality or authenticity of presentation ... of all things!

rbrogan91 Redacted is different from other Iraq War films. Firstly, it doesn't portray the US soldiers as the heroes they aren't. I mean, some are heroes of course, but not all. Other films seem to have a way of twisting war crimes and crimes against humanity into pro-war propaganda, but this film makes no attempt at that. Although crudely edited in some parts, as though on MovieMaker or the like, and although some of the acting is slightly amateurish, I do have to give this film a 6. The main reason is due to the courageous nature as aforementioned. The film portrays events as they were, i.e. it was a war, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not glamorous. It was nice to see a different perspective when it comes to modern war films. To conclude, without intending to contradict myself, I do feel some of the US soldiers could have been portrayed in a better light as, like all groups, it only takes a small minority to get the others a bad name. Worth a watch for something different.

Rodrigo Amaro Strangely one of the most overlooked films and also one of the most painfully criticized films of 2007, "Redacted" has Brian De Palma exposing his views on a real event that took place during the Iraq War. The minor problem for those who know De Palma's films and have a high regard for "Casualties of War" is watch again a similar background story but setting in a different war. Nevertheless, this film worths a view for its audacity (the movie was released while the war was in its course, that's why the negative reviews), and some originality. Believing that the war on Iraq was presented by the government in their own almost censored way, De Palma challenged us by showing a uncensored conflict, a war without cuts, through the points of view of news cameras from all over the world, covering routine operations; a soldier's camera recording their daily routine (rarely on combat but more in their day-off's or during their operations on the observation post controlling the cars that enter in their space) and he films everything thinking this might be his entrance door to a film school where he pretends to attend after the war; and the Army surveillance cameras that shows us private conversations of the soldiers. Also, there's an interesting approach concerning the war coverage on the internet, through the videos made by the Iraqi rebels executing a soldier or videos about those opposed to the war, making a web protest, a clear sign of the times if we look back and see that in another wars this media wasn't available. The coincidence with "Casualties..." or the lack of originality comes in the most climatic moments of the film when the bored soldiers decide to go back to a house they made some arrests, where there was a pretty young girl there, to rape and kill her. But one of the soldiers, who opposed to be part of this and was there decides to denounce his comrades, to no avail (since we don't know what happen to the accused), it actually backfires a little, since the interrogation he suffered by his superiors was quite rude and upsetting. Basically, they were saying without using these words that they wouldn't harm the U.S. Army with a denounce like that, so let it go, soldier! There's not much of a plot, it's more an observation of a given situation. It's an authentic and brave film, the performances are quite good since most of the actors are unknown. Since "Hi Mom" (1970) and the already mentioned "Casualties of War" De Palma haven't issued such a powerful social statement on a film. While I was watching this film I couldn't think of him directing and writing all of what I was seeing, it was way different of everything he's done (even the technical aspects). The comment made by a irate girl about Hollywood not making a film on the My Lai massacre nails the spot perfectly about how far can a filmmaker go in dealing with controversial materials, and here De Palma risked a lot by exposing a unflattering and negative side of the American system of Defense, and that killed the experience for many moviegoers who rated this film really low. I know it's fine to support your own defense system that protects you and makes you safe but it's not enough just to cover the good aspects of it and hide the dirty and the shameful, it's fair to show all of the sides, if they're right or wrong. I'm not saying this because it doesn't concern the defense of the place I live, in fact, ours even outside of a war appears on the news with stories of abuse, suspicious deaths in trainings, things like that, and I would like to see a filmmaker make films about that. Maybe it would make governments to see their defense systems with another perspective and change what's currently bad, that goes for every nation. Short and sweet, "Redacted" presents its controversial theme without being too much exploitative or too much sensationalist, but even so most people failed to see that, only seeing the difficult subject matter and complaining about everything. It doesn't deserve most of the prejudicial comments it received since this was one of De Palma's best works in years. To be reevaluated by audiences in a near future I hope. 10/10

Samiam3 The medium is the message, so said Marshall McLuhan. This means of course that our reaction to news is dependent on how it is presented. We seeing is often more believable than reading for example.McLuhan would easily admit the Redacted is flawed, but at the same time he may just praise it for proving his point. Brian de Palma's latest film takes him away from what he has done for pretty much his entire career. This motion picture is very much a case of substance over style (not the other way around). Well I wouldn't say it has no style. de Palma still relies on a visual format to help, but this is new terrain for him. Redacted is a multimedia recreational documentary of events surrounding a gang rape in Iraq where a pair of US soldiers sexually assaulted and killed a fifteen year old girl. They were later turned in by their buddy who refused to take part. He got the news out on a Youtube video wearing a mask.At first glance, Reacted appears as a black-and-white statement; an anti American dis- approval of the war in Iraq. Even when one stops to think for a moment, it is still hard to deny that the film is against the war, but it is NOT necessarily anti American. De Palma is open to giving an explanation for why these boys would resort to such behaviour. It is not because they are dumb or under educated, but more because after spending so long so far away from home in dreadful conditions, they begin to loose a sense of humanity. There is a difference between being an ass and being crazy.Redacted's problem I think is not so much a question of smarts, but a question of set-up. The introduction feels too much like a Godard movie. De Palma's decision to use clips of a French documentary for setting exposition make the beginning seem kind of muddled and unclear. What is this movie about? the people or the place? Redacted's multi media approach has a very visceral effect on the viewer, but its side effect is that it is ill equips for story telling, due to a sense of choppiness. One of the downsides of realism, which I have never been partial to, but this one, is actually pretty good. I think it is educational, and strong enough to recommend