Rating: 
Summary: yeah, yeah, war is hell, we know
Review: While this movie seems to be getting alot of attention, I've been scratching my head to figure out why. As many people have said, it attempts to state the facts and not make judgements or take sides, etc. That's terrific, but I think this film should have been a documentary in that case, which I would have enjoyed much more (and I sincerely mean that, by the way). Even those who liked the movie admit that the audience never gets a chance to "know" the characters, and once the fighting starts, it never stops. Again, realism is great, but I don't enjoy feeling lie I am being shot at for 2 hours (I know how much that sounds like a crabby old person). Because there is no attempt at moralizing, taking any side, or giving us anything (emotional, philosophical, ANYTHING) for us to chew on, this movie just succeeded in making me nauseous, just as Hannibal had done. However boring people think "The Thin Red Line" is, at least there was an attempt on the filmakers' part to let the audience become emotionally and/or mentally involved. Through "Black Hawk Down" I was just cringing to avoid enemy gunfire, with no relief for 2 hours. This may be exactly the point of the film; I don't know why I would want to or enjoy (in the broadest sense of the word) paying money to do that. (Anyway, when it comes time to "was this review helpful", please remember, as always, that it doesn't say "do you agree with this.")
Rating: 
Summary: M*A*S*H*E*D
Review: Half way through this film my mate Nigel 'spunky' Turner said to me: "Is this Los Angeles?" Eat your popcorn, son. Nobody gets out of Compton. Did Roger Whittaker ever leave old Durham town? I rest my case. Not very well, but I rest it. Don't know how he can eat popcorn after being fed so much baloney over the beginning and end titles.
It seems that with 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Band of Brothers', 'Pearl Harbour' and the like, Hollywood has a new toy and seems determined to run with it. Remember the period before punk in the music business? Clogged up with dinosaur bands and Elton John. The movie business is similarly afflicted with a tiresome old guard such as a Ridley Scott who, after a promising start, has just become another meretricious hack. Only the dead will see the end of them. Apparently there was a page by page negotiation with the military over the script. Seeing as the military was there to save Somalian lives, I don't see how this mission can be seen as anything other than a disaster. Not that that bothers some people. It's like my mate Nigel 'spunky' Turner said to me: "It's a helicopter!" I KNOW IT'S A ****** HELICOPTER!
Rating: 
Summary: The greatest tale of modern war since Three Kings
Review: I was very confused about how to feel about this movie when it came out. I wasn't sure if it would be good or not. But when I went in, I have to say I fully enjoyed it from beginning to end. Ridley Scott is honestly the best director ever. He could take a conversation about sardines and make it look interesting. This movie isn't a huge, compelling epic. It is a well directed dramatization of a little known event. The action is great in this movie, and the acting is Okay (Josh Hartnett?) In fact, probably because of Jerry Bruckheimer, about half the cast of Pearl HArbor are in this movie playing very similair roles. I found this pretty funny. Anyway, go see it, read the book, and look up anything you can find on this amazing story of heroism. If I could give more than five stars I probably would.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent story about fighting men
Review: Despite discrepancies in minor details, and occasionally contrived theatrical devices, I found that the movie stuck close to Mark Bowden's excellent book. Critics who carp that the movie lacks in-depth portrayal of characters and background info leading up to the fierce battle on 3 October, 1993, have completely missed the point. The movie is about what had happened in the Battle of Mogadishu, and the heroism of the men of Task Force Ranger who fought against insurmountable odds. Indeed, quotes from the Eric Bana character and the Sam Shephard character sum up this movie the best:
"Once the first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that...goes right out the window...
"People always ask me, 'Why, Hoot? Why do you do it? Are you some sort of war junkie?' But they'll never understand... that it's about the man next to you. That's all it is."
