CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED "REDACTED" TO PREMIERE AS SNEAK PREVIEW ON HDNET MOVIES Film to Premiere Prior to its National Theatrical Release Exclusively as an HDNet Movies Sneak Preview this Wednesday, November 14 at 10:15 p.m. ET DALLAS (November 12) - REDACTED, Brian De Palma's film about the Iraqi war experience has garnered praise from movie critics around the world, and now HDNet Movies viewers can catch this film at home, prior to it's theatrical release, as part of HDNet Movies Sneak Preview. HDNet Movies will offer REDACTED as a special Sneak Preview this Wednesday, November 14 at 10:15 p.m. ET, with an encore presentation at 12:00 midnight. All Sneak Preview films are free to HDNet Movies subscribers. When REDACTED premiered to audiences at the Venice International Film Festival, critics raved. David Ansen of Newsweek called REDACTED, "Angry. Powerful. Incendiary." While David Edelstein of New York Magazine called it "The movie everyone will be talking about." "REDACTED is a perfect choice for HDNet Movies Sneak Previews," said Mark Cuban. "We want to present our viewers with the opportunity to preview films that are critically acclaimed and thought-provoking." A fictional story inspired by true events, REDACTED is a unique cinematic experience that will force viewers to radically reconsider the filters through which we see and accept events in our world, the power of the mediated image and how presentation and composition influence our ideas and beliefs. Centered around a small group of American soldiers stationed at a checkpoint in Iraq, REDACTED alternates points of view, balancing the experiences of these young men under duress and members of the media with those of the local Iraqi people, illuminating how each have been deeply affected by the current conflict and their encounters with each other. The charged apotheosis of Brian De Palma's filmmaking career, REDACTED caps off a body of work which has explored the politics of image-making and reception more fully than any living filmmaker. REDACTED will air free to HDNet Movies viewers this Wednesday, November 14 at 10:15 p.m. ET, with an encore presentation at 12:00 midnight.Set those DVRs now! Read a couple of glowing Ain’t It Cool reviews for “Redacted” here!
Nov. 12, 2007, 7:22 p.m. CST
by Charlie Murphy
that's pretty much unheard of, yes?
Nov. 12, 2007, 7:24 p.m. CST
Nov. 12, 2007, 7:40 p.m. CST
Does that mean a theatrical release is soon? Anyone have any ideas?
Nov. 12, 2007, 8:27 p.m. CST
Nov. 12, 2007, 8:29 p.m. CST
I don't know if this'll still apply, but if a first run movie is shown on TV before it's released in theaters, does it mean it's ineligible for the Academy Awards?
Nov. 12, 2007, 8:42 p.m. CST
You know who else pulls this shit? The Sci-Fi channel. I'm no longer interested in this movie.
Nov. 12, 2007, 8:50 p.m. CST
I don't think I have that channel, but I have Discovery HD Theater. Which will be airing a two hour documentary on video game culture called, Gamer Generation airing Nov 22
Nov. 12, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST
De Palma and the cast of 'Redacted' discuss the film and De Palma's plans for another Iraq war film...also contains a tidbit about the status of the upcoming 'Untouchables' prequel. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/moviegeeksunited/2007/11/08/Get-your-geek-on
Nov. 12, 2007, 9:06 p.m. CST
At one theater somewhere in Northern Cali... which qualifies it for award season, although unless the Academy is extra sad and depressed this year, look for Redacted awards strictly in the indie world... It comes out in 30 more theaters on the 16th.
Nov. 12, 2007, 9:32 p.m. CST
The worst thing De Palma has ever done, and that's saying something, this flick reeks of community theater/amateurish/film schoolish bullshit. Horrible, horrible movie.
Nov. 12, 2007, 9:45 p.m. CST
You know, like on normal cable. I thought I read that somewhere. Anyway, I was intending to see it this Friday in the theater.
Nov. 12, 2007, 10:13 p.m. CST
if this wasn't shite.
Nov. 12, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST
by The Tenth Doctor
Mark Cuban financed the movie and now is putting on the network he also finances that lacks the market penetration (no pun intended) of something as niche-specific as Playboy Espanol. Sooner or later, it will become apparent that very few in this country want to see anti-American, anti-troop movies such as this. LIONS FOR LAMBS did less than seven million dollars with its opening. RENDITION was in theaters for, what, two weeks? These are movies with certifiable stars in them and they have no traction at the box office. They are absolute wastes of time, money and effort. God bless the free market. Nothing like an embarrassing lack of money and interest to deliver a STFU message.
