Rating: 
Summary: Terrific
Review: Overall this is a great movie. It shows the comraderie between men at war. The supporting cast was amazing Ewan Mcgregor did a terrific job as the clerk "Grimes", Eric Bana as Delta Operator Norm Hooten and my personal favorite Tom Sizemore as Mcknight.
I have something to say to people who gave this a one star,
THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT'S WHY THERE IS SO MUCH BLOOD!!!! OUR SOLDIERS WENT THROUGH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Gritty, solid movie, but "bad guys" r cardboard caricatures.
Review: Saw it recently for the second time, and it's a gritty, solid war film, with some intense action scenes, and little sappy melodrama. I won't go at length, so as not to repeat what's already been written here, but it does stand as one of the better American war films, up in the same general group as "Platoon" and "Saving Private Ryan," although not on the same philosophical level. If there's maybe one criticism, it's that the Somalian people are presented as cardboard caricatures, almost like swarms of bugs, that just keep coming and coming, nothing more than throngs of unrelenting "things." While, as others have pointed out, there are some heart-wrenching scenes made to humanize the Somalian people, those are few and far between. At times, the Somalian militia members come as almost cartoonish in their "thuggishness." Even the orcs/Uruk-hai in "Lord of the Rings" received more characterization. The Somalians here are seen, not heard. Understandable that the focus is on the "western" side of this incident, and not essential in this movie to go to "Tora! Tora! Tora!" lengths to present "both sides," but nonetheless, "Black Hawk Down" could have used more dimension in capturing the Somalian people and the Somalian militia and show us their motivations. Perhaps if it were made for a more intelligent audience, it would have been better and the Somalians presented in a more, well-rounded fashion. But as it is, its intense fighting scenes are, sorry for the cliche, nailbiters, and they show how seemingly small errors can compound upon each other, and, mixed with western over-confidence and egotism, how seemingly good intentions can backfire.
Rating:
Summary: Racist? I think not
Review: I was reading some of the one-star reviews and i came across a great number of reviews claiming that the movie portrays the Somalians as "maniacal, inhuman, the bad guys". i highly disagree.For one thing, although unmentioned in the movie but instead in the included documentary of the excellent 3 disc deluxe edition, the militia in somalia chew a type of drug called "cot" that makes them highly aggressive and violent on a daily basis. The "angry shouting Somalians" were most likely just that when they fought the americans in 1993; angry and shouting. When i finished viewing the movie, i was surprised to see the stark difference in american casualties and somalian casualties, but the movie did not leave me with the feeling that the somalians were a group of heartless monsters. Instead, there were many instances in the movie which showed the human aspect of the indigenous people (for instance, there is a very painful scene involving a child soldier), and it amazes me as to how these people go off and just ignore these sequences. There really is nothing that is blatantly propaganda-like in this movie, at least in terms of portraying the indigenous people who suffered the most. In fact, i thought the movie was portraying the AMERICANS as the bad guy of the event, as the "interveners" of a domestic affair. But the film does state the histoical reason as to why the americans were there in the first place: the "starvation" tactic used by Warlord Aidid in the civil war had claimed the lives of 300,000 somalian civilians. WHen the UN sent aid, Aidid forcefully took control of the major cities/harbors and claimed all the food aid for himself, giving no food to the neighboring, opposing, starving factions whose people were dying. 20,000 marines and a UN army were able gain control of the cities and distribute the food to those who needed it, but once the marines left somalia Aidid took control right back. The Rangers and Delta Force Units were sent to find and stop Aidid so that food could be fairly distributed. And this is smeared off as "Unnecessary American Intervention, causing 10,000 somali deaths". A little off topic here, but it truly makes me mad to hear these people shout "Unnecessary American Intervention" when they would be shouting about how America was greedy and selfish had THEY NOT intervened. I can envision a whole crowd of college students claiming how hundreds of thousands in somalia starve while the US gov't is busy building up its arms for the war on iraq. If you actually cared about these people, you wouldve noticed the 300,000 dead from a stravation