Under Fire Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
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.
Nicaragua 1979: Star photographer Russel Price covers the civil war against president Somoza. Facing the cruel fighting - people versus army - it's often hard for him to stay neutral. When the Guerillas have him take a picture of the leader Rafael, who's believed to be dead, he gets drawn into the happenings. Together with his reporter friends Claire and Alex he has to hide from the army.
| Nick Nolte | Russell Price |
| Ed Harris | Oates |
| Gene Hackman | Alex Grazier |
| Joanna Cassidy | Claire |
| Alma MartÃnez | Isela |
| Holly Palance | Journalist |
| Ella Laboriel | Nightclub Singer |
| Samuel Zarzosa | Jazz Combo: drums |
| Jonathan Zarzosa | Jazz Combo: piano |
| Raul Picasso | Jazz Combo: bass |
| Oswaldo Doria | Boy Photographer |
| Fernando Elizondo | Businessman |
| Hamilton Camp | Regis Seydor |
| Jean-Louis Trintignant | Marcel Jazy |
| Richard Masur | Hub Kittle |
| Roger Spottiswoode |
7.00 out of 10 (1679 votes)
Visitor Reviews
great performances
posted on 10 Nov 2008yes, they(cassidy, nolte, hackman and specially trintignant) are the film, because the direction is conventional. The music, by Jerry Goldsmith, it´s good.Another thing fails on this movie: It´s american, so they aren´t compromised with this that they are filming about. Not a master piece, but it´s fine.7,5/10
Moral issues
posted on 11 May 2008as 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
Like it really is
posted on 07 Dec 2007Been there... used the powered rewinds on my Nikon F2as cameras and my right thumb to wind on my black Leica M4 ...while being shot at in Londonderry Northern Ireland 1981. Seems like Nick Nolte had practised this and it looked like second nature to him in the movie. Very Very 'cool stuff'. Dramatic atmosphere real life characters tension and lots of used film cannisters. Brilliantly cast Gene Hackman as the 'wordsmith' Well filmed action sequences and tightly scripted scenes Ed Harris well cast as mercenary(I've met a few) Praise to Roger Spottiswood for getting it absolutely right.
Still very watchable movie
posted on 11 Sep 2007I have revisited this film after many years, primarily to see the Gene Hackman that is and has always been and the Nick Nolte that was. The love triangle (Hackman/Cassidy/Nolte) is awkward and unnecessary but the pace of the events depicted are satisfyingly fast-moving and expertly set up. This particularly applies to the rooftop skirmishes early in the Nicaraguan scenes and especially the finale, when Nolte's photographer is hounded around town. The confrontation between Hackman's TV star and Somozas military is one of those "DID YOU SEE THAT" moments which are frightening because they are oh so believable. Hackman, Nolte and Cassidy apart, there are very very watchable performances from Ed Harris as an amoral globe-trotting mercenary and Jean Louis Trintignant as a deeply devious master manipulator. Like the other South American political classic "Salvador" this very good movie has impressively stood the test of time.
How Not to be Objective.
posted on 04 Jul 2007Basically it's the story of a journalist's gradually being coopted by one side in a conflict. He's not supposed to let that happen, you know? Reporters belong to a class of professionals that subscribe to a code of ethics in which making value judgments has no place. In that respect they're like shrinks, judges, and cultural anthropologists.But at the same time it's impossible to be impartial, unless you're completely ignorant of your subject. The tendency to judge things as "good" or "bad" is probably hard wired in human nature, and for good reasons. When our hominid ancestors first encountered a strange object or situation, they must have made instant decisions about whether this was going to turn out to be good or bad for them -- otherwise they'd get eaten and not have any more kids.Nick Nolte does what most professionals do. He tries to think objectively about the conflict between the Sandinistas and Samoza's forces in Nicaragua, and he fails. Then he tries to merely ACT objectively, and he fails at that too. And yet the movie, and the revolution it depicts, turns on the one true photo Nolte is able to take, of the shooting death of his friend Hackman by the National Guard, which Samoza has been blaming on the Sandinistas. The rebels win.The movie's pedantic, of course, but not as insulting as it might be. Not as insulting as, say, Costa-Gavras' "Missing," which assumes that Americans are stereotypical right-wing dummies who need to be patiently instructed in how corrupt our policies are, like a class of kindergarten kids. Okay, we're dumb -- but not THAT dumb. "Under Fire" doesn't show us any good guys on Samoza's side, but it also mutes the sentimentality with which the rebels are treated. We see some of them as scared and excited kids wielding guns and killing people for no discernible reason. Another woman tells the dead Hackman's ex girl friend, "Fifty thousand Nicaraguans have died. Now they kill one American and the world is outraged. Maybe we should have killed an American fifty years ago." (I give the writers the benefit of the doubt and assume they never meant to advance that as an reasonable position.) Yet the rebels ARE treated rather gently. One young man, finding that Nolte and Cassidy are Americans, eagerly signs a baseball and tells them that when they