I looked forward to `Black Hawk Down' with expectations that were almost impossible to meet.
I never read the book, and I didn't know the specifics, but I remember the incident that took place in Somalia in 1993. What I remember most about it (and will never forget) were the photographs released from the aftermath of the operation; in particular a very sickening picture of a Somali, smiling wide, looking gleefully into the camera while a dead, shirtless American GI lay dead in the background, after being dragged through the streets. Then I heard that a movie was being made about this incident.
The reviews and buzz that came out before the film's release seemed to claim that it was a modern movie classic, comparable to the ground breaking films about war and diplomatic failure of the past. `It's at times very difficult to watch' is what I read in many different articles about `Black Hawk Down.' After seeing the trailer, which depicted a mob of blood-hungry Somali militia walking toward the camera (apparently approaching downed soldiers off-screen), I was very enthralled and nervous about seeing it. A recreation of what I had seen in those photographs would be difficult to watch indeed.
But the events depicted on screen were of course, as is almost always the case when recreating real, tragic events, not as moving as they were in those photographs. I understand that this is an extremely difficult task. What the reviewers were referring to in respect to the `difficulty' in watching it consisted of more graphic battle gore that is becoming commonplace, resembling scenes from `Band of Brothers' and other graphic war recreations. `Black Hawk Down' is an exciting and involving story of soldiers under fire after a mission goes wrong, and it keeps us interested in the fate of those involved. But it really doesn't offer anything particularly new to the genre, nor does it have any profound statements about war or diplomacy that haven't already been explored.
BHD is essentially a true story, but its production values keep it from feeling entirely real. There is too much surface gloss. It is shot mostly in the fluorescent-bluish shade that dominates all of Bruckheimer-produced films, and there is also an abundant use of slow motion. I will be the first to defend war films that are criticized for not having enough `character development,' since stories about soldiers under fire don't necessarily need extremely different personalities to define their characters-combat will define their actions. But BHD's characters usually only offer plot developing lines throughout the film. Again, this is a true story, but it doesn't seem much different than fictional military thrillers, especially concerning the limited character classes-there are only three: the soldiers in combat, the enemy, and the men behind the blue blip screens trying to get things in order. Ewan McGregor's reluctant soldier presented what felt like the most realistic personality in the film, but most of the other characters felt like they came out of a Tom Clancy novel. The veterans of this mission deserve more. I am one who feels that Ridley Scott's best days are behind him. I didn't care much for `Gladiator' or `Hannibal,' both of which had too much surface gloss and not enough personal involvement with the characters. `Alien' is still (and probably always will be) his best work, others may say `Blade Runner' is.
Where Scott does succeed in this film is in his coherence of the battle, which was quite a difficult task. The battle scenes, although somewhat standard for a combat film these days, are intense. They are also quite exhilarating-I found myself cheering aloud at times. It was satisfying to see our superior troops fighting hard against enemies that have a similar value system to the ones we are fighting today. SPOILER WARNING: Most of the soldiers survive, and our superior training and equipment inflicts tremendous casualties on our foes. The end result is that, with all due respect to the veterans who died in this horrible conflict, I actually felt better about what happened in this incident than I did when all I knew of it was those horrifying pictures. I don't know if that was the film makers' intention. Grade: B.
I never read the book, and I didn't know the specifics, but I remember the incident that took place in Somalia in 1993. What I remember most about it (and will never forget) were the photographs released from the aftermath of the operation; in particular a very sickening picture of a Somali, smiling wide, looking gleefully into the camera while a dead, shirtless American GI lay dead in the background, after being dragged through the streets. Then I heard that a movie was being made about this incident.
The reviews and buzz that came out before the film's release seemed to claim that it was a modern movie classic, comparable to the ground breaking films about war and diplomatic failure of the past. `It's at times very difficult to watch' is what I read in many different articles about `Black Hawk Down.' After seeing the trailer, which depicted a mob of blood-hungry Somali militia walking toward the camera (apparently approaching downed soldiers off-screen), I was very enthralled and nervous about seeing it. A recreation of what I had seen in those photographs would be difficult to watch indeed.
But the events depicted on screen were of course, as is almost always the case when recreating real, tragic events, not as moving as they were in those photographs. I understand that this is an extremely difficult task. What the reviewers were referring to in respect to the `difficulty' in watching it consisted of more graphic battle gore that is becoming commonplace, resembling scenes from `Band of Brothers' and other graphic war recreations. `Black Hawk Down' is an exciting and involving story of soldiers under fire after a mission goes wrong, and it keeps us interested in the fate of those involved. But it really doesn't offer anything particularly new to the genre, nor does it have any profound statements about war or diplomacy that haven't already been explored.
BHD is essentially a true story, but its production values keep it from feeling entirely real. There is too much surface gloss. It is shot mostly in the fluorescent-bluish shade that dominates all of Bruckheimer-produced films, and there is also an abundant use of slow motion. I will be the first to defend war films that are criticized for not having enough `character development,' since stories about soldiers under fire don't necessarily need extremely different personalities to define their characters-combat will define their actions. But BHD's characters usually only offer plot developing lines throughout the film. Again, this is a true story, but it doesn't seem much different than fictional military thrillers, especially concerning the limited character classes-there are only three: the soldiers in combat, the enemy, and the men behind the blue blip screens trying to get things in order. Ewan McGregor's reluctant soldier presented what felt like the most realistic personality in the film, but most of the other characters felt like they came out of a Tom Clancy novel. The veterans of this mission deserve more. I am one who feels that Ridley Scott's best days are behind him. I didn't care much for `Gladiator' or `Hannibal,' both of which had too much surface gloss and not enough personal involvement with the characters. `Alien' is still (and probably always will be) his best work, others may say `Blade Runner' is.
Where Scott does succeed in this film is in his coherence of the battle, which was quite a difficult task. The battle scenes, although somewhat standard for a combat film these days, are intense. They are also quite exhilarating-I found myself cheering aloud at times. It was satisfying to see our superior troops fighting hard against enemies that have a similar value system to the ones we are fighting today. SPOILER WARNING: Most of the soldiers survive, and our superior training and equipment inflicts tremendous casualties on our foes. The end result is that, with all due respect to the veterans who died in this horrible conflict, I actually felt better about what happened in this incident than I did when all I knew of it was those horrifying pictures. I don't know if that was the film makers' intention. Grade: B.