User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 59 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 59
  2. Negative: 29 out of 59
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JackG
    Mar 7, 2008
    7
    The movie itself is based on the true events of mahmudiyah killing in Iraq where a group of US soldiers raped a 14 year old girl, burned her body, and murdered her family. They all kept their mouths shut until one of the men told a psychiatrist. Months later 2 soldiers from the same platoon were abducted/tortured/murdered in an act of revenge, the reasons as to why were not made public The movie itself is based on the true events of mahmudiyah killing in Iraq where a group of US soldiers raped a 14 year old girl, burned her body, and murdered her family. They all kept their mouths shut until one of the men told a psychiatrist. Months later 2 soldiers from the same platoon were abducted/tortured/murdered in an act of revenge, the reasons as to why were not made public until months after the kidnappings. The movie stays pretty close to the facts. It does shine a negative light on the American invasion of Iraq but it is also a film about a gang rape and murder of a 14 year old and her family. I thought it was a pretty good movie overall, the special effects, locations, and props used were very good. The acting may have seemed a little cheesy a couple times, but this movie is about getting the story out more than anything. If this movie makes you mad at the filmmakers, then you really need to open your eyes at the bigger picture. Expand
  2. ChadS.
    Feb 21, 2008
    8
    An internet slam poetess self-aggrandizingly vociferates about Hollywood's uneven depiction of American and Third World lives, in which a film like "Casualties of War" would be an exception to the rule, because it forces an audience to face the dissonant music of war; that the soldiers, "our boys", we see in the military recruitment videos nothing but mere end-products of wishful An internet slam poetess self-aggrandizingly vociferates about Hollywood's uneven depiction of American and Third World lives, in which a film like "Casualties of War" would be an exception to the rule, because it forces an audience to face the dissonant music of war; that the soldiers, "our boys", we see in the military recruitment videos nothing but mere end-products of wishful thinking. Like the underrated 1989 film starring Michael J. Fox & Sean Penn, American soldiers rape and kill a girl in "Redacted", a no-holds barred film that indicts everybody from filmmakers(even himself, he who directed "Casualties of War") to journalists, as profiteers of other people's misery and suffering. The faux-documentary, the film within the film, shows us how the media, not only soldiers, occupy a military state and act as collaborators of death. Salazar(Izzy Diaz) shoots his "war diary" to get into film school; the French documentarians shoot their film(judging by their flagrant use of artistry; the ants taking down the scorpion) to gain entrance into film festivals and win awards. When a young Iraqi girl's body is delved into by an American soldier's hands at checkpoint, the man behind the camera should turn it off, walk into that private holding room, and separate that marine from the nubile. It's more important to the filmmaker that he catch an American soldier behaving badly than being a decent human being. "Redacted" deconstructs the documentary film. To quote director Francis Ford Coppola when asked by a reporter about "Apocalypse Now" at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival, "This is Vietnam..." Expand
  3. PhilP
    Jun 1, 2008
    2
    I'm as liberal and anti-war (this one) as you can get. The movie simply sucks. You guys ought to focus on that. I haven't seen such a poorly acted or scripted piece of crap since Point Break. Horribly done in every way. If somebody wants t make a good movie about this incident, I'm all for it.
