Under Fire (1983)

"Under Fire" is a war movie, but the real tension doesn't come until the third act. Right in the middle of a lull, BAM! a major character is killed. Which is actually more sad than suspenseful, even though it happens in an action scene. I just thought that was unusual. Most of the gunfire up until that point is just used to set the atmosphere (and the movie does a great job of that), and lay out thee conditions of the environment . . . which are less than ideal,to say the least.Ultimately, this is a movie that rests on its three central characters (and the solid casting choices thereof). They do a great job conveying the cynicism of news people who deal in this bloodshed for a living.6/10

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.

The movie takes place in Nicaragua where Nick Nolte is searching for the angle on the story of the revolution that's taking place. Nobody really cares about the revolution in Nicaragua stateside, until he notices the face of the revolution. Anytime he sees people waving the face of the leader of the revolution, there's the militia that's suppressing it and getting it out of view instantly. Nobody except the revolutionaries really knows who or where this person is. So he goes on a quest to find him and take his picture, which has never been done.He meets a mercenary (Ed Harris) in the process who's on the militia's side and sees him kill one of the revolutionaries Nolte's befriended. This guy could've easily been the next Cy Young stateside by the way he was able to accurately throw a grenade at Ed Harris and some of his militia-men attacking them from a bell tower. Ed Harris survives the blast and snipes him back with a vengeance when it's least expected.Well, no more juicy details but basically the war shifts into the 5th gear and Nolte's in the middle of it and discovers something really profound. Eventually he captures a moment in history and changes the tide of war by his excellent work, while risking life.He should've earned a medal of honor right there and then for that, if they do that type of stuff.Anyways, this one is definitely worth checking out. I caught it on HBO at like 4 in the morning and had to stay up to finish watching it. It was just so captivating.

as a journalism student I thought about ethics on photojournalism. Russel broke ethics rules when he snapped a shot of a dead rafael, indeed, but why? I couldn't realize (based on Nolte's performance) any kind of second intention like became famous and win a prize, then what happened? what he could possible thinking? maybe he took a liking to the revolutionary cause, he was in the know of the importance that rafael's photo had to the war. when people began to question themselves about manipulation of photographs?, anyway, the film made me think about the thin line that separates ethic from ideologies and feelings. I'm writing a paper about it and I'd like to read other people opinions as soon as possible