areatw
From the first scene to the last, 'Black Hawk Down' never lets up. The non-stop battlefield action, complete with relentless gunshots, explosions and bloodshed, makes for a very tense two and a half hours of viewing. Rather than focusing on a particular character or event, 'Black Hawk Down' gives a wider perspective of war - a realistic and hard hitting account of the horrors that take place on the battlefield.It's far from the perfect war film, however, and it's relentless pace means that not everything that takes place is totally clear. As it jumps from one frantic situation to the next with virtually no respite, it can be difficult to keep up with what's happening and to which characters, especially since the film is largely shot from the ground. That said, the film as a whole functions well as a war account and makes for a tense and absorbing viewing experience.
Matt Greene
This is one of MANY violent, speechifying war films that spawned from the rubble of success that was Saving Private Ryan. But with great visuals and a refreshingly simple story, it stands above many of the others. Overarching stories and complex war themes? Not really. Instead, it's just wall-to-wall excitement and drama, with a seemingly endless cast of cusp-of-stardom young actors.
scifiducky
I just want to weigh in on a few issues...Lots of people are giving 1 star because the movie, based on a true story, skipped some historical context. First of all, show me a "based on a true story" without spin; good luck finding one. But moreover, many commenters seemed to leap to the conclusion that due to its absence this film tacitly supported US actions and that US could do no wrong. That's a very different film than I saw which depicted a blundering general feigning sophistication. If you're of this mindset, I challenge you to consider what people would say if the Somali militias were made to be the heroes. Do you think the US was there for no reason at all? They just showed up and started bombing everyone? Of course not, there's a whole long chain of cause and effect, and the fact that the writers selected a particular point in time because they thought it would make the most compelling movie doesn't make them blameworthy for not cataloguing the totality of human history. Moreover, there's nothing particularly nationalistic about this movie. Everyone is acting based on necessity, not some kind of patriotic urge. The mission is about rescuing a downed pilot and the perils involved with that mission. There really isn't any flag-waving, very little back- patting (and what there is doesn't last long) and no discussion about the enemy being barbarians or whatever else other reviews would have you believe. The Somalis were very adamant about fighting off the American intruders, but they weren't depicted as fighting each other, looting, pillaging, raping or anything else like that. Nor was there ever a time where waves and waves of them were being mowed down, and if anything, given the resources depicted in the film, they acted quite cohesively and effectively for a poor militia against the greatest military in the world. You might want to check your own assumptions before saying they were like barbarians or savages or whatever.I also don't agree with users who think the characters were shallow. The characters were not all cookie-cutter facsimiles of each other. Josh Hartnett was a green platoon leader, sympathetic to the locals in the face of jocular ridicule from most of his platoon. The Captain was a stubborn SOP junkie with ridiculous sports metaphors, the general, as mentioned feigned sophistication, cracked jokes in the TOC, and ultimately came to understand the consequences of his actions, Tom Sizemore was a fantastic gung-ho major (I think) with some of the my favorite one-liners ("Nothing takes 5 minutes!"), Orlando Bloom was a wet-behind the ears nervous, anxious newbie hoping to prove himself, Tom Hardy was just trying to make it through, Ewan McGregor was resentful of his lot in the army and then jumped on the opportunity to be all he could be, and on and on. Moreover, if you've actually served in the army, you'd know that most of these guys are basically kids and don't really have much character chiseled into them yet. As a veteran, it FELT like they were soldiers. When they were prepping for the mission, ribbing each other, and generally chewing the fat, THAT was where it was MOST real to me. I can't attest to the combat because we never had an engagement of this magnitude in Iraq (mostly chasing snipers and dodging rockets, mortars and IEDs), but the characterization of the soldiers was spot on. It also made a lot more sense that the general and the major had the most depth, the special forces guys (who were obviously older) had some gravitas to them, and the rangers were mostly nervous, youthful and similar.So if you buy all that, then even the detractors admit that the acting, directing, production, sound, etc. were all amazing. I'm not a huge war buff, but I've seen a healthy share, and for me this tops them all. I prefer it over Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Heartbreak Ridge, American Sniper, Full Metal Jacket, Zero Dark Thirty, We Were Soldiers, Three Kings, and slightly but surely even over Hurt Locker and Glory. I think Jarhead is comparable in terms of realism, but that's not really a war movie. Hope this was useful!
