Black Hawk Down

I didnt like this movie. I thought it got boring same thing over and over for two hours. But it got its point across well.

Ridley Scott old stuff was better, in the new movies hes just trying to be Soderbergh, he should go back to sci fi.

I wanted any of the characters to do something, even though they were trying to get the point across that they couldnt, it still made it worse.

It was like a docmentary, which isnt bad, it just wasnt an exciting war movie, liked te ones were used too.

some of you will probably think this is a great movie, But it just didnt do it for me.

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

I saw this last night and pretty much agree with your analysis, but I was wondering what you meant by this.

I didn't love this movie, but I didn't hate it either.

First of all, Josh Harnett needs to stop making movies like this. He didn't fit the part at all, and his sad *** puppy dog face really started to upset me towards the end.

The other thing that didn't fit was when they played that Jimi Hendrix song when they were going in to start the mission. That was just wrong.


Other than that, this "documentary" had me interested the whole time. I could feel myself letting go of the armrests and letting go a deep breath at the end of every scene. Ridley did do a good job, but it didn't compliment his older style, which I like better.

Very graphic, intense. 3/5 stars.

Peace,
Steve

I liked it. I had a hard time getting bored, what with the constant battles and death and crises. What it really brought home to me was that War is not fun, or clean, or decisive. It's tedious, drawn-out, messy, and Hellish for those involved. Maybe Desert Storm wasn't, but we didn't lose this many guys in Desert Storm.

As a movie, I have to admit I didn't know this was a Ridley Scott film until the credits rolled. I sort of went "What?" for a minute there, then forgot all about it. It didn't feel like a typical Ridley Scott film, but I really didn't care, because I don't think R.S. was making a R.S. film.....he was making a film about a series of actual events, and I think he did an okay job.

__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988

I watched BHD about an hour or so into it and I got bored too . Too slow w/characters and story.

In movies like Alien and Blade runner, they were very dark and somewhat scary, ridley scott had it down, he was great. Then in Legend he went from Sci Fi to fantasy, not that big of a genre jump. the best part of legend came when it got dark and gothic. Then he came out with Gladiator (sure there were movies in between) It was a well directed film, except for the shaky camera in the opening war scene. The sand parts were too much like mexico in traffic, and then he used the pink filter when maximus was in heaven or whatever. Then in black Hawk down he had the turquoise filter for politicalness and stuff it pissed me off. I know im not explaining it well, but those two movies looked almost like they were directed by soderbergh. But those first helicopter scenes were hella cool.

I Saw Black Hawk Down Saturday. It's weird, but this movie made me more angry than anything else. The film is so unrelenting in it's violence and bloodshed that I felt myself wanting to scream in complete horror at the carnage on screen. And it never let up. I started feeling like this was an excellent ANTI-war movie, but the screenwriters felt they needed to pile on the patriotic sentiments. The only character I felt was realistic was Ewen McGregor as the Spec 4 desk jockey. Being in roughly the same situation as he was in the beginning of the movie, I totally related to him and wish that he was in the film more. I did notice however, that the film got the minor details of millitary life correct, which most movies don't. (Like Pearl Harbor. Did they research that at ALL?!?!) I think that having served in the Army, most Army movies are ruined for me because theres almost always a tiny minor detail they get wrong. Not here, but I still don't know how I feel about this movie.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I've got to disupute the Sand scenes in Gladiator looking like Mexico in Traffic. Very different look.

No prizes for saying which film I enjoyed more, of course. Which desert looked better.

Meanwhile, I greatly await this film's arrival downunder also. Not because I'll enjoy it, but I like the cinematic experience, and I'm having withdrawel symptoms from seeing films, even bad films at a cinema [despite enjoying the film, my Ocean's 11 experience was crapped up by jerks in the theatre.]

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Yes. The Rome scenes in Gladiator looked like they were pulled out of a camel's a ss. Traffic had the best photography of its year.

I thought this was brilliant, powerful, moving, a total knockout of a picture. I forgive Ridley Scott for Gladiator - Black Hawk Down blew me away. It's hard to get through, to be sure, but it's still remarkably powerful. I think that, along with The Thin Red Line, it's the best movie made about combat in recent memory. It's just, wow!

I don't think it's perfect, but I forgive its flaws wholeheartedly - the good outweighs the bad by far. It's a great movie.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

is up on Morphizm.com, which tends to look a bit deeper into films than most. Here's the link --

http://www.morphizm.com

They also have a sweet Lynch review, among others.

Personally, I thought BHD was jingoistic tripe, albeit technically dazzling, as is usually the case with either of the Scotts (Ridley or Tony). I however thought Ridley used to be a cool director (Blade Runner, Alien) but now he blows with the rest of the Hollywood robots. Thank god for Peter Jackson, David Lynch, Chris Nolan, and Jeunet. They invigorated the year....

LBC

Saw this tonight and must say it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. I say that a lot too. I found the "clamp" scene to be a little too "up-close and personal" for my taste. Hartnett didn't really seem like a person you would see in a commanding position. At least I didn't see him in that position. Some of the scenes were very graphic and intense, but what would you expect in a war movie?? People going up to each other slapping and pulling hair?

