IMDb > Black Hawk Down (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Black Hawk Down
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Black Hawk Down More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 109:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1081 reviews in total 

316 out of 405 people found the following review useful:

One of the best war movies of all time

10/10
Author: Edward Douglas (shades033) from New York, NY
12 January 2002

When talking about war movies, there are many great ones that immediately spring to mind. Since the 70's, three of them have formed a bit of a holy trinity: Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, and Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. These three movies have set the bar for all other war movies that have come along since then. When it was announced that Gladiator director, Ridley Scott, would be adapting Mark Bowden's book, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, filmgoers knew that they would be in for a treat.

For whatever reason, I don't remember hearing much about the civil war in Somalia or about the Battle of Mogadishu on which Black Hawk Down is based. The plan seemed simple enough: the Army is sent into Somalia by the government to try to put an end to the Civil War. On October 3, 1993, a group of them were sent on a quick mission to capture the Somali warlord that had been running the country with an iron fist. It didn't take long for the operation to go completely FUBAR as two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down. Things went from bad to worse, as the Rangers found themselves surrounded by thousands of armed Somalis, whose only goal was to shoot any American soldier that invaded their space. After "stirring up the hornet's nest", the mission becomes a desperate attempt to maintain the Rangers motto, "Leave No Man Behind".

Needless to say, Ridley Scott has made the ultimate war movie with Black Hawk Down. Unlike some war films that temper the battle with slower character-building sequences, you have to wait only thirty minutes for the Rangers' mission to go into effect. And the action doesn't stop for the next two hours, as the rest of the movie is filled with flying bullets, explosions and bloodshed. The fighting is so chaotic that it is hard to follow the action and tell what is happening, at times, and it becomes almost too easy to become desensitized to the violence. By the third time someone yells "RPG's!" though, the entire audience knows to duck and cover their ears.

While the American soldiers go in with a solid plan, it doesn't take long for panic to set in, and pretty soon, you're not sure which side is more disorganized. It's amazing to watch what seems like thousands of extras playing the Somali militia swarming over the soldiers, and the action and camerawork is reminiscent of a video game as the soldiers try to escape their precarious situation through the streets of Mogadishu. As the movie progresses, the tension continues to build as the grim and unrelenting hopelessness of the situation sets in both for the soldiers and the viewer.

It's pretty amazing how much has been made of the 19 downed American soldiers when over 1000 Somali men, women, and children were killed during the raid. While the movie is clearly weighed towards the American perspective, I can't imagine how it must have felt to be the guy who gets to play "Dead Somali with a Gun #354".

Although characterization has always been used extensively in war movies to get the viewer to care about the characters, Black Hawk Down works better because, for the most part, the soldiers are personified as little more than grunts in the field doing the bidding of their superiors. At least the soldiers had their names taped to their helmets, so that this didn't have the problem of some war movies, where it's sometimes hard to tell who is who. Some of the best performances of the film come from Tom Sizemore as the gung-ho Lt. McKnight and Josh Hartnett, who plays the sergeant who leads the mission and feels personal guilt every time a man is lost. Sam Shepard also is excellent as Major General William Garrison, who sits back in the safe zone watching his doomed men be overpowered by the enemy. Eric Bana's part is small, but he has some of the best lines in the film, really driving home the point of why soldiers do what they do. Ewan McGregor's role is even more minor and insignificant, but his Trainspotting compatriot, Ewen Bremner offers the movie's little bit of comic relief.

As expected in a Ridley Scott film, the visuals and camerawork are stunning with the movie having a gray almost monochromatic look that makes the orange flames and red blood really stand out. As is typical in Scott's recent movies, there is lots of flying dust, rubble and debris mixed with slow motion shots of falling bullet casings and splattered blood. He also uses animals and non-military personnel well in some of the shots to show that this firefight is happening in the middle of a populated market district.

A big deal has been made out of the blood and gore in Black Hawk Down, but what is any true war movie without it? Though most of the graphic violence on display is not far beyond Saving Private Ryan, there is at least one visceral sequence that will make most people squeamish, unless they watch those operation shows on The Learning Channel for entertainment. Black Hawk Down is quite an achievement in creating a realistic representation of an event in recent history. Most of this movie leaves the viewer aghast and incredulous of what they're watching, and it's hard to believe that something like this could possibly happen. Technically, this movie is an amazing feat that gives the viewer one of the most realistic impressions of what it would feel like to be in the middle of a war, which makes the atrocities of the event seem all the more real.

