Final Analysis - DePalma's Redacted = Thumbs Down! - SPOILER ALERT

I guess it is ending now since they are showing the still pictures mentioned in the descriptions.

Viewer warning: This movie contains multiple scenes of truly gruesome violence including a beheading, a rape, an IED explosion, and a shooting at a checkpoint that rival or surpass anything you've seen in Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now or in Schindler's List.

I found the portrayal heavy handed and one-sided and in some ways very realistic and in other ways very unrealistic.

Technical portrayals of uniforms and weapons, equipment, and locations seemed very realistic. The total lack of officers and NCO's supervising this squad of soldiers seemed highly unrealistic.

I found the "U-tubization" film style to be faddish, distracting and annoying. I know there is an internet, the whole world does but constantly switching styles and formats really detracted from my ability to stay in the moment of the film.

The effort to portray the soldiers as almost uniformly to a man as villians I found inappropriate and unrealistic and it will backfire on DePalma in his attempt to create a piece of film that would make Americans want to end the war. Had he given a more even handed depiction of the war or even of this particular real life incident it would work much better. An actual documentary based on the facts would have been much more persuasive than this very heavy handed treatment of DePalma's.

I actually find the actual news coverage of the war that has been on HDNet (Dan Rather Reports or other programs) to be much better than either this movie was or than the main stream media does it.

I'm no fan of the war and want to see it ended ASAP but I'm not a fan of this movie either. I certainly don't agree with FauxNew loudmouth Bill O'Reilly that it should be censored or banned but I do think that DePalma has done the movement to end the war in Iraq more harm than good with this film.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

It sounds like the painful shoe is on the other foot.

That's a shame, too. What an opportunity to tell a story against a backdrop that way too many Americans are simply ignoring.

A heavy hand never works--in brain surgery, cooking, or movie making, I suppose.

Pity they fucked it up. Thanks for the review, though.

of the equipment and weapons and location are excellent. The story line, although based on actual events, seems like DePalma just rehashed "Casualties of War" and moved it from Vietnam to Iraq and updated it a bit. Not a very good job I think.

Doug D.

When a director tries to go overboard on the old saint/sinner business, it never seems to work. I always laugh at skits where they have an overly dramatic director whining about the characters's "MotiVAtion" but it actually is key--no one starts out in life to be an asshole...! Ya gotta have a little nuance in there!

he was the analogue to Michael J. Fox's character in Casualties of War.

I mean like where was the entire chain of command in this movie? It was as though this squad was operating in a complete vacuum on its own. This alone, as the son of a career Army soldier made the film highly unrealistic to me. The after events post-rape also seemed to be highly one sided in terms of the Army's chain of command.

DePalma went overboard on portraying the soldier as villian and then stole too much from his own previous work on Casualties of War.

Doug D.

They should ask for feedback from the free audience, and maybe tweak the thing....if they've time.

Of course, there will always be the young 18 year old subset-demographic who will like the film for the violence alone, and to hell with any story associated with it.

I was career military, from a career military family, and I know what ya mean. I've done a shitload of joint assignments too, so I've seen how all branches play it--I get very annoyed when the portrayals are bogus--it ruins the progress of the storyline when some inaccurate load-o-crap jars the flow.

It depicts the life of our soldiers in Iraq, with hours and hours of boredom interspersed with hair trigger violence, not knowing who is innocent and who is trying to kill you.

The lack of a clear mission is apparent. The feeling of being a 'sitting duck' is palpable.

The promises that the soldiers will be 'going home tomorrow' only to be told that their tour has been extended once again, and it happens over and over, .... tomorrow never comes.

I didn't see all the soldiers portrayed as villians. In fact, some are trying very hard to hold onto to their moral standards in a very insane environment.

The use of the videocamera as the 'fly on the wall' style of filmmaking added to the intensity of the scenes shot. We see what the camera sees, no more and no less. The 'truth' cannot be captured by just one camera, but we can see enough pieces to fill in the picture of what is going on.

The juxtaposition of the Al Jazeera reports with the facts as we know them in this film help to explain the perspective of the Iraqis that want to kill our troops.

I think it will galvanize Americans to contemplate exactly what we are doing in Iraq if there is no mission we can accomplish there, and the need to end this war ASAP and bring the troops home.

It is not glorious. It is not logical. There are people dying every day in a conflict that will have no end as long as we have troops there.

The scenes of violence are very hard to watch. However, that drives home the point that this is what is going on over there, and our soldiers are in a no win situation. The beheading was gruesome. And the shooting of the expectant Iraqi mother at the checkpoint was a clear example of how our troops are locked into a survival protocol that puts them in an unwinnable situation. But the outcome for the innocent Iraqis hits you in the gut as well.

