Black Hawk Down Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 10378.46 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x532 | 8109.61 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x292 | 1948.94 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x240 | 1003.42 MiB | divx | |
|
320x130 | 368.91 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Leave No Man Behind
Based On A True Story
From The Director Of "Gladiator".
Action/war drama based on the best-selling book detailing a near-disastrous mission in Somalia on October 3, 1993 where nearly 100 U.S. Army Rangers, commanded by Capt. Mike Steele, were dropped by helicopter deep into the capital city of Mogadishu to capture two top lieutenants of a Somali warlord which lead to a large and drawn-out firefight between the Rangers and hundreds of Somali gunmen which led to the destruction of two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, and the heroic efforts by various Rangers to get to them, centering on Sgt. Eversmann, commanding one Ranger unit named Chalk Four, leading Rangers to the first black hawk crash site, to Warrant Officer Durant who was only survivor of the second black hawk crash site and whom was captured, to Col. McKnight who leads a rescue convoy for the Rangers only to get lost within the hostile city, to Sgt. Sanderson desperately trying to get to the first crash site, to Staff Sgt. Yurek who leads two fellow Rangers, Nelson and Twombly to meet with up their squad, Chalk Four, at the first crash site, to many others involved who where either killed or survived.
| Josh Hartnett | SSgt. Matt Eversmann |
| Tom Sizemore | Lt. Col. Danny McKnight |
| Sam Shepard | Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison |
| Ewan McGregor | Spec. John Grimes |
| Eric Bana | Sfc. Norm 'Hoot' Gibson |
| Jason Isaacs | Capt. Mike Steele |
| Ron Eldard | CWO Michael Durant |
| Tom Hardy | Spec. Lance Twombly |
| Ewen Bremner | Spec. Shawn Nelson |
| Charlie Hofheimer | Cpl. James 'Jamie' Smith |
| Hugh Dancy | Sfc. Kurt Schmid |
| Tom Guiry | SSgt. Ed Yurek |
| Brian Van Holt | SSgt. Jeff Struecker |
| Steven Ford | Lt. Col. Joe Cribbs |
| Ridley Scott |
7.60 out of 10 (52537 votes)
Visitor Reviews
I avoid it now like the plague.
posted on 26 Aug 2009Warning, may contain spoilersI only whent to see this because I was dragged along by a friend. I didn't want to see it then and I still regret I ever saw it. I want my money and my two hours and twenty four minutes of my life back.What tries to come over as an anti-war movie delivers a patronising effort with a strong good guy/bad guy element, which anti-war movies should leave out altogether, it's not about whos right and wrong it's about everyone suffering. The comparisons were all too obvious. There were the soldiers fun loving, chidrens book illustrating, old show watching, family men. On the other side you had the grouchy, savage, militia. I am not denying the militia used hunger as a weapon, but the foreign forces there weren't the angels they were made out to be. They probably caused more damage and killed more people than the militia. The assistance by the army in this film is all to obvious. The movie was so slanted. Another problem was the excessive violence, sure thats what war is, but the movie was so quick to quick to violence, and when it got there we were immersed in it save for a few quick breathers, that we had no time to learn about the characters. What we did learn was little and scattered. Characters in movies should have more depth than what happened here. You can leave out excessive violence, and give time for the characters to develop while still conveying and anti-war message. Enemy at the Gates is pure testimony to that.All that was good about the movie was the quote at the beginning by Plato, as I ma a lover of antiquity, the music which was reminiscent of Gladiator the better of the two by Scott. I was pretty ticked off at Eric Bana for doing this, if he hadn't made up for this with the mildly amusing Nugget, and the intellectual Hulk, I would have disliked him intensely. McGregor continued his run of bad movies such as Star Wars Episode I and this, making up for it with Episode II. And how could Orlando Bloom do the original (and worthy nearl three hours Lord of the Rings) and then do this churned out propaganda, thankfully he more than made up for it with the other two in the Rings triology. I'm interested to see how Bana and Bloom go in Troy.The lesson from this keep Bruckheimer away from supposedly anti-war movies.