  4. MannyR.
    Jun 3, 2008
    10
    Really should not have been released in theaters. However, it is solid made for TV material. The cast, for the most part, is horrible but they are supposed to be. You will never see these actors again save for one perhaps, the Blix character. Anyhow, it does represent the insanity and truth of the Iraq war well and what sends it over the top are the refugee interviews included with the Really should not have been released in theaters. However, it is solid made for TV material. The cast, for the most part, is horrible but they are supposed to be. You will never see these actors again save for one perhaps, the Blix character. Anyhow, it does represent the insanity and truth of the Iraq war well and what sends it over the top are the refugee interviews included with the DVD. For those giving it zeroes based on its 'propaganda', I would suggest that it is you who are completely and utterly brain-washed. One listen to Winter Soldier or Dar Jamaal's site or alternative news should correct that. It isn't a technical marvel but it is thought-provoking and does attempt to convey truth. Expand
  5. EdwinN
    Jun 30, 2009
    9
    Excellent reconstruction of a disgraceful act,Brian De Palma's Redacted is a shocking,saddening and absorbing portrayal of American soliders in Iraq. Just like in his precedent masterpiece,"The Casualties of War", De Palma films soldiers in a way nobody ever could,in a cinema-verite approach that reminds Peter Watkins 70s flicks like "The War Game" or some of Watakamatsu's more Excellent reconstruction of a disgraceful act,Brian De Palma's Redacted is a shocking,saddening and absorbing portrayal of American soliders in Iraq. Just like in his precedent masterpiece,"The Casualties of War", De Palma films soldiers in a way nobody ever could,in a cinema-verite approach that reminds Peter Watkins 70s flicks like "The War Game" or some of Watakamatsu's more abstract features about the Japanese army. "Redacted" also posesses visual and technical advances, with ambivalent camera movements and masterful editing with dual shots and different types of views(in the narrative sense of way).Influences are heavy, but in a positive way,not in a Quentin Tarantino way:Watkins,Costa-Gavras or even early Godard(This films presents diverse similitudes to Le Petit Soldat).It floats between fiction and reality, between documentary and stylish cinema,and remind us of the atrocities of the Iraqi war with a powerful touch: This is triple the shock, a lot more than lesser documentaries such as "Iraq in Fragments" or "Taxi to the Dark Side".Chapeau,Mr. De Palma, for your work has been as rich on the outside,than on the inside. Style and substance grandeur never felt better. Expand
  6. R
    Aug 3, 2009
    0
    Isn't modern-day cinema great? Steven Spielberg can make a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" that not only shows the horrific realities of war, but also shows the Americans as the good guys. I've seen "Saving Private Ryan" be called "biased" simply because the real bad guys, the Nazi soldiers, are portrayed as, guess what, the bad guys. But when a movie like "Redacted" is Isn't modern-day cinema great? Steven Spielberg can make a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" that not only shows the horrific realities of war, but also shows the Americans as the good guys. I've seen "Saving Private Ryan" be called "biased" simply because the real bad guys, the Nazi soldiers, are portrayed as, guess what, the bad guys. But when a movie like "Redacted" is released, the far left nut jobs who hate America simply because its the latest fad hail it as a cinematic masterpiece because it shows the American troops as the good guys. Those three soldiers disgraced themselves and their country and are now rightfully rotting away in prison. However, this de Palma takes the heinous actions of just three individuals and makes them seem like the commonplace activities of the brace men and women overseas. He exploited a tragedy solely so he could push the leftist agenda of antagonizing the soldiers who have fought and died to give him the right to make this movie. Expand
  7. equality7-2521
    Nov 26, 2007
    10
    Just saw this at Sunset & Cresent Heights. Not sure why only one showing per night... at 9:50PM. I think even Laemmle theaters is afraid of the film. Well, I'm in awe of Brian DePalma. I tip my hat to him. Ranks among his best, right alongside "Blow Out", "Casualties of War", "Carrie", "Sisters", and what was that underrated flick with Rebecca Romain - she played twins? Anyway, even Just saw this at Sunset & Cresent Heights. Not sure why only one showing per night... at 9:50PM. I think even Laemmle theaters is afraid of the film. Well, I'm in awe of Brian DePalma. I tip my hat to him. Ranks among his best, right alongside "Blow Out", "Casualties of War", "Carrie", "Sisters", and what was that underrated flick with Rebecca Romain - she played twins? Anyway, even if you're a not a DePalma fan, you'll get to see what the American media refuses to show us. THIS IS WHAT IT'S REALLY LIKE, PEOPLE! Not only is it a well crafted film, it has something to say!! It wants YOU to WAKE UP!! So a couple of human interest stories got through the corp. and gov't filtered media: Abu Ghraib and the rape of a teenage Iraqi girl by U.S. military personnel... I wonder what else we've been missing. I saw the 16 minute press conference on YouTube, that's what compelled me to drive over and check it out. BTW, most of the reviewers posting on here are merely lemming disciples of FOX News and B. O'Reilly. Posting reviews about a film they haven't seen. Sad. Expand
