ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Alaa Alawneh So the Americans will not just occupy your country and kill your people and take your oil and destroying your city's no they will also make films showing how much their soldiers have suffered for that!

zkonedog There are two primary reasons why I chose to recently watch this film: First, the fact that Denzel Washington is such an incredible, impassionate actor. Second, that Washington's movies often serve as vehicles to stoke his creative talents. He feeds the script with his passion, and his passion can take a decent story and turn it into an emotional one. However, "Courage Under Fire" failed to hook me in on both of those counts.Let's begin with the plot: Basically, Denzel plays a former military commander from Desert Storm (with a pretty big skeleton in his closet) who is now in charge of investigating the applicants for the prestigious "Medal of Honor" military award. While researching this particular case, however, "Denzel" stumbles upon a few little inconsistencies that, once they begin to add up, point to a larger cover-up at work. The story is told through the flash-backs of all the people that "Denzel" speaks with while doing his detective work, so to speak. Of course, as is human recollection, each person has a bit of a different "take" on the subject...but is it really just bad memories or something more sinister?Though that may sound like a very interesting plot, to me it fell flat because it tried to do too many things at one time when it could have just focused on one it two. It tries to be an action picture, but there aren't enough war scenes to justify that characterization. It tries to be a mystery, but that doesn't really work because the viewer never really (at least I didn't) figures out exactly what went on in the central point of conflict. Finally, the film also tries to be a morality play, yet not even that tugs at the heartstrings (not the dramatic ones, at least) since it is so stoic and military-esque in its approach.Perhaps the biggest failure in this film, though, was the missed opportunities (or maybe it was just bad casting) for Denzel Washington. As a performer, he is at his peak when he is given the opportunity to emote wildly and passionately for a cause he strongly believes in. However, this film takes on such a rigid, non-dramatic tone that Denzel never gets to show that incredible acting style. One only one occasion does he start to get heated, but that approach is quickly squashed and the procedural stuff rolls on.Thus, I really can't recommend this film to fans of Washington's work, or to fans of military mystery/thrillers. It is just too procedural and droll to really hook you into the whole experience. A 2.5 star rating would have been my optimal choice, but there is just enough solid acting and some compelling material to give it a boost up rather than down.

juneebuggy Pretty great movie with an enthralling storyline which is made even more interesting because each member of "the crew" has a different version of what actually happened. Excellent performances here from Lou Diamond Phillips and a painfully (painfully) emaciated Matt Damon.Denzel Washington plays a Lt Colonel reviewing a female soldiers (Meg Ryan) candidacy for the medal of honor. Ultimately his quest reveals conflicting versions of the story from her crew.I have to say Meg Ryan was terrible in this, just painful to watch as Capt. Walden. The battle scenes also felt kinda cheesy (special effects wise) but this was still a great film, despite its flaws. 05.13

mregor532 I do not vote on movies. I have read most of the comments. There is talk of Rashomon, an interesting idea, an important idea and a technique in cinema. That is the style. The movie opens with a battle and a mistake. Serling orders fire on a suspected Iraqi tank. He is wrong, he kills a friend. The psychology is interesting. If only he had known. The truth would have saved him from killing his friend. Walden's mistake, after the crash in the night, Monfriez was right though for the wrong reason. He was afraid. He wanted to save himself. She wanted to save Rady. She thought Rady could not survive the carry out. In the end he did not die, he survived. Along the way to the end we have mutiny and accidental murder and long after, not redemption, but at least relief by suicide. I was puzzled by the end. Serling places his silver star on the grave. He made a mistake in battle and killed his friend. She made a mistake and in the end the price was only her own.