In a genre that has brought out some of the best in directors and actors, Black Hawk Down is easily the best war movie ever made, and it has replaced A Beautiful Mind as my candidate for Best Picture and Director.

Rating: 10 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

218 out of 263 people found the following review useful:

We were soldiers AND made a great film...

Author: kingtanichi from Toronto
17 July 2003

Black Hawk Down is first and foremost an immensely effective war film, but beyond that, its one of the most subtly differently made war films ever. Most war films usually either have a single hero through whom we see everything (i.e. Platoon), or present us with a squad of soldiers, all of whom are identifiable "types" (i.e. Saving Private Ryan). Black Hawk Down takes a different approach, instead giving us a very wide array of characters, none clearly singled out as a hero or type to command the audience's attention. The general effect is to create that feeling of a team army that George C. Scott so ardently expounded to us at the start of Patton. Furthering this feel of military professionalism, the film never cheapens itself by putting too much emotional weight into one moment. The plot moves ahead at a constant pace, cutting from location to location, without slowing down to focus too much on individual soldiers. The effect is of watching documentary footage of a real military operation gone wrong. While the effect of this scripting approach may produce some detachment among viewers on the first viewing, it makes the film all the better on subsequent viewings.

And you'd better believe there will be subsequent viewings, because Ridley Scott has created one of cinema's all-time great pieces of eye candy here. The editing, cinematography, grading, scoring and visual effects all combine to leave a viewer just as drained upon leaving the theatre as these soldiers were on leaving Mogadishu. The intensity of this film's combat is easily equal to Saving Private Ryan, and leaves such pretenders as We Were Soldiers behind in the dust. Black Hawk Down lacks the former's emotional resonance, but unlike the latter, it thrives on the fact, creating a final product as mind-challenging in its construction as it is mind-blowing its visualization.

Was the above review useful to you?

198 out of 263 people found the following review useful:

one of the best ACCURATE war movies

9/10
Author: Daniel Berman (dberman@palmertrinity.org) from Miami, Florida
3 March 2005

Unlike most of the war movies of our time, Black Hawk Down sticks to the facts about what happened in Mogadishu and doesn't romanticize the story. To support this observation, the viewer will notice that there is not really one main character. This shows that the film focuses more on what happened in Somalia instead of on the characters personality and/or struggles. Another important aspect of the film that makes it so great is the cinematography. Not only was the setting of the film accurate to the real thing, but the way that the movie was filmed is great because it seems like someone is running along the battle scene getting everything on tape. In addition, the film contains small aspects that one may not notice that are important to the situation in Mogadishu. For instance, the bullet shells that fell from the firing helicopter fell into one of the soldiers' vests, and he scrambled to get it out because of how hot it was. This small detail makes the movie that much more realistic. To conclude, Black Hawk Down is a great movie that is both an eye opener that sticks to the facts as well as a quality film. I recommend this movie to any war-film fan, as well as anyone that likes watching movies in general.

Was the above review useful to you?

158 out of 205 people found the following review useful:

I Felt Like I Was in that Black Hawk

10/10
Author: ptheus (canowupas@hotmail.com) from Miami Beach, FL
18 January 2002

Black Hawk is quite simply the best movie of the year (2001) and the best war movie I have seen. It's an astonishing achievement that puts you right in the middle of the hellish horror faced by U.S. soldiers in Somalia in 1993. Every explosion startled me and filled me fear, every gunshot felt like it was whizzing right by me, every mistake or unforeseen event had me on the edge of my seat with stress and anger. I felt as though I had been transported to Mogadishu for 2.5 hours and plopped in the middle of the ambush faced by the 100 or so U.S. Rangers and Delta Force Troops as they set about to capture a Somalian warlord responsible for stealing Red Cross food shipments in his starvation-ravaged country. I really felt this movie, it was tangible to me; the confusion, the fear, the sense of dislocation and horror the soldiers must have faced. At the end I was emotionally and mentally drained.

Ahh emotions, a subject of much debate where this movie is concerned, at least among some critics. While the reviews for Black Hawk Down have on average ranged from "Good to Excellent," there has been persistent and growing criticism over the lack of clearly drawn out characters that the audience could connect with, the lack of historical context, and the fact that movie is all action, with no heart, with no point-of-view. Well I think those who criticize the movie on these grounds, have completely missed the point of the movie, and are flat-out wrong. It is a movie told from the soldiers point-of-view, pure and simple. This is not a political movie, this is not a movie that needs cheap sentimentality or conventional emotional "hooks" for the characters. As much as I liked Saving Private Ryan, the overly sentimental framing device used by Spielberg, really annoyed me. It felt like he was pandering to the audience just a little bit, and it wasn't necessary. Well, there's no pandering here, no cheap sentimentality in Black Hawk Down, just the horrible, gruesome, disorienting reality of modern combat. I didn't know anyone who worked in the World Trade Center, but I was moved to tears by what happened to them on Sept. 11 and that's the way I felt today in the movie.

