User reviews

This is Nick Nolte at his best in a first rate romantic thriller. Set in Nicaragua but filmed in Mexico, Under Fire captures the look and feel of revolutionary Central America, easily drawing the viewer into the horror of life under the Somosa puppet regime. If you liked "Under Fire" check-out "Salvador" or "Romero" for the same gritty realism -- these are 3-movies that cause one to think and to question.

Three journalists (Nick Nolte, Gene Hackman, Joanna cassidy) covering political upheaval of the Sandinists against dictator Somoza (René Enriquez) in Nicaragua circa 1979 are involved in political intrigue during the last days of the corrupt regime . It begins in Nicaragua before it falls to a popular revolution , as in the Central American melting pot , the three newshounds -Nolte is a photo-journalist , the others news reporters- become too personally involved as the revolution boils over into fighting in the streets . Facing off the brutal battle - people versus army - it's often hard for him to stay neutral . Then the Guerillas kidnap Nolte to take a picture of the leader Rafael, who's believed to be dead. This wasn't their war but it was their story...and they wouldn't let it go! Dateline: Central America. The First Casualty of War is the Truth. Nick Nolte And Gene Hackman In A Riveting, High-Tension Thriller.

This tense and nail-biting thriller is packed with as much taut action , enjoyable message as the storyline will allow , but let down at times . Engaging and raw film being compellingly shot , adding some political moments and its allegedly wave flag of impartiality cannot obscure the tension dripping from every frame of such reconstructed immediacy . Nick Nolte, Gene Hackman and Joanna Cassidy are roving war correspondents found at the start in the process of moving from Chad to Nicaragua 1979 where things go wrong . Suffering the Nicaraguan revolt of the Sandinists and along the way , all of them become involved in a romantic triangle . ¨Under Fire¨ has its good moments starred by a superb main cast , as Nick Nolte who's terrific as photographer Russel Price who covers the civil war against president Somoza and gets drawn into the happenings , as well as Gene Hackman and Joanna Cassidy . And splendidly accompanied by nice supporting interpretations from Ed Harris as a grinning mercenary killer , Alma Martinez as a girl guerrilla , Richard Masur , Holly Palance : Jack Palance's daughter who married director Roger Spottiswoode , Enrique Lucero , Elpidia Carrillo's brief appearance , René Enriquez as dictator Somoza, all of them make their marks . And special mention for French actor Jean-Louis Trintignant , but you have to wade through a bit of sludge to get them . The movie belongs to sub-genre that abounded in the 80s about reporters all around the world covering dangerous political conflicts , such as Indonesia in ¨The Year of Living Dangerously¨(1982) by Peter Weir with Mel Gibson , Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hunt ; Salvador in ¨Salvador¨ by Oliver Stone with James Woods and James Belushi, and Libano in ¨Deadline¨ by Nathaliel Gutman with Christopher Walken and Hywel Bennett.

It packs a picturesque and evocative cinematography shot on stunning locations in Chiapas, Mexico , Oaxaca City , Oaxaca State, Mexico , splendidly photographed by cameraman by John Alcott . As well as imaginative and stirring musical score by the great Jerry Goldsmith , including Central America sounds and folklore . The motion picture was competently directed by Roger Spottiswoode , though it draws some gaps . Robert has made decent and successful films of all kinds of genres , such as : ¨Terror Train , Under Fire , The Best of Times , Turner and Hooch , Air America , Stop or My Mother will Shot , And the Band Played On, Tomorrow Never Dies , God's Favorite , The 6th Day¨and several others . The flick will appeal to Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman fans . Well worth seeing . Rating : 7/10 , better than average .

"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

This is one of those movies which starts out with good intentions, but somehow misses the mark at the end. Nolte is an adrenalin-junkie journalist on a mission to shoot (with his Nikon) the leader of the Sandinista rebels in the Nicaraguan war. Shades of El Cid. The rebel leader, Rafael, is dead, but Nolte photographs him to make him look alive. This has the desired effect, and the rebel forces are revitalised. Nolte, however, has to come to terms with both compromising his integrity, and the burgeoning relationship between himself and Cassidy, Hackman's former lover.

Cassidy and Hackman give performances which one has come to expect from artistes of their calibre, but for me, the real star of the movie is the music. It was worth the second trip just to revel in what must surely rank as one of Jerry Goldsmith's masterworks.