get back to the USA they should give the ball to Dennis Martinez, whom I take to be a pro ball player. This kid, Pedro I think he's called, shows us the jolly side of revolution. He's the equivalent of those kids in the old war movies who learn to speak a choppy English with a lot of slang in it. And who do we have on the other side? Samoza himself, another "brutal dictator" of the sort we've lately taken to deposing. We can tell he's nasty because he barks at his subordinates, exudes an oily charm with foreigners, and has an eye for the ladies. Trintignant has an eye for the ladies too. He has been an extraordinary actor in some roles (eg., "The Conformist"), his presence suggesting a kind of earnest weakness, but here his moral nihilist is hampered by his English. It's understandable that he should feel that whichever side wins, you still end up with a tyrant, but it's hard to believe he feels it. And then we have Richard Masur as an American-appointed Talking Chief for Samoza. He gives Nicaragua two options: Either Samoza wins with American help, solves the problem of poverty, and turns Nicaragua into a democracy, or the Communists take over the world. When the news comes out that Hackman has been killed, Masur runs into Cassidy, smiles, spreads his arms helplessly, and tells her, "A human tragedy. What can I say?" Then there is Ed Harris as the American mercenary, cheerfully slaughtering the rebels he's being paid to kill, thick skinned, just as pleased when the Sandinistas win as he was before.The film makers don't exactly give us a level playing field, but then how could they without seeming ridiculous? Samoza, after all, was a pretty nasty guy. (Somebody finally caught up with him after he found refuge in Florida, as I recall.)The acting is good, all around, as is the photography and location shooting.What a dismal and dangerous place. And journalists have to prowl these streets for a living. Even a cover on Time Magazine wouldn't get me to drive around the rubble filled streets of Managua. Or even Newark, New Jersey, for that matter. Excellent use is made of Jerry Goldsmith's score. It's introduced after some time, done softly, a tune suggestive of Inca music, using wooden flutes and guitar. The theme becomes more fully orchestrated later, more dramatic and insistent. It's always associated with the rebels and at the end, when the rebels roll through the streets, it does everything but turn into the 1812 Overture.This is for adults. Most of the characters are more real than stereotypical. Look at Joanna Cassidy. She's not a glossy Penthouse centerfold. She's a grown-up with an adult daughter and thoughtful blue eyes. And although we naturally want the Sandinistas to win, we have to wonder if Nolte did the right thing in falsely boosting the morale of the guerillas. By cheating and by taking sides, he's weakened the privileged status of journalists everywhere. It's a thought-provoking movie, and full of action. Well done.
Adventurous Norte Americano narcissist
posted on 16 Feb 2007The three stars of this flick I actually like a lot. The script was written by an excellent script-writer. It got a little gimmicky with the rich French guy and the photos, but so be it. The fact that the death of one gringo affected that war, well there was some truth to it. Certainly the real life death of Bill Stewart (?) caught on camera turned the Carter administration totally away from Somoza. Still the Hollywood story still plays out against the back drop of the FSLN Insurrection. The image of Los Muchachos came through with the exception of having a "leader" like Rafael. This of course was not the Sandinistas. It was a lot more democratic than that. (There was one turncoat leader whose name I've already blocked out of my consciousness.) But the Sandinistas as a group initially were rather small though potent. Eventually it was the people in the barrios--in Esteli, Leon, Matagalpa, Masaya, the gorgeous city of Granada and then Managua that eventually turned the tide.But to the flick itself. The film moves along well. It develops its characters believably and there enough are street shots of violence and war to keep a person interested. The locations look an awful lot like Nicaragua even though it wasn't shot there. As a gringo who went to Nicaragua in 1984 for a month, not as an emissary or a camp follower but as a supportive private citizen against the Contra war, the reality of many of the North Americans I met there, particularly journalists were that they wanted to be part of the glory. In many ways they (not all) were either star-struck or narcissistic. I found that the Nick Nolte and even Joanna Cassidy characters were very much similar to North American photo-journalists and journalists. Actually though the typical journalist sat around the pool at the Hilton and waited for the reports to come in. I saw that myself in 1984. Meanwhile everything in this film seemed as if it were all wrapped up in blood, glory and sexual hi-jinks (not that there's anything wrong with the sex part.) It could have shown the how the victims of this war got consciousness and eventually took to the streets. . . Still watch the picture not for complete historical accuracy, but it at least pays attention to events that happened at that time that brought the masses in Nicaragua the courage to determine their own future. The film identifies with those people and their rebellion. Unfortunately all that is changed today. . .
