Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The first thing to say about Brian de Palma's "Redacted" is that it is - in my view - a good film, so the low average it has gained on IMDb might be treated with a pinch of salt. Doubtless this is also a controversial film, but that does not negate the fact that it looks like well-done cinema to me, if maybe only to me! Rather uniquely, and mostly I feel very persuasively, it purports to bring together a soldier's own video diary account with footage from French documentary-makers and international news organisations, reporting in Arabic and even illicit Islamist websites celebrating the deaths of American service personnel. This imparts a very fresh, different and multi-faceted look to the movie.Needless to say this is the Iraq War, the year 2006, with Amman (Jordan) standing in very effectively for Samarra, Iraq. The makers are very cagey here about what they are portraying, using quite contorted phrasing at the start of the film to suggest - if I get it correctly - that they are fictionalising in order to offer an account of events quite closely resembling a loathsome incident that actually happened. The title "Redacted" is of course a different take on that well-known quote in fact appearing early on in the film, to the effect that "the first casualty of war is the truth".The quote in fact comes as our team of US Army personnel is first being presented, and what is clear at this point is that they are inexperienced, lightish-hearted and upbeat, rather cohesive as a unit, and still imbued with a sense of mission. And it is here that the first "timeless" elements make themselves felt.Perhaps it is cliché, but more likely just the real story that teams of non-commissioned military everywhere from Sharpe and Hornblower to "The Cruel Sea" to "Platoon" to "Mash" to you name it tend to include the handsome one, the educated one, the cynical one, the crafty one, the fat one, the naive one and so on. It is no different here.Even more compelling and moving is the way we quickly home in on what has been the fate of the occupying soldier for centuries (though let's elect to leave Nazi Germany out of the comparison). If war in general is famously "boredom punctuated by moments of terror", how much more is that true for the soldier in an occupying army? At least anyway where that army hails from a democratic country seeking to portray itself as a world policeman, rather than any kind of hideous and ruthless dictatorship?To begin with it's of course hot and alien and protracted and one feels bad most of the time. But that's just the physical conditions. The film sets about showing us more-experienced, several-tour NCOs encouraging the new guys out of fraternising or attempting to win over hearts and minds, and of course out of lowering their guard ... for even a second. For the no-win truth here is that most local people do not want the Americans to be there, and there has to be a reasonable suspicion that some will actively seek to kill them, others will assist in that killing, still others will not stand in the way of that killing, while very few indeed (though not of course zero) will have much interest in bridge-building. At the same time, ordinary Iraqis will naturally be trying to get on with some semblance of normal life, which the heavy-handed presence of US forces will tend to obstruct severely, only encouraging further resentment.There's just no way through this, then, is there? So our soldiers' hearts and minds harden; boredom, tension, regular exposure to death and cynicism do their work; substances are resorted to; and the effect may be to raise their survival chances, but only at the cost of yet a further deterioration in relations with the Iraqi people. And of course mistakes are made.All this leaves an occupant soldier's options (from deep in history through to the present day) as to desert and face the dire potential consequences, to get out (eventually), to be invalided out, to come back in a body bag or to engage in the step-by-step sacrifice of chunks of humanity. Interestingly, officers may enjoy certain real chances to work to improve relations over time, but this is not much the lot of the "PBI" routinely required to do the dirty work...Given the film's well-known subject matter, it is loss of humanity (and decline of esprit de corps) that we witness above all, as well as attempts to conceal bad things. Yet, while one certainly admires greatly - and thankfully identifies with - the several members of the team whose view of right and wrong remains less jaded (despite losing friends and colleagues in hideous ways), it (rather shockingly) does not seem quite as easy as it ought to be to point the finger at their colleagues who go off the rails and commit awful war crimes. For we have seen - step by step - how people we could wave the flag for and admire have been brought low by circumstances beyond their control, and somehow we have slightly shared in that process. This is not exactly a comfortable sensation for the viewer, who has clearly also been partly dehumanised by even 80 minutes of (of course vicarious!) exposure. But war is indeed hell, and many in it end up doing evil things; and we who have never participated need to be put in the picture better before casting too many stones... Such is my take on what I would regard as the worthwhile film "Redacted", which mostly features little-known actors, and was panned by many critics, most typically for lack of reality or authenticity of presentation ... of all things!

Redacted is a brutal and realistic war drama from director Brian De Palma. Done in a documentary style; it reminded me of The Hurt Locker, with mostly hand held camera shots. The controversy surrounding the film is due to the fact that it is loosely based on the rape of a girl by a group of American soldiers in Iraq in 2006. The criticism stems from De Palma not adding the outcome of the jail sentences of the guilty in real life. The studio claims that it was done for legal reasons and they clearly state that it is a work of fiction. Aside from the politics, I found Redacted to be a better than average war movie. It is bloody and violent and the men in uniform are shown with all of the difficult choices they must make under horrific circumstances. Ignore the loud mouths like Bill O ' Reilly, another tough guy, like Hannity and Limbaugh, who never actually were in the military. Thank You, Mr. De Palma, for standing by your work.

I had to watch Redacted as i watched every footage referred as documentaries or inspired of war. From a strict movie point of view, nice attempt to show true combat nature and i respect someone taking the means to show his opinion.On the other hand,as an Afghanistan combat vet, the in-accuracy of both tactical and psychological make-up just does not add up.The movie is unfair for everyone, it does not represent truly the soldiers devotion to a mission and civilians courage to live through it.The type of soldiers flashed in the movie is the 0.5% that makes 95% of the combat errors that cost so much for everyone, the movie flashes you corpses,blood,sand,pain and mindless actions. I expected before the end at least something positive done by U.S troops, nope, which proves me that the movie is driven by a personal dislike of military action no matter the cause.But like i said , i respect that,i just wish someone like De Palma would be brilliant enough to at least show that good is also made over there. The last spree of images is quite supporting my point, no images of soldiers actually suffering from what they are trying to accomplish. I still recommend someone to watch it as cultural matter as to see how can someone express his vision of a conflict yet he never really faced himself... There is better movies than this one to represent the real stakes and toll of modern conflicts.

Bad acting, silly plot which is probably the real reason for the bad acting. The female reporter following the soldiers on a mission and asking them questions and disputing their tactics is laughable. It wreaks of propaganda. The mixed media is bad and only an excuse to show off more bad acting. If it is fiction it paints soldiers in a bad light which is unforgivable as it ultimately fails to help us understand the insane stress a soldier in any war from any country must go through. It simply stereotypes soldiers as being dumb, violent criminals. If it is based on reality it is the reality of someone tripping without getting into the mechanics of the emotions that accompany reality. The only thing it shows that seems to be "real" is that people die and bad things happen in war! Duh! Everyone on the planet knows that, except maybe Rumsfeld. Give us a film that helps to understand war or the people that fight them. This film's only purpose seems to be of an inflammatory nature. America bashing. The world does not need more of this. If I want to see that I will watch the real thing on Al-jazeera or Russian TV. Obviously a movie written by someone who has no understanding of war or the situation in Iraq and so imagines things to compensate. De Palma is way overrated. The best thing about this is the soundtrack. So buy the CD not the DVD, you won't regret it.