Sotto tiro

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.