Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

oiltrader Take the movie for what it is... good plain old entertainment. The reviews by most are far too critical. This movie was made to be enjoyed in front of a warm fire, a glass of red and a hint of "who the hell really cares".It's fast paced and a good ride with fun plot twists along the way.You'll totally have fun and a few wry smiles along the way.

Dr_Sagan I saw this movie back in 2004 and I liked it (or so I thought).After a few years I had the opportunity to watch it again. The strange thing was, although I remembered how it ends, I couldn't find a logical path of what happens in the movie and what was true and what wasn't.Today (June of 2016), after I watched Connie Nielsen in another movie, I remembered the existence of "Basic" (and how she looked good with her short blond hair and the uniform) and I sought it to watch it, but again, although I remembered the last couple of scenes and the resolution of the film, I still couldn't remembered how the plot evolves. What I'm saying is that the movie is incoherent and the narrative is (purposely I guess, to give a sense of continuous twists) confusing. I also find it less satisfying in todays standards despite the obvious chemistry between John Travolta and Connie Nielsen.To realize how confusing the plot is, take a look at the contents in Wikipedia. Usually in a movie, there is a "Plot" section with a summary or a more detailed description of the plot. Here you have ...subsections of the plot as follows:1.1 Dunbar's story1.2 Kendall's story1.3 Dunbar's second story1.4 Kendall's second story1.5 Pike's final explanation1.6 Final twist and explanationI don't recall any other movie to have such a structure in its topic in Wikipedia!!The thing is you are trying to follow what is happening (especially in the first viewing) and you even might have a suspicion about who the actual bad guy is, but the convulsive script combined with John McTiernan's erratic direction, have as a result a movie that is ultimately confusing.If you see it superficially you will probably enjoy it. Travolta's character has an attitude of a "know-it-all" maverick investigator, Connie Nielsen looks really good, and the end is designed to think of it as rewarding and satisfying.But if you look more closely and give it a second thought you will see clearly that this movie is more like a disappointment.**P.S.: The atmosphere and the theme of the movie, plus the similar lead role of Travolta, but with Madeleine Stowe instead of Connie Nielsen, reminded me of The General's Daughter (1999). A better movie if you ask me.

indiedavid I have to admit that I didn't watch the whole film because I just couldn't stop laughing at the horrible portrayal of military protocol and operations. If I intentionally tried to make a film with more errors, I would struggle to do so. Rank, uniforms, formations, etc. were all bungled. I am not sure if the Producers used a military consultant but if they did, they were either from the Civil War or a foreign military because these guys knew nothing about US Army Ranger training, Military Police investigations, equipment, uniforms, rank, Panama, etc. I was confused at many points. I couldn't tell if Samuel Jackson was supposed to be a Ranger Instructor at Ft. Benning or a Platoon Sergeant in Panama. In either case, both were incorrect in nearly every aspect. At one point, he was leading a platoon but was wearing Specialist rank then he was with same group in a jungle but he was wearing SFC rank. I could go on and on about the uniform issues but I will only point out one that provided the most entertainment for me. After conducting hundreds of hours of jungle patrols, I have never seen somebody so stupid that they wore a beret instead of a patrol cap.

edwagreen This film is not exactly "Rashomon" of 1951.Samuel L. Jackson portrays a vicious sergeant who really takes it out on one of his officers. Set in Panama during a hurricane, this film depicts what has occurred during a training session.Several different versions attempt to explain what has happened to Jackson and some of the recruits on this session.John Travolta portrays a DEA agent who had left the army as an interrogator. Every time that Travolta, who has been called back to interrogate, seems to find answers, there are still more and more questions posed to him and the rest of the cast.Is there an honorable person? This is what the film tries to prove as we learn about drug dealing among the various cartels in the area.The ending is absolutely ridiculous. You just can't trust anyone.