Millenium claptrap
posted on 24 Aug 2009As the proud owner of a digital high definition, wide-screen projection television with DTS surround sound, I could barely WAIT until the DVD version of this film was released, given all the hype.I don't even bother going to the theatre anymore, because it's far more enjoyable to wait four or five months and watch it in the comfort and ease of state-of-the-art home theatre technology. Let me hasten to add that this film does not disappoint in that regard...it's magnificent in terms of picture and sound.HOWEVER, I must confess that I turned it off at Chapter 14, and damn near threw the rented jewel case at the screen.During the BIG ONE, as Archie Bunker called it, we were subjected to many jingoistic "John Wayne" propaganda-laden Hollywood productions, some of which were nonetheless very good AND served the useful and justifiable purpose of galvanizing Americans and their Allies into an all-out effort to wipe the (then) rotten Huns and Nips off the planet.This one, however, is simply preposterous! There's not a commander, from platoon to division level, who would for a moment allow virtually all of his troops (having already accomplished their mission...rounding up the "bad guys") to return to a heavily defended area to rescue one guy who fell out of a copter or several others in a couple of other Blackhawks" shot down during the heat of battle.I recently watched a documentary on the Battle of Midway, where the flight commander just prior to their mission told his torpedo bomber pilots "If 5 percent of you come back, I'll be surprised". As it turned out, he was overly optimistic....one squadron lost 28 out of 29 pilots. Now THAT was true and documented heroism, but the silly, needless and wasteful loss of further life depicted in BLACKHAWK DOWN is just another example of the brainless "feel good" mentality of our current movie fare. Even more sad, it is gobbled up by most of today's moviegoers, who've been programmed to accept and even rave about this and other manipulative horse droppings....eg. Pearl Harbour.One fairly recent and notable exception which offered me some fading glimmer of hope for Hollywood ...the magnificent SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Although based on a similar premise, it was openly a politically driven order from Washington (rather than the ridiculous BLACKHAWK decision by the front line commander and his eager troops to return to a needless but oh so admirable kamikaze-style slaughter) which sent all those troops back into harm's way.A MAJOR disappointment!!!!
This film was alright
posted on 24 Aug 2009I just got this film on DVD and I was excited about viewing this film. I was a little disappointed, but not much. I liked Pearl Harbor better. This film is based on an actual event where the US gets mixed up in a civil war in Somalia. First, I will start with the positives. The acting was great. I liked Harnett and McGregor. There is non-stop action. I also liked the score, but it is not really noticeable because you are dazzled by the visuals and action. There are also some negatives. There is poor character development. The movie doesn't try to explain the characters. Harnett's character should've been more explained. Next, the film is a bit too gory. But, I was fine with that. Overall, this movie is a fair war flick. I rate this movie a 7/10.
War as it is?
posted on 14 Aug 2009Since I was very little, I have dreaded being drafted and forced to be a soldier for a foreign monarch to be ensnared in the nightmare of a war that I would have no interest in, nor my country (I live in a british colony).Now that I am safely past the age of making a soldier, I thought that I would never have that experience.Until I saw that excellent movie.
Ridley strikes gold again!
posted on 12 Aug 2009How does this sound: intense war film directed by Ridley Scott. Not bad, ay? What about this: intense war film from the producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Not so good anymore. Luckily the second part has understood to give the first free hands. I admit that action has always been Bruckheimer's strong point, but when it comes to drama.. well, witness Pearl Harbor (= not good). Although BHD is based on a true story, it doesn't mean that the combat happened exactly like the film describes it. That aside, this is still a very strong piece of material that is only straightened by the great cast, supreme effects and most of all, the lack of any romance. I'm not saying that romance is a sure thing to bring any film plummeting down, but it's so fresh to see a film where it's not present just to suck up to the women in the audience. One thing, though.. there's one tiny problem with the fact, that because the soldiers are in full combat gear and most of them are wearing the goggles, it's VERY difficult to recognize them from each other. You often just don't know who's shooting and who's getting hit. The filmmakers have tried to solve the problem to some extent by writing the characters names on their helmets. It doesn't work well. But these are just minor problems and by the time the end credits roll on, you know you've seen a kick ass war movie that does not stop much to draw breath!**** / *****
A masquerade (mild spoiler)
posted on 10 Aug 2009I watched this film because I had heard it was "the best war movie since 'private ryan'"... ...ahem. I will not even justify such a ridiculous claim with a response.I guess my biggest problem with the film is that Ridley scott doesn't know what he's trying to do with it. He opens the film with a line from Plato "Only the dead have seen the end of war". It seems a bit trite and pretentious, but overall, with a quote like that preceding the film, you gotta think that this is gonna be an extremely objective look at humanity's illogical partiality to war.However, what follows is a blatantly American look at "American heroes" "giving hope" to all of those "foreign savages" off in somalia, back in that "little skirmish" of 1993. It is virtually 2 hrs of soulless combat footage of "good 'ol american boys" doing there duty and making a difference in the world, even if that includes killing 1000 somalis.I will not go into the lack of emotional "OOmph" that this film had, or the frequently-proclaimed lack of "characterization".All I will say is that it seems this film serves little more purpose than to rile the american spirit (contrary to what plato's opening quote would have you believe)...it has, rather, recoiled any residing american spirit I still had. It makes me sort of embarrassed and ashamed to be part of a country that refuses to look at a single thing (not even something as broad and chaotic as war) with any shred of objectivity.Kyrie Eleison. All of us.