  8. JimC.
    Dec 4, 2007
    5
    Although I've given this film a "5" (generally the critical consensus at this point), I have to admit I haven't yet seen it...so I am abstaining from giving "my" opinion on this film. However, I wanted to post anyway because it's plainly obvious that nearly every "0" review (including the two longest comments!) hasn't seen it either. Look, I have no problem with Although I've given this film a "5" (generally the critical consensus at this point), I have to admit I haven't yet seen it...so I am abstaining from giving "my" opinion on this film. However, I wanted to post anyway because it's plainly obvious that nearly every "0" review (including the two longest comments!) hasn't seen it either. Look, I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. If this film is poorly made, if it presents an unrealistic view of American soldiers in Iraq, then I'm ALL FOR condemning it as trash. My problem is when people who obviously have a political axe to grind come on here and pillory this film without even having seen it. To these people, it wouldn't matter if every critic in the nation gave it a 10, they'd STILL attack it as "un-American", "Anti-soldier", and every other insult you could think of...without even seeing it!!! This has got to stop, and I hope those who are genuinely thinking of seeing this film make up their minds based on PROFESSIONAL CRITICS rather than the Jane T's and Josh C's of the world. Take your ideology someplace else, this is a FILM site...it's for people who WATCH the movies and THEN offer opinions. Thank you. Expand
  9. RogerC.
    Nov 16, 2007
    9
    A passionate 21st century anti-war movie. It's like "Casualties of War" in theme: war creates war criminals. But it's very up-to-date technically. We no longer believe in the third-person omniscient camera. Now we wamt to know who's holding the camera and why and how. So we see the video from the aspiring film student, the French documentary, the Arab TV station, the video A passionate 21st century anti-war movie. It's like "Casualties of War" in theme: war creates war criminals. But it's very up-to-date technically. We no longer believe in the third-person omniscient camera. Now we wamt to know who's holding the camera and why and how. So we see the video from the aspiring film student, the French documentary, the Arab TV station, the video blog for Iraq spouses, the exclusive footage for embedded Americam journalists, the Arab website, the terrorist video, the home movie of the returned veteran etc. DePalma is reminding us of how we get our information. But, when you reconstruct all these pieces, you get back to the same message. War is brutal and brutalizing. Expand
  10. TedM.
    Nov 18, 2007
    2
    Neocons will hate it? Hardly. Neocons won't see it. Frankly, Liberals won't see it either. 2 of my liberal friends started watching it on HDNet on Thursday night and were bored to death before the first hour concluded. That's the biggest sin in moving-making. Don't bore your audience. What a pathetic Friday showing, by the way. The movie didn't even register at Neocons will hate it? Hardly. Neocons won't see it. Frankly, Liberals won't see it either. 2 of my liberal friends started watching it on HDNet on Thursday night and were bored to death before the first hour concluded. That's the biggest sin in moving-making. Don't bore your audience. What a pathetic Friday showing, by the way. The movie didn't even register at Boxofficemojo. Why the Landmark in LA would waste a screen on this pity party is beyond me. Expand
  11. MatthewF
    Nov 19, 2007
    0
    Dreadfully boring, poorly acted, and hateful and bigoted in its design. Arguably the worst film of the year and easily the nadir of DePalma's career. Even for propaganda, it's trash. Save your $9.50 and give it to a charity.
  12. MC
    Nov 24, 2007
    0
    Someone just trying to make a name for themselves and hasn't made a movies worth watching in years.
