Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

SnoopyStyle It's 1979. In Chad, war photographer Russell Price (Nick Nolte) meets American mercenary Oates (Ed Harris). Next he goes to Nicaragua which has been under various dictatorships for 50 years. Along with fellow reporters Alex Grazier (Gene Hackman) and Claire (Joanna Cassidy), he tries to capture the civil war to overthrow President Anastasio "Tacho" Somoza. They form a love triangle in the war zone. Russell and Claire are befriended by the rebels FSLN and brought back to their camp. They need Russell to take a picture of their dead leader Rafael to trick the world with a proof of life.All three lead as well as Ed Harris are near perfect. I love the war reporter club scene and the irreverent comradery. The murky world and the easy brutality are well presented. The locations are terrific and realistic. It's well made with great acting.

Diederik van der Plas Under Fire (1983); Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode; Starring e.a.: Nick Nolte, Joanne Cassidy, Gene Hackman & Ed Harris."Under Fire" is a film well worth seeing. The main reason I saw it was because I heard good things about Jerry Goldsmith's score for the film, but the cast and subject matter are also good reasons for checking out this film. Especially Nick Nolte, who delivers a really good performance as Russell Price, the photographer who slowly loses his objectivity and becomes more and more involved with the civil war in Nicaragua. He and Claire (Joanne Cassidy) go on a search for rebel leader Rafael (rumored to be dead) and it's during this search they get more and more involved with the war. Russell is asked to photograph the dead Rafael as if he's alive so that the rebels can continue their revolution with a continuing flow of supplies. This means breaking with his objectivity though, but following his heart and feelings. Later on he also discovers that the photographs he has taken (to show the world what's going on in Nicaragua) are being used against the rebels, whom he chose to help. His journalist friend Alex (played by Hackman) joins in again, because he wants an interview with Rafael, not knowing he's already dead. This part of the story is really good. There are lots of emotions and the feeling is real. You feel for Russell for getting more and more involved and his motivation for the choice he made is well exposed and feels true. Based on what you see, you would've made the same decision. This is greatly due to the fact that you're really placed inside the action, so to speak. You witness what Russell and Claire are witnessing and Russell, being a photographer, has to be right where the action is. We witness all sorts of things (also involving Ed Harris as a mercenary for the government) and through the culmination of these events you get really involved in Russell and Claire's journey and their decisions.There's another part to the story though. Claire and Alex are partners in the beginning of the film, but Claire breaks up, only to fall in love with Russell during their journey. This part isn't exactly a good addition to the story, since it's distracting from the general story and it's inconsequential to what's going on. Besides that, when Russell tells Alex about him loving his (ex-)girlfriend and her loving him, there's no real tension between them. For this side story to work better, it should have been expanded. That wouldn't have been a good idea either, because then it would have been even more distracting from the central story and the emotional core of the film. The best thing, in my opinion, was to leave it out. In the ending it also leaves us with a bit of a corny moment, which doesn't make it better. Luckily these parts aren't too distracting and they don't disrupt the flow of the film too much.Another criticism is that I found the first half hour of the film to be quite boring. I think this is mostly due to the fact that nothing really happens and I somehow didn't really care for the few things happening to the main characters in this first half hour. We start to care when the action and the journey begin though. So, the first half hour is short on emotion and thus becomes somewhat boring. The film also has some political things to say, but only in one situation does this become preachy. A nurse tells Claire that 50,000 civilians died, but that the death of one American journalist made the American government give the rebels support. This exchange wasn't really necessary and came a bit out of nowhere, which causes it to come across preachy. Other political exchanges (mostly involving Jean-Louis Trintignant) aren't like this and feel in accordance with the overall film. I already named the score, but I can now judge for myself. It indeed is a really good score by the great Jerry Goldsmith. It brings out the emotions and makes you really involved with the film. Besides that, it adds a great atmosphere and fits the film like a glove. One last remark needs to go to the acting, which was generally good. Nick Nolte stood out as the best, but Joanne Cassidy was quite good besides him. Gene Hackman didn't have much to do to be honest, but he delivered what he had to and he made his character believable.All in all this is a really nice film to watch. It's mostly involving and the emotional journey Russell and Claire make is really nice to follow. Besides a few down sides, like an unnecessary love story, this film holds up really well. Watch this if you have two hours to spent and want something with some depth to it.I rate it 7/10.

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.

editorial-19 There's an "Under Fire" spoiler here --Blaine3 compares Under Fire somewhat unfavorably with Oliver Stone's Salvador because Under Fire is fiction and Salvador is based on a real reporter's experience. I hope that doesn't deter you from renting this one, or lead you to think that Under Fire is excessively unrealistic or melodramatic. One of the climactic events in Under Fire, the murder of a top American reporter, was based on the murder in 1979 of ABC News correspondent Bill Stewart, who was shot to death in Managua, Nicaragua, by a member of President Anastasio Somoza's national guard. The whole event was caught on videotape by other American reporters and aired in the U.S.In any event, Stone is quite well known for shading and bending historical facts in the interest of telling a good story from his point of view. In that sense, I doubt Salvador is any more "real" than Under Fire.One of the things I appreciate most about Under Fire is that it created a great role, that of a glamorous yet competent professional woman, a mother, working in a dangerous place, and gave it to an actress over the age of 35 (much rarer 22 years ago than it is now). Joanna Cassidy did a great job with it.