For being a captivating story, the movie was boring
posted on 08 Aug 2009I was somewhat familiar with US activities in Somalia before watching this movie, so I was ready to enjoy it as a historical drama. However, I found myself to be bored throughout this film. First, and perhaps most importantly, I just didn't care about the characters. By the end of the film, I couldn't tell you what their names were; only who the actors were that played them. In short, I didn't care if they lived or died. Sure, as an American, I didn't want to see the soldiers die, but as a moviegoer, I didn't buy into it. Second, I was disappointed by the lack of any cohesive story going through. Being familiar with the history of the event, I knew what the overall goals were for each team that was on the ground and in the air, but my friend who was watching it with me was totally confused throughout the movie. Perhaps this was done to portray the "fog of war," but to my friend, it looked like the whole movie was a bunch of people shooting for no reason, and going nowhere. Finally, why did they not elaborate on and finish the story of Durant, the helicopter pilot who was captured by the Somali's? It could have made for incredible drama. In short: maybe worth a rental, but don't expect much. As far as good war movie go, try Patton, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, The Great Escape, and The Best Years of our Lives.
Nothing Special
posted on 06 Aug 2009I felt this movie typifies the movie business' cliches about war movies. The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan accomplished more than Blackhawk Down did in the whole run of the movie. There is no plot or character development... just shooting, some yelling, the headshed sweating a little, some more shooting... A lot more could have been done with this story.I gave it a 3 out of 10.
If you think this is pro-American propaganda, then you're an idiot
posted on 02 Aug 2009I'm sick and tired of seeing all these goddamn people (both Americans and foreigners) who run around the forums saying that this is a glorification of the battle of Mogadishu, and that it's not historically accurate. The thing is, none of you trolls ever prove anything. You just say that Black hawk down is pro-American BS and then you run away.For one, there is no glorification in the movie. One soldier falls out of a chopper before the fight starts, another soldier's lower half is blown away, and two soldiers' bodies are nearly ripped apart and dragged through the streets. Real f*cking glorified, isn't it? Second- the movie is probably the most historically accurate war movie in recent years. Yeah, lots of you jackasses love to say Hollywood made stuff up, when in reality, the movie was faithful to Mark Bowden's book down to the dialogue. The only significant fact that was twisted was that Eversman (Josh hartnet) did not spend the night in Mogadishu. Thirdly, some people say it's racist because it shows Americans (mainly white Americans) shooting at Somalis. Well, Somalis happen to be BLACK. What was Ridley Scott going to do, color the militia purple so you won't get offended? BHD is a realistic re-creation of what happened and not intended to be racist. Fourth- some claim that BHD is very gung-ho and has images of Americans slaughtering Somalis by the hundreds. Except for the sequence where the two Delta snipers are defending the crashed chopper (which happened), there are no John Wayne-type images in the movie. Any soldier in this movie can get hit. Nobody is special. You also have to remember that the US troops were severely outnumbered, in hostile territory, and fighting the entire city. They were fighting for their lives, not killing Somalis because it was fun. And finally, people p*** and moan about how negative the Somalis are portrayed. How are they portrayed negatively? They get guns and defend their homes against invading US troops. Both sides suffer. You see this in the beginning, which shows images of starving somalis, and you see it at the end when the doctor is carrying the dead child across the street. And then there's the speech made by the pilot's captor about how it's not America's war, and about how the US troops come to his country and kill his people. So I suggest that a lot of you guys think before you start posting negative BS about this movie.