  13. JamesR.
    Nov 20, 2007
    0
    How about a movie showing AQs beheading of children, Brian, ever thought of making that? Between this and Scarface you have a nice little body count on your hands. Oh yeah, the movie sucked by the way.
  14. DavidA
    Nov 29, 2007
    0
    Brian De Palma's "Redacted" argues that the horrors of the Iraq war are being kept from us by inept or venal news media and the government's propaganda machine. That's a tenable premise for a provocative documentary; the horrors of every war elude description, and Mr. De Palma is clearly desperate to get a purchase on the chaotic nature of this one. But his film isn't Brian De Palma's "Redacted" argues that the horrors of the Iraq war are being kept from us by inept or venal news media and the government's propaganda machine. That's a tenable premise for a provocative documentary; the horrors of every war elude description, and Mr. De Palma is clearly desperate to get a purchase on the chaotic nature of this one. But his film isn't a documentary. It's a work of propaganda in its turn, a digitally photographed meditation on our media-saturated age in which our men in uniform, like the news crews that cover them, create their own realities by shooting digital video of their exploits. The film's core is a speculative and utterly unconvincing reconstruction of an incident that reportedly involved, among many horrors, the rape and savage killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by members of a U.S. army squad. The Americans are portrayed with varying degrees of loathsomeness, but there's not much variety in the film. It's all an awful aberration. Why not make a film about the many rapes of Iraqi women by their fellow Muslims? Or about how many U.S. troops have saved countless women from the mass raping of Uday and Qusay Hussein or the rapes by their fighting Sunni and Shi'ite co-religionists? Well, DePalma would never do movies on those things. Because, hey, they aren't anti-American. And that would portray the Muslims, not American troops, in a bad light. And we can't have that in Hollywood. Expand
  15. MichaelM.
    Dec 1, 2007
    0
    I snuck in after another movie got out, Watched about 20 minutes got tired of it fast and left. There was 3 people in the theater when I left.
  16. Davidd.
    Dec 4, 2007
    0
    I couldn't have said it any better Jason! What a piece of trash!!
  17. MartinF.
    Feb 19, 2008
    10
    The Americans hate the fact that the world hates them. Their propaganda machine is powerless against one thing: truth. Only simple truth distinguishes ugly from the pure. Likewise, users and critics didn't hesitate to show their ugliness and beauty with their ratings here, as if they can bend the truth in any way.
  18. SeanF
    Feb 21, 2008
    6
    Not as good or as bad as most say. An interesting/controversial look at what U.S. troops are accomplishing in Iraq. I don't see why some have branded this movie unpatriotic. If we don't think about things like this, how can we learn from the mistakes of history, and improve our actions in the world in the future?
  19. JadeK
    Mar 14, 2008
    10
    It's important that someone portrays what is really happening. A must see for the whole family!
  20. robs
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    The reason the world hates the U.S. is because of dishonest movies like this one made by the blame America first crowd.
  21. R.Lopez
    Nov 15, 2007
    0
    Psuedo-documentary whose only purpose is to advance the idea that US soldiers in Iraq are beasts. DePalma should be tarred and feathered. If it were 1944 and FDR was president, that is exactly what would happen.
  22. JasonS.
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Hateful anti-war propaganda.
  23. MarcS.
    Nov 16, 2007
    10
    The neocons will hate it.
  24. JoshHarvey
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Bad from start to finish. If you loath America you may like this movie. For anyone else you will just be relieved when it's over.
  25. PhillipP.
    Nov 17, 2007
    0
    Strident left-wing hate made all the more irritating by the holier than thou pretentiousness of DePalma. Ironic coming from a man who's made a living making pseudo-pornos of women being slaughtered.
  26. EtainP
    Nov 18, 2007
    0
    Are you a hardcore leftist who wakes up every morning seething with hatred towards Chimpy McHitler? Well you'll probably hate this movie too. It may be a leftist propaganda movie, but its an incredibly poorly made leftist propaganda movie. Sorry.