A version of this comparison has already been posted over at "Salvador" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091886/

Salvador is Olvier Stone's best work and James Woods' finest performance. Perhaps my only regret about this movie has to do with it not going nearly far enough in depicting the brutality of the US client regime in El Salvador. But this observation does not count, as it doesn't have anything to do with the film as presented. A critique of Salvador would do much better to note that there are very few films about the political situation in Central America, period. Persons who are interested in the subject matter might do well to compare this Stone effort with the much earlier Under Fire (1983), a film which boasts superlative performances by Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman. Under Fire is perhaps one of the most under appreciated films, not just of the 1980s, but of all time. Both Under Fire and Salvador are head and shoulders above Ken Loach's limited tale of a Nicaraguan refugee's individual trauma - Carla's Song (made much later in 1996). Both earlier films were made at the time Central America was a major obsession of the Reagan Administration (which went so far as to suggest AK-47 toting Sandinistas were about to invade the Texas border). On account of this background alone, the respective cast and crews of both films deserve the sort of praise we should usually reserve for true artists rather than Hollywood's employees.

Both Salvador and the much earlier Under Fire are very close in their subject matter: portraying disinterested journalists who only after becoming aware of the gravity of the situation in which they find themselves turn unsympathetic towards clients of the American Empire. The sort of journalists which have been entirely purged from the corporate-owned "mainstream" or "embedded" press in the United States (and the EU too).

Both films do an outstanding job of noting the protagonists' rivals in the form of spin doctors for the regime whether from the US State Department or the corporate media. Characters like Salvador's ANS reporter Pauline Axelrod (played by Valerie Wildman) force us to recall the perverted scribblings of James Lemoyne (New York Times), the godfather of Embedded American Journalism; his students honored in that tribute to the corporate press, Welcome to Sarajevo (1997). Call that film for what it is: the anti-Salvador.

Under Fire goes much deeper than Stone's film in questioning the ethics of journalism and the sort of circumstances which compel individuals to look at the bigger picture. The depiction of the conflict between Hackman and Nolte, on both personal and professional levels, makes it a very rewarding film. Salvador's portrait of a troubled has-been photojournalist who undergoes a sort of radical shock therapy in a war zone is different, but certainly no less interesting.

I have to give the decisive edge to Under Fire for drawing much more attention to the nature and breadth of the foreign support upon which the corrupt Central American dictatorships relied. Salvador has a US helicopter turn up in the middle of a battle, an ambassador portrayed as indifferent, and that's about it. Under Fire, in contrast, has excellent performances by a young Ed Harris and Jean-Louis Tritignant as pro-regime killers, roles which draw attention to the nature and morality of those embattled dictatorships.

Salvador counters with a much more interesting profile of some of the members of the so-called "government" and its military. In Under Fire, we just see Anastasio Somoza depicted as an insignificant car salesman type in the background who also happens to be the latest heir to the dynasty which ruled over Nicaragua for much of the 20th century. This was a wee bit dissatisfying.

The major differences between the films are technical and stylistic. Some may prefer Stone's use of tight editing and rather fanciful action sequences. I personally preferred Under Fire's determined efforts to bring out as much stark realism as possible on screen especially in the battle scenes, which are among the most authentic attempts to portray urban and guerrilla warfare in the history of cinema. No, it's not as pretty as Tom Cruise dropping bombs to the accompaniment of Kenny Loggins, and any film which reveals as much deserves special praise. One wonders if "Under Fire" or "Salvador" could be made in Hollywood today.

A 9/10 for Salvador and a 9/10 for Under Fire, and again hats off to all associated with films which one can hardly imagine being made in this Orwellian or "embedded" age.

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.

"Under Fire" is a well-written, well-acted piece, showing photo-journalists operating in the milieu of insurrections in Chad, then Nicaragua. Watching Gene Hackman, Nick Nolte and Ed Harris perform together was a treat. And the writers gave them terrific lines. "This is a great war: good guys, bad guys, and lots of cheap shrimp." I especially liked when Hackman's character asked if Nolte's character had slept with Hackman's woman when their relationship hits the skids, and Nolte answers directly, "Hell no, Alex. We're friends." And you just know Nolte's character meant it, man to man. Great moment. Also appealing was the way third-world conflicts were portrayed as global brushfires; put out one here, while another flares up over there. Using the real civil war in Somoza's Nicaragua gives the film unexpected credibility. And probably in keeping with reality, Ed Harris has several memorable scenes as a pure mercenary, a globe-trotting soldier-for-hire, who shows up where the gun-battle action is. His last line is something like "See you in Laos". The beat goes on. -ejpede

Every dictator whatever be right or left were and will be a harmful for any place in the world, they rules by forces of evil, fed by powerful countries, then Nicaragua had his experience as all his neighbors in South America, Anastacio Somoza was a dreadful and bloody dictator, the rebels Sandinista overthrew the currupt govern, the director Roger Spottiswoode is an fine director and made a good job in this picture.