As far as I am concerned there was plenty of emotion in Black Hawk Down, plenty of "choke-up" moments, or moments when I was moved by the unbelievable courage shown by the soldiers as they faced an almost hopeless situation. I'm not sure how anyone could not be moved by seeing these 18-25 year-old men trapped in the horror of a Civil War that had no bearing on U.S. National Security. As portrayed by the amazing ensemble cast, these men (really boys in many cases) showed the full range of emotions that our soldiers must have gone through, not to mention the fear and confusion of their situation. To me the cast standouts were Josh Hartnett (boy has he got BIG FUTURE STAR written all over him) as Staff Sgt Eversmann and Australian actor Eric Bana as Sgt 1st Class "Hoot."

Black Hawk Down is a great movie, and it is an important movie. It is the story of courage and heroism against nearly insurmountable odds. What happened in Somalia was a foreign policy failure for the U.S., but the actions of the soldiers sent into battle that October day were anything but failure. That there were not more casualties is a credit to them and ultimately a credit to all of us.

Was the above review useful to you?

130 out of 165 people found the following review useful:

Tells it like it is

Author: BettieTeese from Australia
26 November 2004

I'm not a fan of war movies usually,but when i sat down to watch Black Hawk Down,i couldn't turn it off.Heres a war movie which doesn't sugar coat.There is no crappy dialogue,no soppy love story tie ins,just the real deal,brutal battle scenes,the gruesome reality of war.Black Hawk Down is based on a true story,the bloody battle at Somalia and it leaves one drained.Its confronting,and exposes war in its true light-there's nothing glamorous to see.In two hours and a bit the viewer is able to imagine being there at the horrible battleground,and suffering like the soldiers did.It really makes you appreciate how lucky we are to be in a free country,relatively peaceful,and not having our lives threatened every second of the day.Everything about BHD is right; the setting of the film,the Somalians,the American soldiers going through hell,the brutality,the battle,the

fatalities.Not for the faint hearted,or weak stomached,but a truly powerful,compelling motion picture.Ridley Scott takes the viewer on an imaginative journey through Black Hawk Down and appeals to our emotions.A brutal,yet bearable war film.

Was the above review useful to you?

112 out of 144 people found the following review useful:

So many elements combine to make this movie good.. especially the music

10/10
Author: GridGirl03 from Melbourne, Australia
31 August 2002

I've just got this movie on DVD - I did see it on the big screen and it blew my mind. Being from Australia we had practically no idea of what was going on in Somalia, and after seeing this movie and then reading the book - it is an eye opener.

Now that I've watched it a few more times, I've noticed one thing with this movie. The music. Aside from the story and the cinematography and the editing which all are so well done that you feel like you are there with them; the music is a big contributor to the feel of the movie, and in my opinion, more so than in a lot of films.

It is very subtle, it has taken me 10 viewings to even notice there was music there. It really helps create the atmosphere, going from lighthearted, almost fun in the beginning with various rock/pop tracks into deep and moving operatic styles as the story progesses into the war and further.

It is the top of my list of favourites for many reasons, but I think mostly it is the way the whole package comes together to tell the story of what happened that makes it so good.

Well worth viewing many times over.

Was the above review useful to you?

104 out of 129 people found the following review useful:

A very American war story directed by an Englishman

8/10
Author: DesbUK from United Kingdom
19 March 2005

I've been watching this movie and its accompanying extras on DVD this week for the first time and I thought is ironic that this very American war story should be directed and produced by an Englishman (Ridley Scott) and have a large number of British actors cast as the American servicemen (Ewan McGregor, Jasson Issacs, Hugh Dancy, Euan Bremner, Orlando Bloom.) I suppose it's the equivalent of Steven Spielberg directing a film about the Battle of Goose Green during the Falklands War and casting Americans as members of the Parachute Regiment.