  27. Shawn
    Nov 21, 2007
    0
    This isn't anti-war, its anti-american.
  28. JaneT
    Nov 21, 2007
    0
    This film is just great, isn't it? We have about 200,000 men and women presently in combat zones, and far-left Hollywood loons want to denigrate the country..The film is based on a real-life event that has resulted in three soldiers being tried, convicted, and sent to prison for life. Yet DePalma wants the world to see this horror in living color. He wants this for political reasons, This film is just great, isn't it? We have about 200,000 men and women presently in combat zones, and far-left Hollywood loons want to denigrate the country..The film is based on a real-life event that has resulted in three soldiers being tried, convicted, and sent to prison for life. Yet DePalma wants the world to see this horror in living color. He wants this for political reasons, as he freely admits. Speaking before journalists in Italy, DePalma said: "The movie is an attempt to bring to reality what's happening in Iraq to the American people ... the pictures are what will stop the war." Here's how stupid that statement is: Overwhelmingly, American forces in Iraq have behaved with restraint and are trying to protect Iraqi civilians from terrorists who blow up women and children. That is the reality, pal. Your movie takes the exception and attempts to make it the rule. Not only that, but "Redacted" will play around the world and may well incite young Muslim men, already steeped in hatred toward America and the west, to act on their hatred. If just one of those men straps on a bomb vest and murders people, that is on Brian DePalma. My question is, why make a film like this? Most people will avoid it; who wants to see that kind of stuff? It definitely smears the military, and may even put our forces in physical danger. Why do this? In the summer of 1942, the Office of War Information, set up by President Franklin Roosevelt, censored American films which depicted scenes that might be used as "enemy propaganda." Few in Hollywood objected to the so-called "Production Code." The liberal icon, FDR, understood that war is so gruesome and chaotic that no civilian population could absorb it visually and still remain upbeat and committed to victory. Imagine seeing live shots of the D-Day invasion or the horror of Iwo Jima. Even during the Vietnam War, Hollywood did not examine the terrible conflict on film. It was only after the war had ended that you had movies like "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now." But things have changed drastically in America. Today, it is chic among some in the entertainment industry to bash America and put it in a harsh light... even while Americans are dying overseas. It's freedom of expression, they say. Well, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it right. Fair-minded Americans should realize that in any war, mistakes will be made; horrifying things like Abu Ghraib will happen. These things need to be dealt with, but not exploited for political gain. The American military is doing important, noble work. Brian DePalma and the others who back him should be ashamed. They are hurting their own country. Expand
  29. paulh
    Nov 20, 2007
    9
    A very brave movie interestingly told. It is not anti-american:rather against the american presence in iraq and cant be called leftist in any degree.the montage sequence of photos at the end is incredibly powerful. A thoroughly modern piece of film-making and de palma deserved his award at venice. For those who are angry at this movie remember that it is based on real events.in the end it A very brave movie interestingly told. It is not anti-american:rather against the american presence in iraq and cant be called leftist in any degree.the montage sequence of photos at the end is incredibly powerful. A thoroughly modern piece of film-making and de palma deserved his award at venice. For those who are angry at this movie remember that it is based on real events.in the end it does not make one angry but sad.this movie of course will get savaged in the states but for those interested it is definitely worth checking out. Dont expect saving private ryan however. Expand
  30. JasonS
    Nov 22, 2007
    0
    Liberals and terrorists will love it.