Nov. 12, 2007, 10:30 p.m. CST
They're gonna think it's the next "way" to do a story, multiple, reeeeaaalllly non-connected pov's. I still want to see it, I want to complain with a reason.
Nov. 12, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST
They did it with a fairly decent movie called Cashback a few months ago. HDNet is owned by Mark Cuban who also controls Magnolia Pictures. He's just working a little synergy.
Nov. 12, 2007, 10:46 p.m. CST
I believe the people who are raving about this film are simply eager to support a film that tries to get out a message. But message aside, how is the film? I am against the war in Iraq and the current administration, but I'm going to review the film solely on its merits... or lack there of. Okay, I get what DePalma is going for, simulating various types of media to to tell his story in a modern pieced together documentary style. I get it... it's a clever gimmick and maybe some day someone will take that idea and make a good film. This isn't it. First, it is clear that DePalma knows nothing of how the Army operates in Iraq or how soldiers interact with each other, nor does he have any interest in finding out. Colonels arguing with privates, checkpoints set up with machine-guns facing each other, no idea of protocol, no idea of basic tactics, fat and otherwise out of shape infantrymen, and the basest of stereotypes. But his lack of understanding what soldiers actually do is the least of his problems. It seems that in trying to simulate raw hand-held amateur footage, he chose to get as many shots as possible in the fewest amount of takes. At least I hope that's what he did, otherwise I can't imagine why this film has some of the worst acting and worst dialog I've seen and heard in years. Actors imitating reality doesn't mean bad acting and silly stilted improved dialog. At one point one of the actors mistakenly refers to Iraq as Afghanistan. The interrogation scenes were embarrassingly bad and could have been written (and acted) by junior high school students. The whole film seems like a poorly made improv. Continuity, effects, background... all garbage. The ADs and prop-masters should have been fired. Background extras have no idea what they're doing which serves only to remind the viewer that this is poorly simulated reality. Scene to scene the soldiers' weapons and equipment keep changing. The fat soldier (named "Rush"... wonder why?) is carrying a squad automatic weapon and then shown from a different angle, he's carrying a grenade launcher. The nurse performing CPR on the pregnant Iraqi is barely going through the motions for the camera. The bomb in the chair that explodes, killing the sergeant, is obviously an FX air cannon placed in front of (nowhere near) the chair. This was such a lazy piece of film making. Saying the film is based on actual events and ending the film with a montage of images of dead Iraqi civilians is not an excuse for poor film making. The gimmick of simulated reality filming and the important message it's trying to get across may guilt some people into overlooking the bad acting, dialog and film making, but not me. As a final indignity, DePalma closes the film with a montage of pictures of dead Iraqis. Before the montage begins, the screen goes black and then the title "Collateral Damage" comes up with the claim "Actual photographs from the Iraq War" printed beneath it, and then the graphic slideshow begins. One problem though... among the real pictures of dead bodies, DePalma inserts some fake ones, including the pregnant woman killed earlier in the film. I have a screening DVD copy. I froze the frame and went back and compared it to the earlier scene in the film. Among DePalma's "Actual photographs from the Iraq War" is a picture of an actress pretending to be dead. And of course, the closing shot in this montage, the picture that is supposed to pull on the audience's heartstrings the most and make them forget the bad movie they just watched, is a fake picture of a bound and murdered rape victim. Look beyond the message... this film is a mess.
Nov. 13, 2007, 4:47 a.m. CST
Marc Cuban sucking him off for that review
Nov. 13, 2007, 5:15 a.m. CST
Barely out and it's already on cable? And I thought In the Valley of Elah did poorly. Sounds like the box office on this will be in the hundreds. Maybe the thousands!<br><br>Just think what Hollywood might be doing if they tried producing movies with interesting stories and great performances, instead of vomitting up their ideological agenda on the movie screen.
Nov. 13, 2007, 5:31 a.m. CST
Nobody, not even liberals, seem to really think these movies make a lot of sense--at least financially.
