Black Hawk Down (2001)

Such a frustrating disappointment

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

It tells the true story of a raid in Mogadishu that lead to the first battle between the Somalian Militia and American Rangers. As the title suggests, a Black Hawk does indeed go down. This is a mighty difficult flick to rate. As a representation of modern warfare, it succeeds substantially and sits in the elite group of visceral war films. But as a complete movie? Questionable. Firstly Ridley Scott is such a consistent director in terms of tackling a genre and producing a film that defines that genre. Black Hawk Down is no different, his eye for technical technique and production is second to none. A war torn Mogadishu, practical explosions and effects, utilisation of real Black Hawks and army equipment. It's authentic, and that is a real important factor for a war film. The narrative subtly explores the cost of war on both sides. The US army losing valuable soldiers and equipment (which financially would set them back quite largely) and the Somalian families who are living in ruins. There will always be one view point that towers over the other, but there is the gritty imagery of war and the aftermath that it leaves behind which proves to be effective. This has a massive ensemble cast, with Josh Hartnett being the lead I guess (he is on the cover, sooooo technically...he is the lead). He doesn't deliver, in fact many of the actors don't. That's not their fault though. Scott purposefully chose to focus on the aspects of war rather than glorified American heroes. Even so, there is such limited characterisation that any loss of life delivers no emotional impact for the audience. It's no spoiler that many succumb to their wounds, and yet we're supposed to feel saddened. I physically cannot feel emotive towards someone who I can't relate to, or even care for. That is what prevents this from being an outstanding war film like many classics before. Jason Isaacs was probably the stand out performance for me. Still a decent war flick, it's powerful imagery just about saves it from being lifeless.

160 elite U.S. soldiers drop into Somalia to capture two top lieutenants of a renegade warlord and find themselves in a desperate battle with a large force of heavily-armed Somalis. With great direction, talented cast, amazing war set pieces, violence and above all an amazing and faithful adaptation of War and it's consequences 'Black Hawk Down' is one of Ridley's Scott's most underrated films and a War film that takes it's place next to War Movie giants like Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers and Hacksaw Ridge. (A+)

this is a ridley Scott film so gritty so real and one off the best action packed ending to a film every with a budget of 94 million it feels like he poured most of the money into the end this film is 2hrs 24mins long and it made 108 million in the cinemas I love this in 1993 an elite group of American rangers and delta force are sent to Somalia under Clinton on a critical mission to capture a violent warlord who corrupt regime has led to starvation of hundreds or thousands of Somalis as there are watch outs every where the burn things to let every body know as the helicopters come in the immediately come under fire rocket propelled grenades pilots have to make avoid these but American soldiers gets hurt the is convoys of Americans as well so there facing an onslaught as well but as two choppers get hit they face a race against time to rescue them but the Americans are not used to urban ware fare against an organized mob as buildings are so close the mission goes terrible wrong the men find themselves out numbered and litterly fighting street to street and have to wait for strong back up a great cast of men Eric bana ewan McGregor josh Hartnett Orlando bloom SAM Shepard and William fichnter make this a thrilling war movie and one of the best I gave this 8/10

This film, which is about a controversial battle during the Clinton presidency, does not set out to cast aspersions on said presidency. Rather, it focuses on the battle, the men who fought in it, and the battle's futility.In this sense the movie is anti-war. The battle itself makes the viewer uncomfortable and nauseous, that being the intention of the film. However, unlike many war films that routinely castigate some or all of the participants of these fruitless skirmishes, "Black Hawk Down" rather treats the men who fought and died in Mogadishu with respect. Each man has a little humanity given to him. When some of these men die, an emotional connection is felt, even if it's fleeting.It becomes a problem, however, when the sheer number of characters you need to sympathize with before they are killed or otherwise incapacitated in the battle is something like ten or so characters. Add on another ten or so characters who survive the battle or are merely observing it, and the problem runs deeper. Even though I have now seen this film in the vicinity of thirty times, I still have trouble remembering who is who during the heat of battle and what they are doing and where they are going. Although I now know most of the actors who appear in this film, when I first watched the film I had no idea how to tell one apart from the other aside from their locations (in the city, in the helicopters, back at the base). I believe much of that problem stems from the fact that "Black Hawk Down" has a run time of nearly two and a half hours, which is not short, but the battle takes up so much of that time (at least two-thirds of the film) that any character who gets screen time (and most of them get a bit) is given so little in any meaningful way. If one wishes to give these characters the proper amount of screen time before all goes to hell, one ought to opt for a longer film, provided the director can sustain interest in a film surpassing two and a half hours.I can say, however, that the inadequate screen time afforded most of the actors here is essentially my only gripe with this movie. It's a somewhat big gripe, but it does not ruin the movie for me. In any case, I would rather have some humanity given these characters than have no humanity whatsoever.Everything else in this movie is at least up to snuff. All of the actors do fine and give their characters some of that needed humanity where they can, especially during the battle. There is no stand-out performance here, but I feel that is unnecessary here as the actors get the same amount of screen time for the most part (with Josh Hartnett as the de facto lead having the most by only a bit). This helps the viewer see all of the men as equal and as equally likely to die during the skirmish, which ratchets up the tension.The music bolsters the emotional basis of the movie without overpowering it in the process. Since Hans Zimmer sometimes does exactly that, it is fortunate that he does not do so for this movie, especially during the death scenes.The best part of the film, however, is the battle itself. While it seems strange to recommend a movie that seems anti-war for the warlike portions, the battle is, in a sense, the main character of the movie. It is never treated as a good thing, but it is treated with wary respect. The sound, the look, the feel, "Black Hawk Down"'s battle gets everything correct in the technical department. The special effects and sound design people deserve all the praise heaped upon them for creating an engrossing and sometimes squirm-inducing battle.The emotional basis of the battle never devolves into the equivalent of a patriotic march. It instead displays a fraternal kinship amongst the soldiers as they are battered, shot, and sometimes torn into pieces. The phrase "No man is left behind" or a variation thereof is bandied about with frequency. Also, as Hoot (Eric Bana) says near the end of the movie: "They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand it's about the men next to you. And that's it." This, I believe, is why the film was made. I don't believe there exist many anti-war films that decry the nature of war without also denigrating the soldiers involved in the wars, nor do I believe there exist many pro-war films that don't lapse well into jingoism. (If someone wishes to prove me wrong, please let me know.) Ridley Scott instead, in my view, takes the nuanced position of being against war while understanding the struggles and hardships the men endure and why they do this. I appreciate this greatly, especially coming from a Hollywood movie. It is the main reason I love this film.All in all, this is a fine technical achievement with a frequently overlooked message as its beating heart that, while not given its full due here, deserves more notice.