well done
posted on 31 Jul 2009This was very gritty and realistic war movie. It was as good as, if not slightly better than, Saving Private Ryan as it focused on the true story of men at war in Somalia. It was not for the faint of heart, nor did it portray a pretty picture of war. Hartnett and McGregor were excellent in their roles, and I found myself totally absorbed in the movie.*** out of ****
Just a few corrections **Contains Spoiler - ish**
posted on 31 Jul 2009Hi, The Rangers and Delta Force that dropped in to the "Mog" were doing so without the approval of the UN, so it was always bound to be a little "covert". Throw Delta force into the mix and you get something that is on a need to know basis really (As they are not officially a US unit (I think) that the Government wants to admit too funding). The mission was to last under four hours, and the teams hadn't really seen any action before in Mogadishu. They had run a few missions and this particular one was to capture some of General Adid's top lieutenants. General Adid was a nasty man, that used Famine as a weapon against the people of Mogadishu, tin an attempt to get his clan into power. They were unable to capture Adid himself as he moved around (No network of Bunkers or Caves here....)Basically this movie details the mission and the next 24 or so hours. There are some great performances from all of the all male crew, some old some new faces, and a lot of hot lead flying around. ****Spoiler**********Check the bit with the artery going back up into the leg. It still freaks me out thinking about it now. Eurgh........
Hyperkinetic account of modern warfare
posted on 31 Jul 2009The story : in the 1993 UN intervention in the Somali civil war US troops get ambushed in Mogadishu during a raid to capture local warlord Aideed. They must fight their way out of the hostile city, under constant assault from thousands of Aideeds warriors and Somali civilians.I remember reading about this incident and thinking that this would make an interesting topic for a modern warmovie but frankly, I'd never expected something like this.Based on the book by Mark Bowden, it's a painstaking accurate retelling of the actual raid. Prepare yourself for a breathtaking, blistering brilliant account of non-stop mayhem and carnage, limbs getting blown off, hundreds of casualties and more ammunition spent then on a dozen recent action movies combined. BHD makes `The Wild Bunch' seem like The `Sound of Music'.BHD is near too perfection : direction, acting, production values, editing, photography and script are almost flawless. It is so rich in detail and moves along at such speed you 'll need at least 2-3 viewings to get a full grasp of the full chain of events. It may be confusing sometimes but so is a real war. The battlescenes are exceptionally well handled by Ridley Scott ,on the top of his craft here, turning out one of the best movies of his long career (Alien, Hannibal, Gladiator, 1492, Thelma and Louise, etc...) It almost looks like a bunch of vets did the whole raid all over again.The DVD offers off-screen commentary by Bowden himself and some of the actual vets who that went through the ordeal, so movie must be pretty accurate.A good thing producer Bruckheimer decided on shooting (sic) the whole thing in Morocco instead of some Hollywood back lot (and that he didn't choose Ridley's brother Tony to direct or we'd stuck with a Club Med commercial with some blood 'n guts thrown in).Movie has some big stars like Ewan Mcgregor and Josh Harnett, but they are hardly recognisable between all the shootings and explosions. But Shepard is distinguishable as General Harrison, the CO who took full responsibility for the mess. Also Tom Sizemore as the convoy commander and William Richter as some kind of super Delta warrior stand out.BHD is almost an updated version of the old-style colonial war movies where a small number of white soldiers pitched against thousands of hostile natives. One of the best in this 'genre' is "Zulu" (1964) and also based on the true life event of the Battle of O'Rourke Drift in 1879 South-Africa, where a handful of British soldiers must fight off a few thousands Zulu warriors. Michael Caine's breakthrough movie !One minor remark though on the reality bit : these high-tech soldiers are sure a far cry for the thugs and ragtag grunts seen in `Platoon' or `Casualties of War' and whose main concern was getting laid or scoring some dope. These model Rangers and Delta Force (cool outfit !) troops are all such clean-cut and wholesome guys, spending their free time playing chess and scrabble, reading John Grisham novels and getting high, haha, on coffee. Yeah, right.Is BHD the best war movie ever made ? Perhaps not, but it sure comes close.Ah yes, all this lamenting from fellow IMDb reviewers on the lack of characterization : you want characterization ? Go see `The Hours' instead.
