Rating: 
Summary: Black hawk down rules
Review: This movie will keep you on the edge of your seat. With not much dialogue, and an... action sequence that will blow you away. Black Hawk Down is the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan.
Rating:
Summary: The Best War Crime Movie of the Year!
Review: I first saw this movie in a little town with my buddies. We had no idea what it was about and what was going to happen in it.
We had a big suprise. We all came out of that movie theatre stunned and completely water eyed. My friend turned to me and asked did that really happen. I said yes. Everyone of us could not sleep that night at all. I could not believe how horrible that was for our own men to survive such a horrid place with horrible people. But I have to say that it was done very well and it was a real good war crime movie that everyone has to see to know whathappened that day our men were alone.
Rating:
Summary: Tour-de-force by Director Scott
Review: Black Hawk Down is simply a tour-de-force in filmmaking. Director Ridley Scott, Screenwriter Ken Nolan, and Executive Producer Bruckheimer have achieved what was a next to an impossible feat: the film production of one of the most acclaimed, highly detailed historical books (author Mark Bowden, ISBN: 0871137380) on what happened in that tragic, key U.S./Somalian event. Lest we forget, that incident was to have later tragic implications--a stung U.S. got nowhere near another African nation and its genocidal problem (Rwanda) less than a year later.Some other reviewers have given lesser marks in review of this film while attempting to compare it with its source. These would seem fair statements in that the book is so good and so packed with information, history, interviews, and actual transcripts of what took place October 3-4, 1993 (and beyond). If you have not read it, do so...it's that good. However, movies are not books, and comparing them is not realistic (so, perhaps, they're not fair after all). And, to an extent, disregards each of their strengths. This film's power is that the production team could effectively distill in a 144-minutes what happened in a fifteen hour, intense firefight in the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia. The essence of the book, the camaraderie of the soldiers placed in a hellish fight for their lives under circumstances beyond their control, remains intact. The viewer is transported (at times, uncomfortably close) to the blunt reality of modern war via a stark, almost documentary style of filmmaking. The visuals and sounds are a force, and hard to forget. Also, the ensemble cast simply does excellent work...a big name (over the title) star would have changed the dynamic of this movie...and thankfully, doesn't. Hartnett, McGregor, Sizemore, Bana, Fichtener, Bremner, Shepard, and the rest bring their characters to an extraordinary level. The internal issues between Rangers and the older Delta operators were effectively brought out without becoming a distraction in the larger story of the depicted event. The film editing and sound (for which they won justly deserved Academy Awards) is stunning. Scott's direction (Oscar nominated) has never been better, and would have been my choice for Best Director to win over Ron Howard-but that's another story... Black Hawk Down is the rare film that pays great homage to its source book, and the extraordinary men and circumstances it seeks to portray on film.
Rating: 
Summary: They forgot to make a movie
Review: The saving grace of Black Hawk Down, is that real-world military people reportedly feel this movie represents war the way it really is, and shines a light of heroism on otherwise forgotten soldiers. Real-world operators have my admiration and my respect. I hope this film helps bring pressure for better intel and better planning, so that our special forces' lives are not jeopardized by our side's ineptitude. But from another standpoint, this movie is a flop. Black Hawk Down offers no context, no plot, no character development, no message. It makes everyone look interchangeable and therefore, disposable. It gives no perspective on the Somalis. It's not a movie, it's a DoD-approved simulation / reenactment, of an urban op gone bad. The entire film is a pedantic exposition of light infantry tactics under fire. There's not even a view of how the mission should have been planned better. I can't recall one memorable scene from BHD, just a haze of confusion and explosions and gunfire and dodging from building to building. It was like a videogame. The actors perform merely as one dimensional stand-ins for real military operators. That sort of quasi-documentary realism may appeal to young male viewers. But no individual personality emerges -- heck, the characters all look alike -- so there's a sheer lack of any emotional connection whatsoever with the audience. Even the music, the blue hues, and the battle cinematography are recycled (from Gladiator). Ridley Scott may be a terrific director, but war movies aren't his bag.
