_Black Hawk Down_ and dirty. (1 Viewer)

[Matt Stone]

That was my original thought, Pat...but after I ended up seeing it twice at the theater, and found it more enjoyable with every viewing.

 

[Dan Lindley]

I think it is hard for any near realistic war film not to be an anti-war film. War is a horrible thing, even when fought for a good cause.

I especially like the points above that b/c the politics and human side are left out (well, actually, not out -- I actually like subtlety on both -- there are many many politically meaningful comments), whatever you bring to the film helps what you take in.

I liked the film, and even the part some thought 'over the top ultra-graphic' struck me as just a mild example of what combat must be like, and mild compared to SPR as well.

I also think the film skated a bit around the 1k Somali deaths as well as Somali fighting tactics (human shields, etc.). In this sense, it was US-centric. Fair enough, the whole thing had a huge impact on US foreign policy.

For me, much to think about in this film. I did not find it formulaic, trite, etc. I liked its open-endedness, and the thoughts that allowed.

Dan

 

[Jeremy Illingworth]

I saw it two nights ago and it was fantastic. No DD but I got OAR. Unless the movie is going to concentrate on specific characters, I agree that there doesn't need to be any character development; they're soldiers. The only thing close to flag waving I could see was the one sided body count but if thats what happened than thats what happened.

Has there been any talk about how true to life the events are? It sounds like it was very true to the actual events.

jeremy

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

I must confess, I couldn't finish this film on DVD; I turned it off after about 45 minutes. I have no interest in ever finishing it...to be honest I'm not quite sure what that says about the film. I thought SPR was pretty manipulative as well, and sat through that only because I never will walk out of a film in a theater (never have, never will)...my own HT, however, is another matter!

And I think the term "war porn" is very appropriate.

-Dennis

 

[Lowell_B]

Put me in the "loved it" camp.
Edwin and Adam pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Black Hawk Down has a solid spot in my top 5 movies for 2001.
Now, if only that Special Edition DVD would come sooner.
Lowell

 

[Matt Stone]

Dennis,
Try not to dismiss a film until you've watched it entirely...how can you call it war porn if you haven't even sat through half of it.

Regardless, this film is obviously not just simple "war porn" because of the different messages that we are all getting out of it. The spectrum of responses to the film at least proves that...

 

[Tony_Faville]

As I wrote in another forum, this film was a story of incredible men in an impossible situation. They couldn't have done this any better and for those trashing the film for "lack of a plot", would you prefer they threw in a love story as in Titanic or Pearl Harbor, just so it can have your "plot"?

 

[Nick Sievers]

how can you call it war porn if you haven't even sat through half of it.

Especially at 45mins in, when the raid only just begins.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'll happily throw my support behind this film as well. The "moments" at the beginning rang true from a casmaraderie perspective. Simple and clear was the men's relationship. The lack of "development" was key to the film. It was absurd when appropriate, funny when appropriate, somber when appropriate, and terrifying when appropriate. It was realistic as a point, not to be "war porn". Which is somewhat of a demeaning term. The average age of the Ranger on this mission was 19. I was 19 when the event occured. I felt an immediate connection without any of the usual Hollywood razzle-dazzle.

It was honest, simple, effective, and appropriate. It was about the military volunteer and combat.

It's one of the best films I've ever seen.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Josh Lowe]

Push-button film making? Try checking to see who the last two Medal of Honor recipients were, where they were, and what they did.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Josh,
I am not sure what the thumbs down are for? The movie, the reviews, my comments (hopefully not members)?

But for the record, it's Gordon and Shughart, two Delta snipers who saved the life of Michael Durant by dropping in alone, with no forthcoming support, on the isolated streets of Mog. I read the citations before I saw the film. The film covered it without wasteful Hollywood dreck. They had the info, they knew the facts, they made their decision, they saved his life. The movie didn't give them fake pomp or ritual...just honesty. Another reason it wins in my eyes.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Malcolm R]

It was much like a documentary.

I always describe it to people who ask as a 140-minute video game. Constant shoot-em-up with occasional explosions. Very disappointing and in the mid-bottom of my list last year.
I didn't need a love story like "Pearl Harbor," but I would have liked something...anything...that would have given me some emotional investment in the characters. Something that would have made me care about what was happening to them on the screen and whether they lived or died. That didn't happen.
I didn't have any emotional attachment to any of them, didn't really care what happened to any of them, and left the theater just shaking my head at enduring two-plus hours of seemingly pointless room-shaking, headache-inducing noise. To me, the whole point of film is to evoke some sort of emotion from the audience, be it cheers or tears, fear or anger. This film generated nothing.
I got more emotional reading the accounts of the real event in the newspapers than I did at watching this "re-enactment" played out in all its guns-a-blazin' glory.

 

[JamieD]

Black Hawk Down makes for a fun thrill ride of a guilty pleasure

FUN? I completely disagree, both with your review, and your antagonistic style. While you may dislike the movie, Jack, and I respect your opinion, I do disagree with it. Black Hawk Down makes no apologies. It struck me as a pseudo-documentary. There was little information given about most of the men, and to me, that made sense. We are watching them as soldiers, and I was struck several times by how their training has made them similar to each other.

