Opinions wanted on "Black Hawk Down".

[Neville]

Just bought the film on DVD, which obviouly means I quite like it. Not only is the more balanced Ridley Scott I have seen in several years (I am speaking in terms of aesthetics - narrative balance), but also is unquestionably well made.

What puzzles me about this film is that I still can't understand what actually is or wants to be. A documental-style historical movie? A simple post-Saving private Ryan war movie? A political pamphlet on the virtues of American interventionism? or maybe another political pamphlet, this time precisely defending the opposite?

If the movie is already puzzling in itself, it is even more strange seen in the context of its makers' careers. There's nothing remotely similar on Ridley Scott's career, and much less in Jerry Bruckheimer's.

For this reason, I would like as many of you to speak about your views on the film.

[The Burgomaster]

I bought thsi DVD a few months ago. I found that the characters were pretty one-dimensional and I had a hard time differentiating one from another. After about 30 minutes, I didn't care anymore. The action scenes are good enough to make up for the weak character development. I view this as a top-notch action movie, which is fine. A very enjoyable movie.

*
*
*

[Damien01]

I think its best to say that the movie tries to be "Real like" it does so by fast "Panic" edits. Sure its a war movie with nothing extra special besides the editing (I do agree its one of the best editing in years)

Sadly I think the movie tries too hard to make it similar to a vietnam like war situation, as well as making so many soldiers "Unbattle ready" Personaly, I do find it very hard to believe that the military would make "Unbattle Ready" soldiers.

The message... "Even an easy mission is difficult" (but then isnt that like in most stories)

[Ash]

I enjoyed the film.

The scene where the hot shell casings from the helicopter's vulcan cannon rain down on what's his face was very unique.  I can't recall ever seeing a similar scene in any other film.

Also, the amount of lead that the "skinnys" were throwing out and the few casualties the Americans sustained (18 I think it was) leads me to believe that the "skinnys" couldn't shoot for s**t!

One gripe though.....I'm so sick of seeing Tom Sizemore in a military role!

Can't he find something a little different!?

If you looked up "typecasting" in the dictionary you'd see his picture!



Post Edited (04-22-03 20:53)

[Andrew]

I enjoyed it, though once or twice there was some forced humor.  The one Ranger being nearly deaf from the machinegun was one of them.  It was an attempt to put combat on film from a participant's point of view:  loud, confusing, limited scope, etc.  It also portrayed urban combat as the sort of meatgrinder that it can be.

As far as the Somali's accuracy, there are good reasons that the Marine Corps focuses so much on marksmanship training.  Try shooting something that is 100 yards away if you are anticipating the shot or jerking the trigger, it is going to miss.

Of course, that is also the beauty of the machinegun.  Put a burst downrange, adjust onto target, then let them have it (still using 5-8 or 6-9 round bursts).  I love the M240G medium machinegun, it is probably my favorite weapon.  Light enough to be carried on foot over long distances, but lethal out to about 1000 meters if you have the bipod (1800 with the tripod).   In the same amount of time that 10 riflemen can (accurately) put 100  rounds on target at 200 meters, a M240G team can dump 400 rounds onto a target at 800 meters.

I train my platoon extensively in machineguns, both the M240G and M249 (light machinegun).

[Hero]

It's been a while since I've seen BHD, but my impression of it at the time was a wannabe "Private Ryan", only it was different -- see, instead of Matt Damon, it had Josh Hartnett!
Seriously, I sat there wondering what it was supposed to be myself. All I remember clearly is that Ewan McGregor was wasted.

[Chris K.]

I have to say that while BLACK HAWK DOWN wasn't the worst film I have ever seen, it was a disappointing one. Basically, it was all hype and then a big letdown. The characters were indeed too one-dimensional and with very little character development I ended up caring less what happened to the characters. That and Josh Hartnet; sorry, but he is The Worst Actor Ever right next to Ben Affleck.

I will say that the action scenes were well orchestrated and the camerawork, while a bit too shakey, was nicely done. The sound, however, was not soo good as it was too loud during the battle sequences. It did give a realisim when the soldiers are at battle, but when they were talking while the fighting went on you could hardly hear what they were saying (and I really wanted to know what they were saying).

Basically, BLACK HAWK DOWN serves as director Ridley Scott's so-so work. Scott felt that placing style over substance would be better, when both style and substance would have worked better together rather than one over the other. I recommend BLACK HAWK DOWN for one or two viewings, but generally a movie I wouldn't want to own on VHS or DVD.

[Dolph Lundgren]

People may hate me for this, but to me, Black Hawk Down was a modern day Golan-Globus/Cannon film on steroids with a much bigger budget and some well-known actors.  Tons of characters with no real depth, and a truckload of action.  I was flat out surprised that this turned out to pretty much be an all-out action film.  I remember the trailer being good, but also showcasing a lot of the miniscule scenes devoted to plot development.  So I didn't think BHD was going to have as much action as it did.  It reminded me of one of those action movies to come out of the 80s, only with better effects, jazzier cinematography, and better actors.  Needless to say, I'm a fan of the movie.

Nick

[Fearless Freep]

So...the only real problem with the Cannon films was ...failure of execution?  or just lack of budget?

(This I say after watching the first 20 minutes of "Outlaw of Gor" last night)