"No man gets left behind." In short, it is about cameraderie of the fighting men in combat.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie ever
Review: "People ask me, Hooten, why do you do it. You some kind of war junkie. I never tell them. Nobody understands, it's about the man next to you." You know how people will always have famous quotes from movies. Well that quote, that Eric Banas character "Hooten" said, goes on my best quote list. In my 14 years, this was the TIGHTEST, MOST ACTION PACKED MOVIE EVER! Eric Bana, Josh Hartnett, Tom Siezmore, Ewan Mcgregor, Sam Shephard, Jason Isaccs, and William Fitchner, all did an awesome job. The reviewers said that it failed to put a face on the soldiers. Well, I guess it could have done better, but to do that, with all the action the had to put in there, it would be like an 8 hour movie. Therefore, it did a good job on developing characters. Especially Hartnett, Shephard, and McGregor. Eric Bana needs a nomination for best supporting actor, is my personal opinion. Black Hawk Down was the most realistic, awesome action-war movie ever. For two hours, it had the intensity of the first 30 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan." Ridley Scott has another hit with me to go along with "Gladiator." And Bruckheimer has produced another tight, outstanding movie. I would give this movie six stars if they had it, or even seven. It is probably my favorite movie of all time and especially of 2002. It had better win the Oscars too.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Explotative ...[Junk]
Review: Ridley Scott is in a fall from grace. The great director of classics like Alien and Gladiator has just made two shallow bloody movies that don't suit their plots. Yes, I'm refering to Hannibal and this--a Bruckheimer action-fest that bastardizes its personal politics in a hail of gunfire--Blackhawk Down. Don't get me wrong, the movie had its good points. For instance, cinematography. The shots were beautiful and well-done, especially in the first half of the film. Also, the sound editing was great, and certain bits of silence went a long way. But other than that--well... Ewan McGregor was spoiled in this movie. He didn't talk much, didn't shoot much, didn't matter. I'm not sure I'd say the same about Harnett, whose previous work (Pearl Harbor) deserved no stars at all. About all the actors in this movie played an equal role, which is probably a subconcious symbolism for one of its main themes..."No one gets left behind." While brotherhood and teamwork played a big part in this movie, the development of any character was nill. Now to the real chunk of the picture--violence. An hour and a half of violence. Wow, everything you could wish for, gunned down Somalis that die in an instant, thumbs reattached, artery spray. A little boy's dream come true. Excuse me, I'm drifting into sarcasm.
This movie's been described by some as "war porn". I quite agree. Like pornography, there's no emotional attachment, people and situations are exploited for profit, and there's no point except to climax, which is, of course, an RPG aimed at your back. I know very little about the actual situation in Somalia, and it seemed like Ridley Scott did either. This anti-war film almost glorifies the action, until 30 seconds of text in before the credits. Yes, that's right, text. The text at the end does what the movie itself fails to do, and that's to state something grand. The movie itself has no politics, just running, shooting, and bloodshed. Should we have been in Somalia? I don't know. Should the movie have voiced some opinion on the matter? Yes. Did it? Well...no. An exemption of an hour of fighting would've earned this film an extra star. But the exploitation of this film points a finger at itself, and accuses itself without meaning to of being... ...typical, violent, Hollywood ...[junk].
Rating: 
Summary: "Saving Private Ryan" is still on top...
Review: Professionally crafted filmization of Mark Bowden's nonfiction book, about the plight of U.S. soldiers after a mission turns sour and leaves are boys stranded in the streets of war-torn Samolia. Vivid, with a good anti-war plea, but curiously under
developed character wise and overlong. GLADIATOR type violence is in the combat scenes, but like all of Scott's films, it lacks that special something. Tom Sizemore is great though (but he'll probably be cast in every war picture ever made from now on, since he's appeared in three in the past four years!). Should be seen in theatres for the full impact. Rated R for profanity and nonstop combat violence.
Rating:
Summary: great film
Review: i was surprised i went expecting a pearl harbor esque film but what i got was much more. the story is simple yet good. the violence is graphic and bloody. i thought josh hartnett did great and so did one actor i dont usually like william fichtner.
the depiction of the war made me feel like i was there. its perfect. see this if you want a good war film and leave pearl harbor on shelves at the local video store.
Rating: 
Summary: Only the dead know the end of war
Review: No Ben Affleck, we are off to a flying start. Josh Harnett, Eric Banna, Tom Sizemore, yes.
Delta Force, Ranger, Hoo-ya.
"Where is the romance bit?" did I hear someone say?, forget it, you're watching the wrong movie.
Blackhawk down puts you in the hot seat, where the highest price you will pay is the cost of the ticket.
Rating:
Summary: Best Ever
Review: An actual depiction of US Rangers' bravoury when faced with punitive carnage from enemy. Action packed, this movie will keeps you at the edge of your seat from the beginning till the end. A "must see" for all war movie goers. I will watch this one many time over...
|