The rape of the 15 year old girl, and killing of her family by US soldiers is a direct depiction of a real life incident. However, it is not a documentary report but rather a dramatization of that real life event.

IF we get our troops home, they are definitely coming home with damaging memories of what they have seen and done. As a society we have to provide them with care and treatment they need to put their lives back on track. It is the least we can do.

I would recommend anyone planning to see this film should take a long deep breath before watching. I hope it will help the 'pro-war support the troops' Americans realize that we can best support the troops by bringing them home now and ending this war.

My 2 cents worth.

I disagree that the "video camera fly on the wall" style works here. I found it very irritating and distracting. I always find it irritating unless I'm actually using the internet. I hate the crawlers on the cable news networks too. Stick to the video and stick to one format! Maybe that makes me an old fogey but that's my two cents on style.

Where do we agree:

1) Yes war is hell as William Tecumseh Sherman once said and any war environment will be "insane" as you describe it and this film is no different than any other reasonably realistic war story in that regard.
2) The rape IS a real life story.
3) I agree that the war will not end until we leave (much as in Vietnam).

Where we disagree:

1) I think the film attempted to portray all the soldiers as villians except for the one soldier who reported the incident. This is a vast overreach by DePalma that causes the film to lose credibility. The film was doing great until the Sargeant got blown up - after that it really derailed.
2) I found the portrayal of the squad as totally unrealistic - there were no officers or NCO's in charge after the sargeant got blown up. This was almost as though DePalma scooped up a squad and put them in a test tube for some experiment and it really took away from any reality. The Army does not operate in such a vacuum of command and control.

I thought the scenes with the soldier reading the book about the 'appointment with death' were a counterweight to your argument that all the soldiers are villians. He refused to participate, tried to dissuade the others, was threatened and refused right up to the last minute before the soldiers left to commit the crimes. The soldier you referred to as being the one good guy IMHO was like a depiction of the 'flawed human' portrayed in Greek tragedies. He wanted to stop them, took steps to stop them, but when it became inevitable and his life was threatened he was unable to stop it. His inability to reconcile his conduct on that occasion with his own moral code demonstrates a moral standard that sets him apart from the others. I don't see him as a villian.

I agree with you that the depiction of a squad of soldiers with no officiers or NCO in charge is a major defect. But help me out --wasn't the soldier that reported the others their superior? He referred to one of the soldiers intent on raping the girl as a private, right? If he allowed them to engage in this conduct as their superior officier that is another tragedy unfolding.

Those I know who have served in the Military always know who is their superior and the chain of command. I think De Palma dispensed with this aspect of depiction because he wanted to focus on the main characters and the moral dilemma. But I agree with you that it appears that he created a vacuum of command and control.

Even so I think De Palma has illuminated the insanity that is in full reign in Iraq right now, and the unwinnable situation in which we have placed our troops. The absolute disaster for the Iraqi people. And the perpetuation of the disaster because it is not politically advantageous to stop this Administration from doing the same thing over and over even though it is not working.

Everyone was a private, a PFC or a corporal - none are considered NCO's. (E5 and above) or officers so he may have been higher ranking but not an officer or NCO.

I think DePalma dramatically skewed the depiction of things in Iraq. The real life incident was a horror show and a crime but I don't think the vast majority of our troops are monsters. That is where this thing really runs off the rails. The real life rape and murder was an anomaly, not the norm.

The shootings at check points are more common but the movie did fairly point out that knowing the good guy from the bad guy in this situation is a nearly impossible task when someone runs a checkpoint.

Again, a straightforward documentary (such as often runs on HDNet) would have been far more persuasive with me. The problem is not the troops (except for the few bad apples) the real problem is a Presidential administration run amok with its own ego and certainty and obsessions that ignores the rules at the top of the command chain.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Not enough time has passed for any filmmaker to gain a universally profound perspective on it, IMO. The most interesting, thought-provoking, heartstopping, and covert aspects of any conflict are usually brought to the attention of the general public after all the troops finally come home.

Of course, I could always be proved wrong....

Except for most of the Middle East, that is.

we'll see what happens. Personally, I'm shocked the U.S. Army didn't take the other three guys out to a public square in Baghdad and give them a firing squad over the real life rape and murder.

Doug D.

for anyone interested.

DePalma is not one of my favorites, but he took some chances in his approach and it didn't all pay off.

Gruesome violence? Of course there was.

after that it really started going off the rails for me.

Doug D.