Scott's movie is quite brave in that it has no major stars and no central character (unlike, say Tom Hanks in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or Mel Gibson in WHEN WE WERE SOLDIERS). It's also largely free of the clichés of the genre: no soaring John Williams score accompanying shots of the flag fluttering in the sunlight; no scenes of the families back home. Instead its all about the logistics and the absolute horror of battle. This is the best combat footage since ZULU way back in 1964, a film which it resembles. In Scott's commentary description words, it is 'Anti-War but pro-military'.

Was the above review useful to you?

119 out of 179 people found the following review useful:

Outstanding

Author: Shea Bennett (shea_bennett@lineone.net)
6 October 2002

When you break it down and look at it both honestly and cynically (assuming that that is possible for a minute), there are really only two kinds of war movie: pro and con. The underlying theme of virtually every war movie - particularly since APOCALYPSE NOW - generally comes down to an analysis of the 'value' of war, of its worth. It's pointlessness, or its need. Is the action of battle warranted because of the attempt to find peace, or is war never justifiable, no matter what the intention?

Pro or con?

What is interesting is that since the Second World War, this underlying message that is found in nearly all war pictures has slowly changed from the former to the latter. This again is generally shaped in two ways. Either we see the play-by-play results following the issuance of what appears to be a bizarre and foolhardy set of orders from high command (i.e., APOCALYPSE NOW or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN). Or we get a glimpse of being right in the action as it all falls apart: hearing the bullets whizzing past our noses, reeling from the impact of RPG's and gazing blankly as the bodies begin to mount (PLATOON, say). BLACK HAWK DOWN, directed by Ridley Scott and accurately following the true story of the best-selling book by Mark Bowden, very much adopts the latter perspective.

On October 3, 1993, a small unit of U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force troops were dropped by helicopter into hostile territory in Mogadishu, Somalia, with what is perceived to be a straightforward mission: the capture of two lieutenants of the Somali warlord, General Aidid. The unit is under command from Major William Garrison (Sam Shepard), and headed by Staff Sergeant Matt Eversmann (Josh Hartnett) in his first direct experience of frontline leadership. He also has a personal goal - to ensure everyone comes back alive.

Yet, these things are never as easy as they appear - hence the development of the book and the film - and when 18-year old frontline rookie Todd Blackbird is injured early on, the entire mission begins to fall apart. More U.S. troops are injured, and when Somalis down two Black Hawk helicopters, the mission changes completely: it's now a rescue operation.

And for about ninety minutes, you are subjected to some of the most intense, disturbing, graphic, violent and chilling pieces of conflict representation that you will ever see. Remember the Omaha Beach scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? That was about half an hour long. Think of something three times that length, yet more 'realistic' and with (thankfully) no flag-waving. That is the gist of BLACK HAWK DOWN.

Ultimately, one hundred-and-twenty-three U.S. troops were involved in the Mogadishu conflict. Nineteen were killed, and one thousand Somalis also perished.

Unlike RYAN, BLACK HAWK DOWN doesn't build up a core group of characters, focusing on their emotional makeup and depth. No. Instead, we barely know our 'heroes', with very little time devoted to each characters motivation or purpose. And this is a good thing. At first, you find yourself a little bewildered by the sizeable cast, and this isn't helped by the many distant POV scenes that found this reviewer wondering just who he was seeing living and dying. But surely that is an important and crucial element of war - you're involved in these suicidal missions with men you barely know. You don't have time to share your life-stories. You may have only met that week, that day, or within the last hour. And then it's full on.

We get snippets of character data: Eversmann's entire focus is on not letting the team down; Specialist Danny Grimes (Ewan McGregor), for so long tied to his desk simply because he excelled at typing; and Delta Sergeant 'Hoot' Hooten (Tom Sizemore, soon to be playing Bruce Banner in THE HULK), wise despite his years, somehow making more sense of the nonsense than anyone else.

But any characterisation is underplayed and to the point, which is how it should be. The fresh-facedness and naivety of the troops is key to the success of the film, and of the emotional impact therein. As the errors and bodies mount, we get to see the horror of the conflict - the carnage and devastation, relentlessness and never-ending waves of Somali forces - directly through the eyes of the U.S. Rangers and Delta Force squad. I was somewhat stunned by the impact of the movie, both in the way the action grips you and shakes you violently until you want to let go, and in the occasional and very touching soft moments. Indeed, the action is so intense that I found myself at times glazing over, thinking of something else, and with hindsight I put this down to some kind of need for an emotional release; certainly, I cannot fault the film in that sense. It was simply a case of 'too much.'