I give it a B-, simply because it DID get boring at parts and because I felt that it being an actual event should've gone a little faster. Does Ridley Scott realize that some movies run under 2 hours and still do a good job? All and all, not terribly bad, I heard a guy in the theater say he saw it like 4 times. I wanted to turn around and plug the site but thought, maybe not.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I was planning on seeing this the night it came out, but went to a party instead. Steve did see it that night though, and although he hates Ridley Scott he said the movie is on his top 10 list. Coming from Steve, that means its pretty damn good. So i checked it out, and bleh. Wasn't too impressed. It got very boring too quickly. Coulda been alot shorter than it was. And from what I know, the events in the movie are greatly exaggerated. It's good to have a very patriotic movie at times such as this, but I love how in the end they made it seem like like 19 U.S. cassualities was a holocaust compared to the thousands of Somalians that died. Very unfair movie if you ask me. Unfair and boring.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

i walked into the threatre thinking that this was going to be a good movie. and then realized that it was to hollywood, and really had no potential of being good. the main problem with this movie is character development. gladiator had great character development and you cared what happened to him in end. but you cold take the stance that in war there is no "one" and you shouldn't rely on the people but what is going on. i didn't care for a single american. i cared more for the 1000's of simalians who died in this american screwup. is this movie supposed to be ya-america? or is this movie supposed to be what the hell did america do here. this movie had no point to it, just to show the screwup. the wars scenes were great, but that is all pointless. i give this 2.5 stars out of 5.

Well, America went in to capture Aidid to help people there out. They knew it would be hostile, didn't realize how hostile though. The main reason behind this movie is they went back in to a very hostile territory to rescue their men and maybe sacrifice themselves in the process.

There are plenty of movies out with this premise, very few of them have actually happened though.

If you let your politics get in the way of the enjoyment of a movie I feel sorry for you. Like that woman over at morphizm.com. She pretty much labeled the movie as racist. Well you know Somali's are black, you couldn't really make them white now could you? Its calling a Civil War movie racist because it shows black slaves. Its not racist its historical.

Whatever you think the reason the US was there was humanitarian. We were protecting Food, not Oil, not a strategic resource, Food.

Anyways I loved the movie. The beginning started slow but as soon as the mission started I reached a high point of suspense and anticipation, so much so that I was literally shaking it my seat (though it might have been the caffeine), and I stayed at that level till the end.

The movie is very much like a documentary. Its pretty simple and straight forward and I really didn't see a message in it, other than "Here, this is what happened." Ridley Scott said in some Interview that he wasn't going to make a "Go America Movie." I don't think this movie celebrates the US, I think it celebrates the common soldier.

The only parts of the movie I didn't like were when they occasionally cut to the one prisoner smoking in his cell, I thought that was way melodramatic. I also don't think that little monologue by Josh at the end was needed.

This movie was about sacrifice, loyalty, and courage. Check your politics at the door because it wasn't about that. It' about what the soldiers sacrificed to save a fellow soldier. People volunteering, almost begging, to go help a fallen man, and then when they finally get permission they end up dying for it.

I could also vicariously feel the the same combination of fear and excitement through the soldiers as they went on their first combat mission.

This movie was a tribute, not to US Foreign policy, but to the courage and sacrifice of enlisted soldiers.

And no, I don't feel the same for the Somalis. Take the woman who died at the end for example, nothing made her pick up the gun other than anger, hate, and ignorance, I wouldn't say she deserved to die or anything, but her death was her own fault. No Somali would have died if they didn't attack the US soldiers. And yes, the US entered their territory first, but again, to protect food for starving people.

Someone also mentioned that there wasn't good character development, and there wasn't. Except for a few more recognizeable actors I couldn't keep any of the soldiers straight, however this isn't the type of movie that needed good character development. Perhaps it is even better without it. You don't know this soldier's name, you don't know his relationship to the other soldiers, however you see him risk his life to save someone he may not even know, and he ends up paying the ultimate price for it. You don't need character development for that.

__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.

I'd say that's probably the only part of your post I don't agree with. If a movie is pushing some ridiculous agenda, it really hurts it for me. It's hard to enjoy a movie that's essentially a commercial for something, like Stigmata. I can enjoy parts of it and all, but I wouldn't fault anyone who says it lessens their enjoyment of the movie. It's the same concept as Titanic: I was impressed in some ways, but the movie has done wonders for the spread of ignorance, and paid a severe disrespect to those who have died. I can't seperate such things from the movie completely.

Aspen, you gonna post your review on the main site?

I don't have to even defend this movie, because aspen has done it for me.

TWT, I agree. If a movie brings politics into play, then the audience should bring their personal feelings into play. It's dishonest viewing if you push your emotions to the back of your head. It's an unavoidable part of filmgoing. In the case of Black Hawk Down, though, the politics of the situation don't matter. They're not taken as an issue, the movie just presents the American side of things. This is not a bad thing.

personly i thought black hawk down was so i think the best movie of the year 2001 i cant think of a better one and i bet u cant

__________________
=======================
Movie Guru
www.Movie-Guru.com
=======================

Um, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

I thinks I can.