Rating: 
Summary: Good but not good enough...
Review: This was another typical war movie. The dvd also was not a very pleasing experience. No Hawk trailer, only one featurette, not very pleasing.
Although Josh Hartnett stars, he has definitly recovered from Pearl Harbor. Black Hawk down is a well directed movie. Ridley Scott is fanominal in every aspect of the movie except charecter development. That is what downgrades this movie so horribly. Even though Josh Hartnett does a fine job keeping you attached to the screen, it still doesnt cover for the overlooked screenwrite. It is basicly 'Saving Private Ryan' without all of the emotional distress between the charecters. The movie almost makes you feel like you have randomly looked into the war. About one half hour of this film is not war. During this time, their was no plot involved with the charecters. The story revolved around Samolia. Now, Scott had the perfect oppertunity to make an unbelievable story where he covered the war in Samolia and he made the relations between the charecters intense. Not to give away any part of the movie but during the film, one of Hartnetts' men had been wounded and Hartnett had to help treat the wound. During this time, it got very emotional but the emotion would not stick with you due to the charecter loss. Their was no information prior to this incident and you know nothing about the two.
The editing in the film is fantastic and the sound is extremly well done. Hans Zimmer chose well in this film as does her in every film. I highly recommend seeing this movie just to see the inensity of the war because thats all the movie is. Literaly, its two hours of war then a half hour of mediocere attempts to salvage charecter knowledge. See the movie, dont buy the dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Intense...Very Intense...
Review: I guess I fall into that line of "liberal" who doesn't believe that the politics are as simple as "we tried to stop a famine." That's there, but reading the book the movie is taken from will inform the reader that the politics involved were far more shady than most would suspect. The fact that the movie leaves that out doesn't seem to bother me. I found it horrifying enough without the prerequisite politico preaching at me about the virtues of what we were or were not doing. But, in a lot of ways it is difficult to make a war movie (especially now) that isn't chest thumping propaganda, but I have to say this is the best attempt I've seen in recent years. But I have to emphasize "attempt". I'm a war movie buff (how very contradictory for a someone who is "liberal") and the problems this movie has are the typical ones: sometimes the dialogue is rather bland and uneventful in the early going, and even though they are based on real life events and characters, sometimes its hard to buy either of these things, and I'm not talking about the combat scenes. Actually, those become the most believable sequences in the movie. But the film does manage to rise above those problems and become something that is thought provoking and absolutely horrifying (the scene where the Ranger is dying from blood loss is one of the most horrific things I've ever witnessed, and I'm sure it couldn't compare to what actually happened). Added to the bit of dark humor woven into the story (the two machine gunners left on the street corner have their moments of levity) the movie makes you care about the Rangers and at least find a few of them interesting. However, the one major critcism the movie might suffer for is that it tends to turn the Somalis into a faceless horde with only a few representative archetypes that seem taken from a bad Rambo movie given much camera time. Bowden's book attempted to move beyond that and I think Ridley Scott left that part behind. In the humanity that Scott tries to convey on the part of the Rangers, the movie comes up lacking because the Somalis become a sea of clones hellbent on the destruction of the "evil Americans." For that reason, the movie might become patriotic fluff to some and it did display courage on a grand scale that wasn't the chest thumping of many war movies. But the shear horror, terror, and absolute carnage displayed should turn stomachs, eyes, and a few second thoughts on the necessity of warfare and the courage it might often demand. After all, here it became a matter of survival, politics be damned...
Rating:
Summary: Definitely a Must-See, True to the Book, but...