However sadly put a romantic affair on the plot, also has a little mistake over Somoza's escape, unaccurated by the way, too much smoke by Nick Nolte like always, on another overacted performance, already Ed Harris appears as a promissing leading actor which was ensured in same year on "The Right Stuff"!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1991 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5.

This film was a surprisingly quality portrayal of the difficulties faced by those in underdeveloped countries too often overrun by corrupt regimes.

It is presented through the eyes of a photo-journalist (played by Nick Nolte) & his contacts, as they pursue the news stories we in supposedly advanced nations, witness each day on our television screens. Of course, it is subjective but presented with an appropriate sense of the drama & courage that's needed to bring such coverage of gross injustice to the detached conscience of those whose governments often make insensitive contributions to the peoples, mainly peasants & the oppressed. These poor & downtrodden people cannot speak for themselves & rely on such photojournalism to be their mouthpiece to the wider world. It has applications far beyond Nicaragua, across all continents, for human rights' abuse was rife 20 years ago when the film was made, & is today, & likely will be far beyond.

Unlike too many modern movies that are action-filled with special effects but largely without plot, this movie does deliver. The central figure portrayed engages in a series of hit & run encounters with the authorities & its mostly ruthless army of foot soldiers. He & his associates live on their individual & collective wit's end. Within seconds, the victims can go from pursuer to the pursued. Let alone the predicament that local peoples find themselves in, for they would rarely if ever, be accepted into the supposedly developed nations whose propaganda currently rules the world, no matter how unjustly or offensively or insensitively it is applied.

Likewise, the survival of the photojournalists & their associates, are caught in dilemmas of conscience. For the oppressed peoples they dare to cover the struggles & injustice & suffering of, seem to be meat in the sandwich of leaders who use & abuse such locals, as puppets. Journalists often depend on the contacts they form, however transcient their interaction. The woman who beckons him into a backyard sanctuary; the woman who refers a request for directions to the authorities; a priest tortured & suffering unjustly while sharing a jail cell; the occasional compassionate soldier with heart enough for his potential victims vs dictatorial unjust judgements; people willing to bravely die for their cause in the name of their causes of their heart. Such as these present unpredictable twists adding to the unfolding drama, where war is being found & fought on many levels, personal & within or beyond organisations.

As such, "Under Fire" gives the viewer a reality in which to help a viewer to understand much more than it presents, or dares to represent. The roles of friendship, empathy & compassion present in many unlikely forms, so too, the consequences, even fatality, from the slightest failure to read the signs or sense danger, while the ruthless pursue goals without concern but for their hierarchy of self-made regulations & adherence to them.

All up, a quality movie not to be missed, and one which is likely to linger & enrich your appreciation of war correspondents of integrity & conviction, willing to lay their lives on the line.

This movie is nothing if not audacious, when you come to think about it. I mean, it's trying to channel a "Killing Fields" atmo along with a Gable/Tracey/Lombard type love triangle involving three cynical journalists. It fails, of course, but still you've got to admire the attempt. Why does it fail? For the obvious reason that an audience that's expecting Sam Waterston and Dith Pran will be sorely disappointed by the very Hollywood firm of Gene Hackman, Nick Nolte and Joanna Cassidy, cameras, and note pads slung over and inside stylish cargo pants and safari jackets, while someone wanting a more light hearted, Ben Hechty treatment of foreign correspondents in love and war will find the Graham Greenish moral breast beatings of the three newspeople, as I did, somewhat off putting, (although Cassidy's cleavage is certainly impressive). Actually, the most interesting character in the film is Ed Harris' Universal Mercenary, a personage who seems like he stepped out of Warren Zevon's "Lawyers, Guns, and Money". Sure wish he'd been in the film more although, if he had, then you'd have THREE movies this film was trying to meld together, the last being "Dark Of The Sun". And that's too many ingredients by one, mate. Give it a B minus. PS...Strange how major league baseball teams with bird logos play such a large role in this movie, huh? You've got not only the expected Dennis Martinez allusion, since the film is set in Nicaragua, but for some weird reason the most morally reprehensible character in it is named after the Cards pitching coach, Hub Kittle. (Did ol Hub somehow manage to piss off co writer Ron Shelton, a former minor leaguer? I may google it. Then again, maybe not).

"Popular resistance to a series of unpopular dictators was growing in Nicaragua for over 50 years. By the spring of 1979, Nicaraguans rom all walks of life joined together in a final attempt to overthrow President Anastasio 'Tacho' Somoza."

The movie "Under Fire" is about a photojournalist named Russell (Nick Nolte) who was in Nicaragua trying to capture the fighting via camera. In 1986, a similar movie was released titled, "Salvador," with James Wood and Jim Belushi that was about the civil war in El Salvador. I thought "Salvador" was a lot better. Woods and Belushi were more entertaining characters than an old Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman.

