Under Fire (1983)

Memorable, crazy movie

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

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Been 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.

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

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.