It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Brian De Palma's film "Redacted", made in the form of documentary film, which gives more action and tension of true events in Iraq. We talk about the crimes covered up the U.S. military in Iraq, in peacetime 2006 g. The rape of 15-year-old girl and killing her family. Very startling film, with staff showing the true and original footage of the massacre in Iraq. I thought it was one of the many war movies, many of a hundred I watched. But, it pleasantly surprised me.

Now that it is 8 years since the film came out and 12 years since the Iraq War, there is a lot of comedy that comes through, raising the entertainment value of this film. You may criticize the contrivances through a dramatic lens, but as comedy, it's more realistic!Back when it came out, it was probably easy to dismiss the film as propaganda, but with 8 more years of digital media and internet savvy under our belts, more of us can probably agree now, what isn't propaganda? Manipulation of every story is a given, either on purpose, or by ignorance. Corporate media has priorities and so do individual bloggers - reasonable priorities including their own survival and raison d'etre. The context and intention is what makes a fact exist, not a blind hard-on for what you believe is truth or morality. Otherwise you are a already victim, who will cause others to become victims. What is your intention, and how does your art and voice fall in line with it? That is the true acid test that can be accounted for, objectively. The more of these honest voices we have that are heard, we are not hostage to one "official story" of one intention, and thereby we can get closer to having our own voice heard.De Palma showed how weak and helpless we all are, all around. If that was his intention, he was in line with it. I haven't seen any other modern war film accomplish this, as honestly. In fact, I felt a lot of sympathy for the bad soldiers, because they were just weak-minded kids with no prospects who were given a license to kill, without being educated. Critics have argued against the film, saying that the soldiers in "real" life went to jail. That's a little too easy and naive way to say justice was served. Actually, it's a comic shame that the crime they committed might even be the height of their life's glory. They are just young fools with hard-ons they can't control, put into battle by nameless politicians elected by nameless citizens. They were weak enough to become criminals and we led them to the crime. In this country, it's not like anyone forces us who to elect as our representatives. No one likes to admit we have blood on our hands. We fear like any other person does. To acknowledge we are all fools, is the only way to move forward.

I'm not going to give a massive in depth review of the film as I don't have the words or ability to do so. However, I can say that I did enjoy it as a film, very powerful and moving.One thing that I MUST recommend that people do though, especially everyone saying that 'It's not an accurate representation of the military', or 'It's just one sided gibberish' or criticisms of such ilk is to read 'Black Hearts' by Jim Frederick. Basically, the film is a dramatised version of this book, which gives a very frank and honest (in my opinion anyway) breakdown and description of the situation that these soldiers were facing, and had faced. I say fair play to the film for just dumping the viewer in the middle of the story. Why should there be a massive lengthy background detailing each and every character's history? If anything, something like that is just insulting the viewer's intelligence in such matters. The film is not saying that 'Waa, army people are bad', think about the situation for a minute.

The medium is the message, so said Marshall McLuhan. This means of course that our reaction to news is dependent on how it is presented. We seeing is often more believable than reading for example.McLuhan would easily admit the Redacted is flawed, but at the same time he may just praise it for proving his point. Brian de Palma's latest film takes him away from what he has done for pretty much his entire career. This motion picture is very much a case of substance over style (not the other way around). Well I wouldn't say it has no style. de Palma still relies on a visual format to help, but this is new terrain for him. Redacted is a multimedia recreational documentary of events surrounding a gang rape in Iraq where a pair of US soldiers sexually assaulted and killed a fifteen year old girl. They were later turned in by their buddy who refused to take part. He got the news out on a Youtube video wearing a mask.At first glance, Reacted appears as a black-and-white statement; an anti American dis- approval of the war in Iraq. Even when one stops to think for a moment, it is still hard to deny that the film is against the war, but it is NOT necessarily anti American. De Palma is open to giving an explanation for why these boys would resort to such behaviour. It is not because they are dumb or under educated, but more because after spending so long so far away from home in dreadful conditions, they begin to loose a sense of humanity. There is a difference between being an ass and being crazy.Redacted's problem I think is not so much a question of smarts, but a question of set-up. The introduction feels too much like a Godard movie. De Palma's decision to use clips of a French documentary for setting exposition make the beginning seem kind of muddled and unclear. What is this movie about? the people or the place? Redacted's multi media approach has a very visceral effect on the viewer, but its side effect is that it is ill equips for story telling, due to a sense of choppiness. One of the downsides of realism, which I have never been partial to, but this one, is actually pretty good. I think it is educational, and strong enough to recommend