Blood, Sweat & Bullets: The New Story of GI Joe
posted on 19 Jul 2009The partly successful, partly disastrous 1993 mission in Somalia is recounted in a horrifyingly glorious storm of blood, sweat and bullets as American soldiers find themselves up against an entire city.Hate to sound like a cheap ad, but director Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) has fashioned a war movie so powerful it leaves "Pearl Harbor" (which also starred Josh Hartnett) looking like a bad "GI Joe" cartoon. This is how a war movie should be: no romantic cliches of two soldier friends in love with the same woman, no flag waving glory crap, and no clearly drawn good guys or bad guys, even if our sympathies lie more with our own troops than the Somali war lords.Anchoring the film is a strong cast that features Sam Shepard, Jason Isaacs, Tom Sizemore, William Fitchner, Josh Hartnett, Eric Bana (in the role that made him a star in American eyes), Ewan McGregor, and Orlando Bloom in a small but crucial role as the man who falls out of the helicopter. It's an ironic bit of casting, seeing as how Bloom himself broke his back in real life and his claim to fame is playing the sleek, cat like Legalos in "Lord of the Rings". Just an actual incident recreated flawlessly and featuring violence so raw and powerful that you'd swear you were there (the first time I saw this film I swore I could taste the heat of the desert). Rarely is the horror of war so well depicted.This is also probably Josh Hartnett's best performance to date. He's not eye candy for the girls here, he's just playing a regular guy (who ironically was not that involved in the real incident). If he keeps this up, he might actually have a career worth remembering after his pretty boy looks have faded.Take it slow with this one.
Great war movie of all time
posted on 11 Jul 2009Black Hawk Down is hands down the most visually spectacular movie depicting war to come out to date. Saving Private Ryan was an appettizer. Black Hawk Down is the main course. Ridley Scott proves he is one of Hollywood's most talented directors as he is able to make sense of an event so extensive and so difficult to canvass that an average director would just have fumbled. The story itself is simplictic. Army Rangers and Delta force are sent in to arrest the warlord Aidid's lieutenants. Slowly, the mission begins to unravel and American lives are lost, totally 19. This movie is not a propaganda machine. Although it sets up the backstory to why they are there with the intro, there is no in depth contemplation of American involvement in Somalia. The soldiers are there because they are soldiers, thats all you need to know. The entire story is focused on these 100 or so American men and their sole role as soldiers. There is no character development, no single individual that stands out or to root for. This is war and no one man makes a war. So as you can see so far, this is not a conventional John Wayne movie. If you want a true account of Oct 3, 1993, watch Dateline or the history channel. Black Hawk Down is a condensed and fictional account of what happened and how these soldiers dealt with the cards given to them. We get a story about comraderie and heroism mixed with tragedy and sorrow. We feel bad that these soldiers are in there fighting for there lives but we also get a sense that this is their job and someone has to do it. So if you want a conventional movie to root for a hero, this ain't it my friend. This is a film about war and the soldiers who fight them. Is Ridley Scott glorifying these men or is he making an anti-war movie? Pundits could argue both ways but this is something only the genius of Ridley Scott truly knows. Don't rent Black Hawk Down, save your cash and buy it on DVD. You will thank me for this.
Gritty, but narrow look at a mission gone wrong
posted on 07 Jul 2009Blackhawk Down is a war movie without epic scope, and that is both its strength and its weakness. The movie covers a period of a few days in the lijfe of the war-torn capital of Somalia. The United States, based on sketchy intelligence, launches a mission to capture some top officials of warlord Mohamed Aidid, whose stranglehold on the capital city of Mogadishu was preventing food from reaching starving Somalis. After seeing what Jerry Bruckheimer did to Pearl Harbor, I'm personally grateful the lack of back story. Mercifully, Ken Nolan keeps the story focused on the action at hand. Ridley Scott has always known make his money show up on the screen, and this movie is no exception. The action is hellish and nonstop. Nolan's script and Scott's direction do an excellent job of conveying the chaos and horror of war, without having the film dissolve into incomprehesibilty. My biggest criticism would be the lack of information about the U.S. effort in Somalia. This mission seems to exists in a vacuum. While it was a pivot in the U.S. involvement, it begs the question: If the Blackhawk had not gone down, would it have changed our involvement?Nevertheless, this is a tight and focused movie, not for the faint of heart. Those looking for a film that lets you experience the chaos, horror and camraderie of combat need go no further. Those who are looking for an answer as to why that combat took place should look elsewhere.
A protracted firefight
posted on 05 Jul 2009Here's the deal. This movie is a recreation of a protracted firefight on the streets of Mogadishu Somalia. It's not pro-war, it's not anti-war.