Nov. 13, 2007, 8:27 a.m. CST
by ACE NY
How many of Brian DePalma movies are actually watchable? You would think that the one thing the guy could have done fairly well was The Black Dahlia, but he screwed that up big time.
Nov. 13, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST
....not being reported on of course. Crap movies like this that dishonor our fighting men and women deserve to be scuttled to the scrap heap of obscure television channels.
Nov. 13, 2007, 9:48 a.m. CST
Most of his derivative and "provocative" films put me in a coma. And, hey fella, talk to women--you may learn to actually like 'em.
Nov. 13, 2007, 10:24 a.m. CST
the news is reporting much higher suicide rates among veterans than previously thought. I don't understand why people can't just take the criticism of the war. Most of the people trashing this film are people who haven't seen it. I haven't. I hope it's a good movie but I don't know that yet. I know I'm a De Palma fan and those who go as far as to say that his movies are unwatchable confuse me. I wonder how many they've watched and exactly why they choose to comment on a director whose films they are that repulsed by. I think you'd have something better to do with your time. But some of you guys are just going thread to thread to thread calling this movie and Rendition and Lions for Lambs anti-American. You obviously have a pro-war agenda of your own. But the problem is I've seen both of those films and neither of them are anti-American or anti-soldier or any of that nonsense. If you're going to describe a film as something it's not, you obviously haven't seen it. If you're so behind the war, and think it's such a great thing, what do you care what anyone says about it? You should be confident enough in your opinion to take a differing viewpoint into consideration. If you haven't seen Redacted yet, then watch it and comment afterward. If you have seen it and don't like it, then your comments are valid. If you don't have any intention of watching it then shut up.
Nov. 13, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST
I think De Palma need to start respectin' his babies mama. I'm WAY too self-envolved and this would probably bore me to sleep, so I won't watch it. Not to mention it dishonors everything this country and Jeez-Us stands for.
Nov. 13, 2007, 12:24 p.m. CST
Your review is half-assed. I agree with a lot of your emotional reaction to it, but you got so many details wrong, I don't think you saw the movie. The IED is a soccer ball, not a chair. I know this because they spend an entire scene showing the placement of the IED. It lasts a good 3-5 minutes. You shouldn't have missed this. There is only one machine gun at their checkpoint and it's pointed in the direction of the approaching cars. The Rush character does switch guns from a SAW to an M4, as many other enlisted men have to do due to weight of the SAW. The nurses and doctors were horrifically bad. Cringe-worthy. And they're are two fake pictures in the final montage. One of the points of the movie is to think about the message each kind of media want you to see, and then question them. De Palma does it to his own film. A lot of the reasons people don't want to see these movies is because there are so many of them and they're all depressing. Redacted at least tries to do something different. It's not a great movie, but it will make you want to talk about it. And with De Palma at the helm, well, he always seems to cause some discussion.
Nov. 13, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST
They do it all the time. They hear it everywhere. However, a tedious movie from Brian Depalma . . . well, that's something I don't have to take. :)<br><br>Even a critique like No End in Sight, which at least is an actual documentary, tanked at the box office. So apparently people--even critics of the war--don't generally care to pay for criticism of the war.
Nov. 13, 2007, 2:21 p.m. CST
Calling movies like Lions for Lambs and Redacted and Rendition boring. Or, saying they appear boring and tedious from their own marketing, which should arguably make them seem interesting.
Nov. 13, 2007, 2:28 p.m. CST
People want to hate it or defend it without ever seeing it based solely on political veiws only. I've watched this movie and it is garbage front to back. Not because of the message but because it is the worst filmed and researched movie I have ever seen. The actors looked lost and clueless from scene to scene. Depalma apparently did a bunch of blow and wanted to see how bad he could piss the Fox News crowd with an antiwar/media film. I don't care which side your on if you watch this shit and think he protrayed American Millitary or Iraqi citizens correctly,you've got your head in your ass.
Nov. 13, 2007, 3:54 p.m. CST
I'm curious why you think that. I'm taking an unofficial poll. In the lead: DePalma's a hack. 2nd: Actors suck. 3rd: DePalma made Black Dahlia. 4th: I haven't seen the movie, but it HAS to suck.