Throughout the movie both the acting and direction are superb; Ridley Scott has an eye for detail and filmography that is probably unmatched. Even his lesser efforts like HANNIBAL are beautifully shot. And BLACK HAWK DOWN is one of his best efforts to date.

The musical score is also superb, and I was encouraged to hear the Stone Temple Pilot's CREEP near the beginning of the flick. I believe this is the first time I have heard a STP song in any movie.

What is also very welcome is the lack of U.S. nationalism in this picture. Of America saving the day. Unlike, say, brother Tony Scott's TOP GUN - which yes, was making a different point entirely (i.e., let's make some money and recruit some boys to the Navy at the same time) - this isn't about the might of the U.S. There is no wake-leaving in BLACK HAWK DOWN. Real people made mistakes, and real people died.

Speaking of Tony Scott, however, my only minor quibble was Sam Shepard's performance. He was probably in the wrong movie, as all his mannerisms (especially the way he took off his sunglasses in that quick-draw kind of way that stereotypical military types always seem to do) appeared to me to come straight out of TOP GUN. He was a little too 'bleh' for my tastes. For all I know William Garrison could have been exactly like that, but it still seemed a little Hollywood.

I also wasn't completely comfortable as to how the Somalis were portrayed; this movie wasn't really about good versus bad in my opinion, but on the face of it the U.S. are the bad guys here. At least inasmuch as they were at fault. Comparisons are made with Vietnam both in the unnecessary involvement of the U.S. in the Somali civil war, and in the end credits of the film where we learn that the Medal of Honour was awarded to two U.S. soldiers for the first time since the Vietnam conflict. Yet, throughout the film the Somali are seen in only two ways - either a relentless force of bloodthirsty killers, or a simple people trying to stay out of the way. Now yes, this may be what it really was like - I cannot say because I wasn't there - but the overall message didn't fit well with me. They seemed too one-dimensional, a bit TOO bloodthirsty, and that left a bitter taste.

Also as mentioned above the film is often confusing during the extended battle scene, and warrants more than one view. As the blood and dirt begins to pile, you will find yourself wondering who you are looking at, particularly when the perspective is on several soldiers from a distance. But that can be forgiven. This isn't PREDATOR, and while that film is outstanding as a piece of science fiction, it made a great effort to separate the marines so that the viewer would have an easy time following each one.

That, of course, isn't real life, and BLACK HAWK DOWN is, perhaps, as close as we've come yet to an accurate capture of the true feel of war.

Rating: **** 1/2 (out of five)

Was the above review useful to you?

67 out of 92 people found the following review useful:

It`s An Account , Not A Statement

8/10
Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
18 September 2003

I vividly remembered the news reports in October 1993 of the body of an American serviceman being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu following the battle there . A couple of years later my interest of the battle was rekindled by an edition of the BBC`s excellent history show TIMEWATCH that spoke to the survivors of " The biggest firefight involving American troops since Vietnam " , so when Mark Bowden released his book BLACK HAWK DOWN I opened the first page and found myself unable to put it down , and when I heard Ridley Scott was going to bring Bowden`s book to the big screen I was looking forward to seeing it

I did enjoy the movie and have to take issue with some of the comments raised . First of all people complain about events and incidents being changed , I know how you feel but with any adaptation there`s bound to be bits condensed , the only real criticisms that can justified is that this film version totally negates the Somali point of view ( For those of you who haven`t read the book Mark Bowden writes his account in a similar subjective manner Corneilus Ryan wrote his trilogy - two of which THE LONGEST DAY and A BRIDGE TOO FAR were made into blockbuster movies - dealing with the last months of the war in Europe ) but Bowden`s book is an account of the battle of Mogadishu , that`s what it is - An account that doesn`t really concern itself with wider issues like politics or anti-war sentiment , so it seems churlish to complain about concepts like character development because that`s not what the story is about . I`ve also heard teenage girls complain that Orlando Bloom doesn`t get enough screen time and that they found it too violent . I`m sorry to hear that girls , hopefully next time you go to the cinema you might like to find out what you`re letting yourself in for . As for the rest of the screenplay it is accurate right down to the friction between the Deltas and the Rangers and the fact the Americans were actually rescued by a UN force composed of Malaysians and Pakistanis