It's not racist, it's not anti-muslim, it's not pro American (though it is from the U.S. GI's perspective). It's not about big stars, like it could have been (Tom Crusie would have jumped at this). It's a look at what happened on those two fateful days. That's it, no more no less. If you want to see a drawn out battle scene, with much guts and gore, then see this. If that's too much for you skip it.Additionaly:Re the maudlin "tell so-and-so I love her, fought well" criticism. It is my understanding that these are based on the comments heard by survivors. If that is what the dying men said, why exclude it just because it may sound sappy? Think about it, what would you say if you were dying and there was someone there to pass along the message? Whether we have been programmed by Hollywood to be sentimental when we die (as in all the old war movies) or it's just a natural thing to do, people do say things like that in extremis (remember the teacher from the Columbine shooting? All the students who were with him said he wanted them to tell his family he loved them). We hear accounts like this all the time from witnesses to dying individual's final words. I was not there so I can't tell you what was said, but since all we have is the information from those who talked to these soldiers right before they died, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.The racism charge: Well first off, yes many black folks are killed because that's what really happened. Let's all join together to keep the politically correct attack dogs away from that fact before they rewrite history once again. Now why more blacks weren't represented among the U.S. forces I'm not sure why. I am in the Army and I can assure you that the proportion of blacks in the ranks is much higher than was shown. I can only offer that it is my understanding that Scott wanted to be as factual as possible trying to represent the actual combatants, so maybe they were mainly white. I can also offer the following antedotal items: Though there are many minorites in the U.S. Army I have noticed that amoung the Rangers and Special Forces, there are far fewer. I don't know why (and by the way I am not a Ranger of Green Beret) this is, but it seems to be the case at least from my perspective; and I saw this film at a special showing in Korea at the Army post Theater and the audience was about 1/3 black and they didn't seem at all concerned with any racist overtones. You could tell who they were supporting because you would hear a few muted cheers when a Somali was shot, and a groan or gasp when a white U.S. soldier was hit. I guess some things transend race.I feel sad that so many did not realize this happened or don't remember it.
The image of those soldiers bodies being dragged through the streets has stuck with me since the first time I saw it on TV. Shugart and Gordon are true heroes going into that crash site, and all famous actors/actresses, musicains, sports stars, etc aren't even close to qualifying to being the role models that those two should be to every one.
Respectful, and much fun watching British and Aussie actors
posted on 05 Jul 2009I found this film well-done--quite intense, of course--and very reverential toward the soldiers caught in a grim situation. The violence, for once in modern film, was contextually necessary.One criticism might be the absence of background on why the "mission" was considered by many to be a military blunder. It encouraged me to read newspaper/periodical accounts of the actual events; however, the point of the movie seems as valid as ever: the story inspires admiration and empathy for these soldiers' efforts.On a lighter note, I truly enjoyed seeing so many non-Yank actors playing Americans. I'm good with faces (even here with all the buzzcut guys on the screen) but mentioned to a family member during my first viewing how much an actor looked and sounded like Ewan MacGregor, and got a laugh. Also enjoyed picking out Orlando Bloom without his Lord-of-the-Rings blond tresses, and Jason Isaacs (Capt. Steele) who was so coldly cruel to Mel Gibson in The Patriot. Wow.
The best war movie ever made!!!!
posted on 03 Jul 2009What I like about this movie is that it is very easy to understand and after the first 40 minutes of this 2 hour and 20 minute movie, it is COMPLETELY action packed. Even the first 40 minutes are interesting. I can honestly say that this movie is better (in my opinion) than Saving Private Ryan and MUCH better than Episode 1 and 2. Of course, saying that BHD is better isn't saying much, because both episodes weren't great to begin with. The acting in Black Hawk Down is great, and the action and realism is incredible. The movie rightfully won for best film editing and best sound from the Academy Awards.
Insubordination?
posted on 23 Jun 2009I Really loved the movie and want to read the book but haven't had a chance. Perhaps one of you who has or has some insight could answer a question of mine.The only part of the movie that shocked me was when Hoot came back from the "tax-payer funded, Delta safari" and basically showed a really disrespectful attitude toward a superior officer (No, I didn't say HIS superior officer). You know the part I'm talking about. It's when the Captain (I believe his name was Steele) berates him for not having his safety on when they were feasting on the roast boar...mmmm roast boar... I remember saying to myself: "There's no way an ultra-elite member of the military would address a higher ranking officer that way." If only for the example it would give the other men. And I don't give a rat's ass how long it had been from his last meal. Don't misunderstand I really thought the character played by Bana was cool but I had a hard time swallowing that. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Any Ideas?P.S. Does anyone else have a problem with Josh Hartnett's casting as a Ranger Sergeant. I think Josh Hartnett is a fine actor but he just didn't convince me he was a Sergeant. I could have seen him as one of the Privates though. He just didn't have that Hollywood Sergeant persona...if you know what I mean. He seemed too young and idealistic.