tactic used by a ruthless warlord. so please, shut your anti-american rants, please. Its true, this movie DOES get very confusing with the large cast and many events going on. and it does not really have a "plot". all of these are sacrificed for an authentic feeling to the event. i would recommend watching this movie 2 or 3 times to get a good understanding of everything that happens, and to put the subtitles on so that the names of the characters are more recognizeable. While the gore and confusion may seem overwhelming at first, this movie is a real inspriring gem if you give it the chance to be seen a few times. Oh, and the last thing this is, is "Bloody gory entertainment". that never was the intention of the makers. if you want bloody gory entertainment, go watch something like "ichi the killer"
Rating:
Summary: Zulu revisited
Review: Many years ago, the British made a film called Zulu where thousands of Zulu tribesmen rushed at a camp and were shot down by about 100 British soldiers. The same effect occurs here. The Americans are surrounded. The weapons are stronger, but the effect is just the same. THe Americans are people while the Somalis are not. The American soldiers die in pain - often in slow motion - and they are named in the credits. The Somali soldiers just get shot or blown up and we are told that 1000 died compared to 19 Americans. The Americans are depicted as brave, while the Somalis are shown as maniacs. Nonetheless, there is a lot to like in this film with some creat action scenes. The fight scenes are well done. THe film has no real centre, after the carnage, there is one scene at the end when a man dimly walks across a road with his dead child, there is no vision that this war may be destroying all involved in it. In the end, it is a film that has very divided sympathies and does not work as a whole.
Rating:
Summary: A Staple In The Study of Modern Warfare
Review: Sometime, a long time from now I will use this video in my modern warfare classes. I know I will because this is a great study into modern urban warfare. It is also a great view of what happens when things don't go by the book. Scott does an exceptional job with the adaptation of Bowden's original work. But do yourself a favor and pick the book up. Scott is a genious but you can't fit all of the info from Bowden's book into a movie. Plus reading never hurt anyone. But, continuing on, the cast list is amazing. An all star cast combined with an all star crew make this an all star movie. Go Rangers!
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent War Film... do you need this 3-disc edition?
Review: What is on this edition that was not on the original release has little to do with production of the film, but the event itself. In my opinion, you don't need the new edition if you aren't terribly interested in an in-depth study on the raid itself. The film is something of a mixed bag, and although I find it to be harrowing and good, I can easily imagine my negative review for the film. The character developement is cliched and cursory. It doesn't, however, develop over-sentimentality like WE WERE SOLDIERS. Once the guys get in their army gear and all dirty and bloody, it can be difficult to identify them. When the film is nearing the end, we look at some of the characters and say, "Oh, that guy lived." Complaints have been made about the film's portrayal of the expendability of the Mogadishu civialians. I find some truth in that, but given the perspective and time contraints of the filmmaking world, I think director Ridley Scott did an admirable job of trying to squeeze in sympathy for the "enemy" It's harrowing, though. Once the battle ensues, I forgave the shortcomings and was pulled into all the gritty action. It was coherent and loud and "exciting." Unlike soooo many recent action movies... this one isn't THAT long. Hans Zimmer's score adds etheral and harsh elements to the mix. If you can forgive the shallowness of the characters and aren't going to disssect the films military accuracies (the feet on the rope, for example), this film is pretty good, or at the very least, worth seeing
Rating: 
Summary: Gratuitous violence - no story!
Review: There can only be one reason why someone would make a movie such as this one - to shock people and gross them out. I was surprised for about half of the movie as I had heard that it was supposed to be really violent. Honestly, the action was tame with people falling down when shot just like in teh old cowboy films...then suddenly it just got completely disgusting with arms flying around and blood everywhere. And the makeshift operation - was it really necessary to show that so vividly, I ask myself? Yes, they did their job well - I was grossed out, but I can't say I found it very entertaining. In fact, I would be worried about people who do find this sort of thing to be entertainment!