  31. DogSoldier
    Oct 19, 2008
    10
    To all the Fascist that gave the film a 0:The check point in your mind has been over run. Nothing,not 7 years of occupation, will win the hearts and minds of this "Axis of Evil", "WMD threat to us", country. Reminds me of Nam 1967/8. And now,long after 11years war,58,000 dead and I can buy quality Vietnamese merchandise at many superstores throughout the US. Its not politics,its economics To all the Fascist that gave the film a 0:The check point in your mind has been over run. Nothing,not 7 years of occupation, will win the hearts and minds of this "Axis of Evil", "WMD threat to us", country. Reminds me of Nam 1967/8. And now,long after 11years war,58,000 dead and I can buy quality Vietnamese merchandise at many superstores throughout the US. Its not politics,its economics and I sure hope we get a good OIL deal. I mean we EARNED it, right FASCISTS scum ? Expand
  32. j
    Feb 12, 2008
    6
    Powerful film, generally it is believably done, but there are a couple of scenes that don't ring true. A compelling piece of filmmaking, gritty and realistically filmed. The acting is fair. I have to give credit to director Brian de Palma for at least trying something different.
  33. LasloO.
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Pure garbage.
  34. JoshC
    Nov 21, 2007
    0
    Just in time for Thanksgiving, the vile movie "Redacted" is opening in a few theatres this week. The film, financed by billionaire Mark Cuban and directed by far-left bomb thrower Brian DePalma, features drunken American soldiers in Iraq raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl and then slaughtering her family. There isn't any doubt in my mind that film like this will be displayed Just in time for Thanksgiving, the vile movie "Redacted" is opening in a few theatres this week. The film, financed by billionaire Mark Cuban and directed by far-left bomb thrower Brian DePalma, features drunken American soldiers in Iraq raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl and then slaughtering her family. There isn't any doubt in my mind that film like this will be displayed prominently on jihadi websites, and will be used as a recruiting tool by terrorists. No doubt. Both DePalma and Cuban are unrepentant and apparently could not care less about putting U.S. troops in even more danger. Cuban opines that it is wrong to condemn the film without seeing it, but that's incredible nonsense. No one denies the movie puts American soldiers in the worst light possible. Saying you can't condemn 'Redacted' without seeing it is like saying you can't condemn crystal meth without taking it. So what's to be done here? In a free society, Mark Cuban is entitled to make this despicable movie. Our military people have fought and died to give him that right. Isn't that ironic? Cuban uses his freedom and his money, made in America, to put our troops at further risk. How does the guy live with himself? This isn't about the Iraq war or the war on terror. This is about fellow citizens. Even during the ultra-contentious Vietnam conflict, Hollywood didn't make films that aided the enemy. Jane Fonda made a personal appearance in North Vietnam that did that, and she is still paying for it to this day. Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Maverick basketball team and has been seen gyrating on TV's "Dancing With the Stars." While Cuban is doing the cha-cha, almost 200,000 brave Americans are on far-away battlegrounds. Picture the image of Cuban dancing around juxtaposed with scenes of the hardship our troops face everyday. Sounds like it would make an interesting movie sequence, don't you think? There comes a time when good people must make a stand, and this is one of those times. Cuban and DePalma have done a bad thing; they have made life even harder for our troops. There is no excuse for "Redacted." The incident is based on a true story, but those who committed the crimes are in prison for life. You don't celebrate this kind of aberration with a movie Expand
  35. AndrewT
    Nov 26, 2007
    0
    Total anti-military/anti-American trash. liberals and terrorists will love it. i just wish it was in print, so at least I could wipe my a.s with it.
  36. CarlC
    Dec 13, 2007
    0
    Just horrible to watch and directed by someone that is past his prime and really needs to retire.
  37. PeterF.
    Dec 14, 2007
    10
    An important contribution to recognizing the hidden costs of our illegal invasion.
  38. PeterP
    Dec 18, 2007
    10
    This movie is great, stop complaining
Metascore
52

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 30
  2. Negative: 4 out of 30
  1. Anyone who sees the suffering faces of the victims in "Casualties" and "Redacted" knows that De Palma not only despairs over what he’s showing us but implicates his own medium--his own male gaze--in the crimes against nature.
  2. 60
    Brian De Palma's Redacted doesn't quite work as a movie. But it works as SOMETHING.
  3. De Palma's screenplay is outstanding, and he draws wonderfully naturalistic performances from his youthful cast.