Black Hawk Watered Down
posted on 30 Aug 2009Back in the summer, I saw the "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" teaser and IMMEDIATELY raced home to try to find it online. I didn't find it, but I did find Mark Bowden's Philadephia Inquirer articles on it, and I was hooked. I ordered the book.I don't know if I suffered from reading the book three times in the last six months had anything to do with it, or whether all the great reviews I've read had built up my expectations...I honestly TRIED to go into the theater with an open mind. I'm trying to see how great this movie was...I'm trying to look at it as if I'd never read the book. I'm actually thinking of seeing it again to see if I like it better.The truth is, I kept waiting to feel MASSIVE anxiety watching this movie, and I never did. Maybe I have too vivid an imagination. Maybe I've played way too much Counter-Strike. Maybe my home theater and my DTS copy of Saving Private Ryan is just too good, and I've become de-sensitized to movie depictions of war.God, I really wanted this movie to be special. I didn't think it was.--Not to take anything away from our men and women in uniform...those people have my utmost respect and appreciation for defending us.--and not to take anything away from Ridley Scott. I STILL think Alien is the scariest movie ever made, and I was one of the seven people that LOVED Legend. This is the guy who gave birth to Blade Runner.But man, I have to admit I was let down by Black Hawk Down on a number of levels.The setup was nice. Great music, great shots...and when the guys take off initially to Stevie Ray Vaughn's rendition of "Voodoo Chile (slight return)", I was GEKED.But these guys that say it's like a two hour version of the first twenty minutes of SPR are exaggerating, imho. In SPR, I FELT the Americans being HAMMERED on that beach. I've read a couple of things some of the rangers who've seen the movie (and gave positive reviews to)have written about it, and they claim that the movie only has about 1/10th of the bullets flying that the actual battle had. The book made it seem like it was just withering walls of lead and rpgs--just a horizontal HAILSTORM of bullets so thick you could actually SEE them. It depicted it as ABSOLUTELY merciless and relentless.I also had a problem with the way the Somalis were "stylized". Not that I know any better because I wasn't there, but these guys all dressed in black, with aviator shades and bandoliers--seemed to me like a half-assed way of putting a face on the enemy. All the pictures I've seen of these guys show them as just skinny dudes in second-hand clothes with guns. No bandoliers, no swagger, just bony khat junkies with weapons that looked way too big for them. Hey, maybe I'm wrong.Speaking of aviator shades, wtf was up with Sam Shepard and his? On again, off again. Was this the Bruckheimer influence? That seemed a little more Hollywood than Fort Benning. I have a world of respect and admiration for Shepard as both an actor and playwright, but General Garrison didn't sound like the kind of guy who wore shades INDOORS.I have to admit, this was the first time I've heard a Vulcan cannon spool up in a film--truly a powerful sound. --but every time they showed the effects of it, it was just squibs under some extras' shirts. I was under the impression that this thing literally SHREDS people. My point is, it seemed unrealistic and anti-climactic.Don't get me wrong--I'm not disappointed because I didn't get to see people get shredded. It's just that if you're going to portray war accurately, I think you should portray war accurately.And I have to mention the rpgs. In the film, a Somali militiaman fires the rpg that takes out Cliff Wolcott's helo ON THE RUN WITH A GUY BEHIND HIM. From what I've read, the Somalis had to rig special deflectors on the back of their launch tubes to fire upwards because the backblast could seriously injure, if not kill you. They also had to build pits to divert the backblast, so they fired upward from stationary, pre-determined positions. Does having the Somali fire the rpg on the run justify poetic license just enough to ignore reality?When the troops received the go-codeword for the mission, "Irene," in reality, they were already aboard the helos. They got on them nearly every day, and were usually ordered to stand down. What a great opportunity to show the heat and boredom of the same old daily grind, only to have the rangers shocked out of their false sense of security by an authentic go-code. What a perfect way to start their disorientation--with the mission. Instead, we got a hundred guys running out to the helicopters, guns in the ready position. Sounds like Bruckheimer. If Michael Bay had been directing, they would have swaggered toward the camera in slow motion, shoulder to shoulder, in a glorious telephoto shot, waves of heat rising from the asphalt ala Armageddon or Bad Boys.Then there was Private Blackburn's fall from the helicopter. Why switch from Sgt. Eversmann's point of view to the objective when it would be much more shocking and disorienting stay with his point of view, have him rope in and just FIND Blackburn lying there in the cloud of dust, as