Ridley Scott rightly deserved an Oscar nomination with BHD . It`s his movie and he surpasses anything Spielberg achieved with the overrated SAVING PRIVATE RYAN . War is hell and this is a film of stark and haunting imagery of victims of famine , of mutilated soldiers and civilians . Both editing and cinematography are superb with many great scenes like the small stream of American soldiers walking up the street while on the other side of the houses a massive torrent of armed militiamen are walking in the same direction . My only real complaints of what`s on screen is Ewan McGregor`s awful American accent ( It`s especially so when you stop to consider that most of the cast aren`t played by American actors )and Hans Zimmer score resembles that of most of his other movies , but I shouldn`t nitpick because I found this Scott`s best film alongside GLADIATOR

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

DoD propaganda from Camp Ridley Scott

1/10
Author: rt61
9 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ridley Scott said that he wanted to make a war movie separate from the politics. That statement is ironic, of course, since it's simply politically correct code; what Ridley Scott made with Black Hawk Down is a war movie that affirms the dominant (i.e., the US) political point of view.

Trying to make a war movie without politics is essentially impossible; war is simply the continuation of politics by other means. It would be like trying to make a movie about Gettysburg without exploring and contextualizing the North and the South, bankers/manufacturers vs. agricultural plantations, free states vs. slave states, Federalism vs. the 10th Amendment. It just can't be done.

In Black Hawk Down, all the US soldiers are as good as can be. They care about their children and their families, and the underlying music supporting them is violins and the orchestra. There is little explanation of why the US is intervening in an internal civil conflict in a foreign nation. What little there is, the logic thereof could be dismantled by a six year old. At one point, US General Garrison asserts that the 300,000 people killed in the Somali conflict isn't war, it is genocide, and that is what justifies US military intervention. The US killed 600,000 of its own citizens in its Civil War. Should the dominant superpowers of the 1800s (the British and French Empires) have intervened in the US Civil War, to "save" the Americans from themselves? When the US soldiers die, everyone has pursed lips and fierce expressions; they know to be somber because one of THE GOOD GUYS is gone.

In contrast, the Somalis are about as bad as can be. They point and shout and fire their AK-47s in the air, they wear bandannas and masks and dark sunglasses, and are depicted as little more than black monkey children engaging in mob behavior. The underlying Somali music is detuned heavy metal guitar - as if you couldn't already tell that they were THE BAD GUYS. There is little to no exploration of the Somali point of view. When the Somalis die, that's it. It's like a video game. Some bodies fall, and more bodies step up to take their place. They're all expendable, and no one sheds a single tear for any of the "skinnies."

Of course, the idea that Scott tries to get across is that actual combat is NOT about politics; that it's about the man to your left and the man to your right, fighting to stay alive, and nothing more. But the natural question is, why is he fighting? Why is he killing? What about the man on the other side of the gun? Is he also fighting just for his comrades? Is it for something more than mere survival, self-defense? If so, what is that reason? What is that ideology? Thus the assertion that war can be divorced from politics is revealed as the basest of intellectual dishonesty.

The film is thus little more than cotton candy for that segment of the American populace that feels that its brave military can do no wrong; that it can "support the troops" even if they don't agree with the administration commanding those same troops. Similar thoughts were harbored by the citizens of other empires that exist now only in history books; the British, the French, the Prussian, the Roman, the Greek. Perhaps most damning is the production history of the movie itself - Scott had to involve the US DoD to borrow many of the pieces of military hardware used in the movie, and was only able to secure approval once the DoD was satisfied that the film portrayed the events in a positive (read: propagandistic) light.

From a purely technical point of view, the film is a tour de force. The sound of gunfire, the force of explosions, the chaos of urban infantry combat, it's all captured here by Scott in cinema verité/faux documentary style. I'm surprised he did it all on a fairly modest budget of $100M. Neither Scott nor his brother (Tony Scott, of Top Gun and Crimson Tide fame) lack for style or special effects. In this respect, it meets and surpasses the work that Steven Spielberg showcased in his war movie, Saving Private Ryan. For that, and that alone, the film receives a lone star.

But this isn't some brainless Saturday night special about explosions and gunfire. It's about war, one of the most frightening, destructive, and terrible acts that humans can engage in. And to try and present it merely as some sort of "ode to soldiers" without examining the reasons for the war is jingoistic at best and dangerous at worst.

The last war that the US had causus belli, or just cause, to fight, was WWII. At least in that conflict, the US remained neutral until it was attacked. Even then, the US is still the only nation in history to use weapons of mass destruction, dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets with no advance warning.

By comparison, this operation in Mogadishu is little more than another US imperialist adventure gone awry, whitewashed into glorious military history some nine years after the fact. It reminds one of the saying, "A legend is merely a lie, that has attained the dignity of age."

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 109:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history