"Under Fire" got a little bit into the politics of the situation and, of course, the depravity of war, but it was never as intense as it could've, or should've, been. Plus, the love triangle between Russell, Alex (Gene Hackman), and Claire (Joanna Cassidy) was nauseating. It was such an unnecessary distraction. Russell was the main character, I know, but it was almost like his life was the main story with a civil war as a back drop.

This is a "human condition" film, with no particularly likeable characters, and very little plot. For me, the most suspense was created when Nick Nolte started looking for Raffael. At that point, this film became a Central American game of "Where's Waldo?"

This story strikes me as a poorly done version of "The Lost City," starring Andy Garcia. What makes Andy's story better is that Andy makes a point: Communist revolutions make everything worse, and nothing better. If you look for a point in "Under Fire," it seems that they're condoning communists, even though they make a better case against it.

If you want a documentary about the Sandinista's, go watch a documentary. If you want a thrilling love-story set around a fast-paced, intelligent script about people who want to do the best they can under difficult circumstances, then this is the film for you. Good acting, superb music, a good use of locations and atmospheres. This must be one of Nolte's best performances. Of course Rafael did not exist, but this is a movie, not a portrayal of real facts. The story works perfectly in this movie, and that is what's important. If you're looking for a flick that entertains, touches you without being too sentimental, and you like some action, then Under Fire is certainly worth seeing.

A sophisticated film with more than one level, while its sympathies obviously tend to lie with the Sandinistas, it also has the message that in war there are no moral absolutes, and raises some interesting dilemmas. Its portrayal of violence is brutally convincing without being gratuitously gory. One possible flaw in Nolte's character is that it's hard to believe that a man apparently given to fairly regular reckless behaviour would have lasted so long hanging around in war zones.

This movie really hits the mark in many ways. It's the best movie of its genre. In the opening scene in some unspecified African civil war Nick Nolte, war journalist, discovers Ed Harris, mercenary, riding in the wrong truck surrounded by his enemies. Harris hasn't realized that after the confusion of the battle he climbed in a truck of soldiers from the opposite side. They in turn haven't realized that Harris isn't their mercenary. Harris says, `I guess they'd really be p***ed if they knew.' This scene sets the theme for the movie perfectly. Not only doesn't the mercenary care which side he is on, but it is implied that the sides are pretty much interchangeable and it doesn't much matter who's truck we climb in. This is pretty much Nolte's attitude as he travels from one war to another. We begin to suspect he isn't that different from Harris. But affairs in Nicaragua make his neutrality seem immoral and he is forced to choose between his journalistic ethics and his humanitarian ones.

Great writing is matched by great acting from Hackman, Harris and Nolte and Johanna Cassidy.

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.

As a Nicaraguan-American who lived there during the opening thunderclaps of the full scale Sandinista revolt, I must say I was extremely impressed with this movie as a whole. Although it takes a slight turn to the political left, it manages to keep the story on an even keel and not embelish so.

It is interesting that by far the truest insight is delivered by the cynical French opportunist. Tyranny and oppression lay on both sides of the political fence. If the right hand doesn't get you, the left one will. When the FSLN took power in 1979, they immediately announced their communist regime much to the chagrin of the populace (personally, I believe in this crazy little thing called "freedom").

The people who were just liberated from 40 years of right wing (US supported) tyranny, now had it from the (Soviet supported) left, and then some. Proof of this was the mass exodus of Nicas to other places, and the (US backed, of course) "Contra" rebels, made up of former Sandinistas who immediately took up arms against their former comrades, and fought for a proper democracy, which was finally achieved when the USSR folded its cards in the late 80s.

Nicaragua was then free.

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.

A favourite film. Conjures up questions in it's portrayal of press photographer stepping beyond reporting. Beautifully filmed but the real hook is the atmospheric soundtrack. Sharp! Just want to go to Nicruagua to hear these stunning sounds and see that lovely country.

Remember those awful low budget WWII movies with Sherman tanks masquerading as German Panzers and German soldiers running around looking for a bullet to hit them. That's what the opening scenes of this movie brought to mind. Rebel African soldiers moving through the Chad countryside riding, wait for it... "Indian" Elephants, are attacked by a spindly rocket-firing helicopter and later a wing-mounted-machine-gun firing DC3. What? Nick Nolte as fearless reporter stands up on top of a 3-ton truck to get a better shot of being shot while Ed Harris in the guise of grizzled veteran mercenary inexplicably takes shelter underneath. Pure hogwash. Unfortunately they still do make them like they used to. Oh and Gene Hackman later sings and plays piano. Other highlights: Gun-toting, graffiti-writing masked mimes (I'm not making this up) That was all I could stand.