he did in the book? Why take poetic license to JUSTIFY Blackburn falling off the rope with the Blackhawk dodging (DODGING?) an rpg fired from forty feet away? Does it make it more dramatic? Does it make it more dramatic enough to change the facts?No one can stylize things the way Ridley Scott does. But I've never seen a war movie that was LIT so well, or suffering soldiers look so cool. I actually was distracted from the story by it..."wow, cool green glow on Eric Bana." It looked good, but I never got the feeling that the form, the IMAGES were used to express the relentless anxiety these soldiers must have felt, alone, surrounded, teetering on the edge of despair and desperation. It seems to me that it was usually expressed through dialogue and/or by scene.I guess all in all, I expected the thing just to HAMMER me from the git-go, to ratchet up in intensity, and to stay there for a while. I only got bits and spurts of fear here and there, interspersed with exposition. It was start/stop all the way. ENOUGH WITH THE EXPOSITION! I think they took too many moments to explain EVERYTHING that was going on to the audience (I'm guessing this is another fine example of Bruckheimer's continuing contempt for the intellect of the masses), and didn't just make something seamlessly horrific and unrelenting, the way it was for the soldiers. The film did not need the Atta kidnapping sequence; it was a redundant attempt to justify to the audience the American presence in Somalia--as if we needed one after the opening scene of starving and dead Somalis. We could have spent less time in the command center--less exposition, shorter, tighter bits of dialogue with General Garrison outwardly stoic and inwardly on edge. Why have any exposition at all other than saying at the top of the film, "This Story is True," and then depicting the facts in all of their undeniable horror?The story could easily have been told, and told more honestly imho, without losing any truth in the portrayal of the events of 10/3/93, if it had focused constantly on the men under SAVAGELY intense fire.Where were the women and children used as human shields? Why didn't they spend more time on the truck driver with the unexploded rpg lodged in his torso--he was STILL ALIVE when that happened--what a great opportunity to express the DIRE PERIL and unique absurdity of their situation. Instead, it was treated as a just another brief novelty of war. Where was the wounded soldier who was blown out of his Humvee by an rpg and then RUN OVER by the following truck? Where was the ox that was shredded by gunfire? Where was the guy riding the cow with the AK? Where was the soldier hiding behind the tiny piece of pipe protruding from the road while his buddies burst out laughing? Where were the two Somalis with the machine gun in the middle of the road who WOULD NOT DIE? Where were the flashbang grenades? Where was the indestructible old Somali man with the big white afro? Nearly all of the Humvees and trucks had flat tires and were nearly in pieces when they returned to the airbase, not just a few bullet holes. Dominic Pila, god rest his soul, the sergeant who did the impression of Captain Steele and got a bullet in the neck while operating the .50 cal in the lead Humvee, in reality, was shot in the face, and the entire back of his head was blown off. All of these events serve to demonstrate the horror AND the absurdity of war on their own merit, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAPPENED. The point isn't that all of these events should have been in the film; the point is that there were a lot of neglected and missed opportunities to take the audience deeper into the living hell in which these men were stranded.And what was with the huge, poetic, sum-it-all up but momentarily throw realism to the wind, cast of a thousand Somalis standing atop a burning hill doing nothing while the American soldiers run away shot? This is a story that doesn't NEED editorializing, that doesn't NEED poetry.I truly, honestly wish I could have seen it the way most of the people who are raving about it did. I really wanted to see it that way. I was looking forward to seeing it that way. I'm not disappointed because I have some twisted bloodlust--I just believe that if you're going to express the horror of war--as Bowden did in his book--that you don't hold back. These guys fought and died for all of us. I just think they are due having their story told as graphically and as gut-wrenchingly and as honestly as possible. Despite the fact that 19 US soldiers died and over 70 were wounded in action, the mission was completed successfully; it was in fact, a victory. Mentioning that might have been a better cap to this film than the thin irony that Aidid died the day before Garrison retired.The soldiers had it bad in the movie. They had it A LOT WORSE in the book.I've just read this review, and I think I may sound a bit like those guys who quibbled over details about the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. I hope I'm wrong. None of the above changes were made to condense time. And Black Hawk Down was about REAL people, who suffered unimaginably REAL events.Just my two cents.