Nov. 13, 2007, 5:34 p.m. CST
Yes I've seen the movie... went back and looked again. You're right about the placement of the IED being in front of the chair... though amusingly the insurgent posted internet video shows their faces as they plant the bomb. The checkpoint has machine-guns facing each other, only one is a heavy 50 cal, the other is a LMG. More importantly, the 50 cal is at the back of the checkpoint facing foward, with the entire squad standing in front in its field of fire. Rush's weapon changing from M249SAW to M203 (not M4 if you want to be picky) is not standard for infantrymen to do. His position in the squad is saw gunner, not grenadier... they don't just eliminate the position because the soldier is uncomfortable with the slight weight difference. And he would not be carrying a weapon he wasn't sighted for. Plus he's still wearing the same LBE with no grenade vest for the M203. it was just a propmaster/continuity error. A small goof compared to the rest of the film. The only thing this film makes me want to talk about it is what the hell happened to Brian DePalma? Horrible acting and writing, almost no research... a piece of indulgent and lazy film making.
Nov. 13, 2007, 5:47 p.m. CST
No wonder they have to show it on alternative venues. No one is paying to see it in the theaters. No American wants to see fiction, and fabricated scenes of our troops raping young girls. Who does this director think he is? Who does the foreignor Cuban think he is? They are hurting America and they can take their movie to Iran and show it there. But the gays in their group will not return, as they will be executed for being homosexuals. Let them write a movie about THAT.
Nov. 13, 2007, 6:59 p.m. CST
OMG! What a piece of shite! I watched it last week, and it was convoluted and nonsensical, with large parts of the "why" of the story being told by one character or another simply explaining events that were otherwise not a part of the film. "Then I did this, then I did that.." I kept thinking "maybe it's just me, maybe I don't get it" but that's not it at all: it was a convoluted piece of garbage.
Nov. 13, 2007, 8:14 p.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
Just watched a hot copy of REDACTED. Its available on-line. Google it. RapidshareKing it. Note though thats its not worth one kilobyte of your bandwith. Its an appauling film. It does more harm than good in terms of raising awareness of the horror that is contemporary Iraq. This film should be REDACTED. Erased by a balck Sharpie. It has no value. Upon watching this abortion at the conform edit stage Brian should have known to toss it. He got it plain wrong. Too expermental approach on such a subject. The situation in Iraq is better off without this vomit on its sleeve. The acting , writing, camera work, everything is soooo bad it distracts from the content. What Brian was trying to communicate is dampened by amateur dramatics. It remindined me of first year film student crap. Shockin' bad shit. You should have made a documentary of the true events to create waves Brian not this shit that people will only remember for the poor craftsmanship and acting. You are now part of the problem that you are trying to highlight. You should reecognise this. Become self aware of your short comings and REDACT yourself. You failed solider.
Nov. 13, 2007, 8:20 p.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
...if you dont want to read the above in short REDACTED IS SHIT!
Nov. 13, 2007, 9:39 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
...but not a good director! I'm liberal as hell and I don't want to see this or any other movie on the Iraq war because dramatizing something as horrific and f*cked up as this while it is still in full swing with half a trillion dollars wasted and countless lives lost just isn't worth a whole lot. Now, I'll watch a million movies on how the Bush administration f*cked up the whole world with their ineptitude because THAT IS ENTERTAINMENT and something liberals and conservatives can finally agree on.
Nov. 13, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST
Christ, what's with all the haters?
Nov. 13, 2007, 10:48 p.m. CST
by uss cygnus
This site is the movie review arm of Al-Qaeda and Al-Jazeera. Has the staff converted to Islam yet?
Nov. 14, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST
by Itto Ogami loses Daigoro
Please ban Node32774 for being a douche
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:46 p.m. CST
"Sucks cock by choice." Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nov. 14, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST
The actions of the troops over all. I have been to Afghanistan twice,served four years all together and have heard soldiers speak the way that his dialouge ran. I'm no right wing nut, i just don't think the movie is any good period. Just an opinion,but like i posted before, some people won't be able to respect that because they hate Bush and our Iraq involvement so much that they feel like they must defend any antiwar/anti Bush medium. Some of the movies,songs,and tv shows done protesting the war were done great,some have sucked.Thats life. I can't figure if your defending the film cause you like it or maybe you feel you have too,either way good luck, we all have a right to an informed opinion.