There is virtually no story in the movie apart from people shooting at other people who are shooting. Of course, there is a reason why the soldiers were in Somalia, but the reasons and political situation are glossed over and merely referenced in writing, in passing. One soldier got captured, but we don't see his rescue or release. We are merely told about it in writing at the end of the film. I am sure so much more could have been done with this movie, but then again, if you want to makea movie that makes big bucks, you have to pander to some of the basest desires of humankind - They want to see blood and guts, so the film makers give it 'em, regardless of the effect such a facile portrayal of brutality has on societies today.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent war film
Review: I was surprised to see so many negative reviews for this movie that I would unequivocally place in the same pantheon of great war films such as Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, The Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now. The focus of these closed-minded reviewers seems to be on the politics that are the backdrop of the film, when they claim that "1000 somalis died in the clash and only 19 Americans died ... the Somalis [were portrayed] as the villains when all they were doing was defending their city." If they wish to vent their rage on American foreign policy, they should do it elsewhere rather than scapegoating "Black Hawk Down". I am certain that others would be delighted to hear their opinions and anger over Americans "terrorising" a dictatorial militia. Having said that, Black Hawk Down is an excellent movie. The cinematography is superb and eclectic in camera techniques. It does not focus unilaterally on battle sequences (which are stunningly impressive and memorable), but also ominous imagery of a dull and poverty-stricken Somalia. Tension is constantly mounting and discharging during engagements. As many have mentioned, there are many characters in this film, but anyone with a three-digit IQ will be able to keep track of them. The depth of these characters suffers slightly because of the focus of the movie, their eighteen hour fight behind enemy lines. However, they are so endearing that the viewer elates over their successes and feels their hopelessness and frustration. The conclusion of the movie was fairly anticlimatic; by then the whole engagement at Mogadishu will seems pointless and fruitless, but the lasting impact is delivered in a similar fashion to that of Saving Private Ryan, in the journey through hell the viewer has with the characters. Although this sounds like melodramatic platitude, Black Hawk Down manages this with sincerity, neither glorifying war nor deliberately shocking the viewer with gratuitious violence. This film shines in demonstrating a believable account of the 1993 engagement at Mogadishu. I will leave aside the banality in stating that it is "an excellent look in modern warfare" as others have; ultimately, as Eric Bana says "it's about the guy next to you". There is no jingoist political message to it, as others have implied, and I can say that with conviction as I am Canadian and did not feel as if American glorification was being forced down my throat. In this respect many other movies have been greater offenders. It is an entertaining movie, one that is not merely a rehash of other war films but stands out on its own. Although not the classic that Saving Private Ryan was, it is an excellent movie.
Rating:
Summary: Misunderstanding
Review: Most reviews here talk about this battle being a disaster. This was one of the most lopsided victories in military history. The only disaster was a coward pretending to be president, who after the military completely destroyed Ahdids army, handed the country over to a piss ant warlord.
Rating:
Summary: America's finest
Review: The recent war movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "We Were Soldiers" focused on the brutaility of war in the past of WWII or Vietnam. "Black Hawk Down" proves that just because the modern militery has more advanced technology and inpersonal methods of destruction likethe Smart Bombs, that dose not change the fact that in war people still get killed. It is based on the incident in 1993 Somalia where Delta Force and Air Assault Rangers are inserted to arrest high ranking officials of a war lord. What was supposed to take thirty minuets turned into an eighteen hour disaster. The soldiers are quickly cut off from help and attacked by the civilians. There is no star in this film, it's an ensamble cast. Josh Harnett dose well in the lead, I suppose, as the young sergeant who's thrust in charge of this mess. As I said all the cast dose well, but it was Sam Shepard who really immpressed me. He is the commanding general in charge of quashing the revolt. He is watching the whole mission at base, like a father watching his children die, and completly helpless do do anything about it; very heart breaking. Ridley Scott directed this with a streight forward presentation, with most of the action explaining itself. This is a truelly great war movie, probably my favorite.
|