One of the best American films of the 80s
posted on 08 Jan 2007Good films about politics are rare. Films which successfully combine politics and a love story are even rarer. "Under Fire" manages this triumphantly.Nick Nolte, Gene Hackman and Joanna Cassidy give superlative performances as the trio of journalists caught up in the passion and excitement of the 1979 Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. That wonderful photographer John Alcott catches some magical images and Jerry Goldsmith composes a score so good you will want to seek out the album.This is a film full of moments that will live in your memory, not least the shocking, tragic consequence of Nolte's willingness to assist the rebels. It brings home the chaos and confusion of war but also its moments of elation : "I'd do it again", says Nolte at the triumphant conclusion. Before that, the spy Jazy, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, an urbane, cultured but completely amoral killer, tells us that we will only know the truth of what happened in Nicaragua once 20 years have passed.Well, those 20 years are now behind us. The right side won. And this film, with its eloquent photography and soaring soundtrack, may turn even the most apolitical person into a Sandinista.
A really nice and mostly involving film about civil war and journalism.
posted on 15 Dec 2006Under Fire (1983); Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode; Starring a.o.: 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 this film out. 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. 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 things 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 though, because then it would have been even more distracting from the central story and 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 this part isn't too distracting and it doesn't really disrupt the film.Another criticism is that I found the first half hour of the film to be quite boring. I think this is mostly because 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 of emotion and thus becomes somewhat boring. The film also has some political things to say, but only in one situation does it 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. 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 good. Watch this if you have two hours to spent and want something with some depth to it.I rate it 7/10.
One of my favorites
posted on 01 Oct 2006I knew someone that lived through this time period and was forced to evacuate the country. That's why I was initially interested in this film, to find out what happened during this time period. I've read every book I can find about these troubled years in Nicaragua, and I finished them feeling just as confused as I was before. Watching the movie helped me to understand just a little of what was going on in that part of the world where my friend once lived. It also shocked me to see what journalists must go through in order for us to see the pictures and read the stories of what goes on in war-torn areas of the world. Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman are two of my favorite actors, and they work very well together in this movie. The soundtrack music also gets stuck in my head. I can hear it now.....
Not a documentary
posted on 16 May 2006If 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.
war of conscience
posted on 04 May 2006This 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.
A sophisticated film
posted on 07 Jan 2006A 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.
Film error
posted on 21 May 2005I 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.
Sharp soundtrack
posted on 28 Mar 2005A 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.
A Journalist shows his true colours
posted on 05 Oct 2004This 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.
Creative use of the truth, but watchable
posted on 22 Jul 2004Unfortunately, telling the true facts of the Sandinista
uprising would have required a less "Hollywood" approach.The struggle was a long one and this movie does not touch
on America's twisted obsession with this sorry land. The 20th century was a sad one for Nicaragua and the US
had a great deal to do with its misery.While the action is fast paced and the actors do a credible
job, the liberties with the truth do a disservice. There was no real Sandinista messiah like Rafeal and other stretches
of the truth make it less the movie than it could have been. It is basically a romantic movie in a foreign land. Salvador , another Central American themed movie made in the
same period, is a much better film as it involves the
watcher in the the pitiful lives of the Salvadorans.
Just saw this fully recently and I have to say that this is probably the best Nick Nolte Movie
posted on 21 Jan 2004The 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.
Outstanding writing and acting in a credible milieu.
posted on 13 Dec 2003"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
Fantastic, yet slightly fictionalized account
posted on 04 Nov 2003As 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.
- 1
- 2
Script missed the mark....
posted on 14 Jun 2009The problem with this movie is that the script missed the mark. By making Nolte's "gaff" the basis of the movie, the screenwriters missed the opportunity to focus on a love story set against the Samosa regime.Inevitably, the plight of Nicaraguans would not have been so easily dismissed by the audience, which ultimately was too small to include the average American, as evidenced by the ability of the American people to so easily Forgive Reagan and Oliver North for their part in continuing to persecute the Nicaraguan people.