Nov. 14, 2007, 11:42 p.m. CST
was this bag of shit made for TV or is this going to be an actual release??? This pig shit was like watching a sci fi original without all the talent. That had to be some of the worst acting/script I've seen in an actual theater release movie. This is corn filled diharrea
Nov. 15, 2007, 12:22 a.m. CST
the guy on the street was like watching a scene from Airplane it was so goofy. This movie is rambling and incoherent. What a fucking mess. HDNet is too good for this drivel to be on it. I could shit in a can and it would be better than this.
Nov. 15, 2007, 3:44 p.m. CST
I agree with Captain Justice. Liberals are impassioned wth censorship ("If you don't agree with me, you're ostracized."); it's Hollywood's modus operandi. Censoring movies is one thing (the conservative's banner). But censoring opposing politics? It's McCarthy, all over again. Neither right nor left wingers attended LIONS FOR LAMBS, a huge flop--a bomb that should be dropped on DePalma.
Nov. 15, 2007, 3:57 p.m. CST
First, Just like the vast majority of regulars on this site I read it often, but never post. I cannot believe some of the rampant hate that spews from some of the people that post on here; you should be ashamed of yourselves. Don't you have jobs? I cannot agree more with drturing, this war is illegal, immoral and in the top 3 greatest blunders in US history. If anyone wants to bring up charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, lying to congress to authorize war is one. I am going to try and make a reasonable case why this movie is truly horrible and not turn this into a bitchfest. As for this movie, it’s easy to say that this is one of the worst movies ever made. I think everyone here agrees that the style, dialog, acting, staging were all atrocious. But what got me was DePalma's defense of the film. I listened to DePalma talk about the film on NPR yesterday and he seemed happy that life had imitated art (Casualties of War), especially his art, and that he could then benefit from yet another real tragedy and make movie from it. I don't know what struck me as more appalling, the fact that he was fascinated that he captured soldiers so accurately in the first film or that “Casualties” and this film showed the true nature of some of our armed service personnel. Now I will give him one point, that soldiers are not angels, but humans, and they do make huge mistakes and despicable acts. But to use the worst of human nature to stroke your ego, that is truly unbelievable.
Nov. 16, 2007, 6:01 p.m. CST
I recorded and watched figuring i'd never see it otherwise, and heck, its free, why not? WOW, what an awful movie. I thought this was going to be some groundbreaking stuff, with all the hype and craziness about it, and it being Brain De Palma, but wow. completely a waste of time. it's almost all short on video- like that soap opera video, so it looks really fake and campy all the time. the acting is awful, camera work is awful, fake looking EVERYTHING everywhere. even the pregnant girl looked fake. you can't "shock" me when it looks awful, dude. I thought it was going to be of better quality, but it DOES feel like a film student work. which is just so sad... De Palma was great once, right? what happened? it feels like a film student was trying to make a big point about something, but it got lost in a bad bad script, AWFUL acting by that "Reno" bad-guy. You aren't going to change minds with you have such an awful bad acting douchebag for an antagonist. its like, "wow, that must be the bad person because he said the N word and swears a lot" thanks film student boy! retarded. this is awful film making and shouldn't be on this site, PERIOD. it feels like it was from a lost episode of "ON THE LOT".
Nov. 17, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST
I am the biggest DePalma fan I know. I usually find something good in all of his films. I saw Redacted last night and it was terrible. It makes Mission To Mars look amazing. The problem? As John Lovitz would say, "ACTING!" This film has some on the worst acting I've ever seen. DePalma should have known better. Did he even look at the footage? By the time you get to the dramatic center of the film (the rape scene). You don't even care because you are reminded of how much better the exact scene was done in the much better, "Casualities of War", as much as I didn't want to compare this film to C.O.W. I couldn't help it. DePalma made a much better war film the first time around. On a side note I have no political opinion when it comes to watching the film. I am a cinephile and I judge films purely on story, acting and filmmaking. So it doesn't matter how you feel about the war in iraq. This is still a bad film and it's not gonna change anything. To Mr. DePalma I know you have some great films left in you. Please drop the film school bullshit and make a real film please.