Review: But... but... Here's your 30-second review. a) If you read the book, you won't be disappointed. I was astounded (upon seeing it in the theatre) at how many of the scenes looked exactly as I had imagined them after reading the book. The aerial cinematorgraphy is breathtaking, and the scene where they first take off and head into the city--set to "Voodoo Chile" by Stevie Ray Vaughan (his version), is just AWESOME. b) Having said that, it plays out like the book. Non-stop, gut-wrenching carnage. This is not a relaxing film to watch; you end up getting more and more wound up as it continues because you want it to stop. But that's the point. c) And the point is: never has a movie portrayed so realistically the horror of modern, urban warfare--this is no "Desert Storm," where we just roll over hapless foes with our technology; this is street-to-street, brutal conflict. After seeing the movie, you're amazed that we only lost 19. d) Downsides? The opening scenes (to "introduce" us to characters) and the closing (unnecessarily maudlin) smack of Jerry Bruckheimer Top-Gun-itis. They're silly and Hollywood. But they're not enough to not recommend this movie (yes I own it). e) Finally, the standout performance is by the Australian (!!) actor playing the Delta Force guy. Awesome. He's a southerner in the movie, but if you watch the "Making of" section, he sounds like Crocodile Dundee. Nice job. f) The extras are minimal: no director or actor commentaries, deleted scenes or alternate endings. You're basically getting the film, a "Making of" special, the trailers, and that's it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most amazing war films.
Review: Detailed account of the U.S. disaster in Mogadishu that resulted in 128 U.S. Rangers fighting for their lives against thousands of Somali militia ranks among the best war films ever made. The movie's showcase sequence, an almost non-stop 85-minute (!) battle that takes up 3/4's of the film's running time, could very well rank as the best combat footage in the history of film. Only flaw: minimal character development, but the cast (which includes Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore, William Fichtner, Ewen Bremner, and Jason Isaacs) still comes through with solid performances.
Rating:
Summary: A Worthy Movie
Review: I just watched this movie last night, and I thought it was exceptional. The cast and crew did an amazing job. Ridley Scott is fanstantic as ever. Out of all the war movies that I've seen, this one made me real depressed. The events were horrific, but those soldiers were so courageous. God Bless them.
Rating:
Summary: "Full of sound and fury..."
Review: I have some questions about "Black Hawk Down", Ridley Scott's technical brilliant but oddly soulless movie. Would it have received as many glowing reviews if it had been released prior to the events of September 11 and our subsequent invasion of Afghanistan? Was the movie re-edited after these events in order to put the mission it depicts into a more favorable light? Does a war movie that skips over most of an event's historical context really teach us anything or have anything meaningful to say? In 1993, US troops were sent to the African nation of Somalia on a UN peacekeeping mission. The country was torn by civil war. The UN was also engaged in a massive food distribution mission, which was being disrupted by Somalia warlords. It was decided to arrest some of them. Intelligence sources pinpointed the targets in the city of Mogadishu. Leaders of our forces concluded that we could easily to send in Black Hawk helicopters with a few dozen troops aboard, grab the wanted men, and bring them back to our base at the local airport. The mission was expected to take about and hour. Many soldiers even left behind basic supplies like canteens and night vision goggles. We may never know if misinformation, bad leadership and/or bad luck caused the disaster that followed. What is known is that Somalis shot down two of the helicopters and that the ensuing battle raged for eighteen hours. Eighteen Americans and hundreds of Somalis were killed. "Black Hawk Down" concentrates on the battle itself. There are nearly two hours of nonstop carnage. Not even "Saving Private Ryan" was as intense and graphic. As things go from confusing to utterly chaotic, Scott does a good job of arranging scenes so that the audience still knows what is going on. This is one of the movie's strongest points, since viewers are often confused as to what's going on in a war movie. Though based on real people, the characters are written as stock Hollywood types. Consequently, we feel for their dreadful predicament, but we don't feel for them as individuals. An hour after I saw the movie, I remembered few memorable details about any of them. It's understandable that many people think "Black Hawk Down" is a cinematic masterpiece. A lot of intelligent, gifted people worked very hard to make it succeed. Their craftsmanship is to be admired. The movie doesn't work for me, mainly due to that lack of historical perspective. The Somalis come off as a swirling, seething, murderous mob. Indeed, they may have been. But the movie misses greatness by completely ignoring one important of question: Why? The implication is that these people were essentially subhuman and incapable of appreciating the great saviors from the West. Trust me, there is a lot more to the story than that.
| 