I certainly wouldn't consider this an overly Patriotic film. If anything, it makes the point that sometimes the U.S./Internation Forces are better off staying out of the way, and that some countries need to ensure better co-operation with their "allies".

I realize that these opinions are already well represented in this thread, but I just wanted to echo them.

I came out of that movie, and was asked for my trademark "two sentence thoughts".. I said "That was an incredibly well done movie, and will be nominated (deservedly) for a number of technical awards, but none for acting, simply because they did not go overboard with dramatics. However I did not ENJOY that movie, and I think that was the point.. we aren't supposed to, we're supposed to appreciate it and where it came from."

Not saying anyone's right or wrong, but I just didn't see the things you're writing about.

 

[Matt Stone]

I would have liked something...anything...that would have given me some emotional investment in the characters.

Am I wrong then for having an emotional investment? As previously mentioned in this thread, it was refreshing to see a movie about heroes that weren't Rambo.

 

[Ben Menix]

I did enjoy the movie, but simply because I felt that it was a well-made movie done in an appropriate style. The lack of typical Hollywood messages and non-conformance with several movie "expectations", such as devoted character development, made the movie better in my mind, not worse.
Anyway, character development is something that I would rather Hollywood stay out of entirely...they haven't quite got the knack of it yet...
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[AllanN]

And I think the term "war porn" is very appropriate.

I think violence without a message would be "war porn", but BHD was much more than just big explosions. If that is all someone got from it they completely missed the entire meaning of the whole movie.

 

[David Rogers]

Wanted to point out this exact issue was gone over at some length in the offical thread. I point it out because some comments there were very useful, and people now going through the matter might want to read.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...335#post438335
My thoughts from that thread, to toot my own horn. I feel anyone who is disappointed with BHD because it didn't "develop characters" seriously missed the point of the film. Calling it "war porn" similarly misses the point, I feel.
I don't understand how people couldn't "feel a connection" to the characters shown onscreen in BHD since the "characters" were real soldiers ... most of whom are still alive today (less the 18 who unfortunately were KIA from the incident itself). I watched the film in a state of fascinated horror, knowing the hell I was seeing was only an effects and CG recreation of what those brave lads actually endured. Anyways, check the link for my full US$0.02.

 

[Andy Sheets]

The lack of typical Hollywood messages and non-conformance with several movie "expectations", such as devoted character development, made the movie better in my mind, not worse.

I totally agree. When people asked me what I thought of the movie, I remember saying that the lack of "canned Hollywood characterization" was refreshing. None of the cliched scenes of "I wish I was back home with my wife and kids and doing my job as a veterinarian, but instead I'm going to die in this God-forsaken hellhole. War is hell."

Another thing occurred to me though - how many movies do we have that are actually about soldiers like the ones in BHD? It seems to me, especially after Vietnam, that most war movies feature a diverse selection of characters who can bounce off each other to give some easy conflict and insights into their personalities and cover different sides of war. BHD, OTOH, is about an elite, volunteer army. These guys are warriors who have mastered their military training as well as any human can, not a bunch of guys, including draftees or reluctant volunteers, who don't want to be there fighting. When the shooting starts, their mentality is pretty much "preserve the unit, fulfill the mission," and it doesn't go much beyond that. So if it seems like their characterization is slight, or that the guys blend together too much because they don't have enough individuality, to me that just seems like the movie is being truthful about what an Army Ranger/Delta Force member does and thinks, and that isn't fully comprehensible to a lot of people in our society.

 

[Jack Briggs]

If some degree of attachment to the characters was not intended, then why present the first twenty minutes or so at all? Why bother with what little fleshing out there is in the first place?

The Longest Day managed to put its major players into "position" with minimal introspection, while rightfully ceding to the Normandy invasion itself as the real "star" of the film.

There is emotional manipulation at work in the film's first scenes. If one wishes to stress Black Hawk Down's "documentary-like" feel, then there are other dramatic approaches one could take in setting everything up for the military operation itself.

As it is wrought in this film, however, the effect is one of manipulation. It is possible for a viewer to feel a connection to the players even if their characters aren't developed. But Scott did opt for a limp, empty gesture of fleshing the personalities out. That it was even attempted in the first place cheapens the film's emotional impact.

And none of this has to do with the bravery of those who were thrust into this operation in the first place.

 

[Luc D]

I think it's unfair to say that someone who criticizes the film has missed the point. I understand what the film is about, in fact I think it's near impossible for someone to miss the point after seeing it as it's not the most subtle of films.

To make a war film and objectify the soldiers, make them indistinguishable from one another and simply focus on the conflict is a noble exercise if done well. But Black Hawk Down clearly wants to have it both ways. The film spends the better part of a half hour justifying its existence with awkward conversations about the situation so the viewer can have some kind of frame of reference and understand what's going on and why they are there. Then the film cheats. It very briefly introduces each character in typical war movie fashion and gives them traits, or "quirks" so that we can identify them more easily when they're sent out to fight a sea of black, faceless enemies. I see this and the film almost immediately loses me as a viewer. You either give the soldiers a voice or you don't. By doing both Black Hawk Down becomes a very hollow picture as it compromises its message from the very beginning. Combine this with rather mediocre performances and generic war dialogue and you're left with a film that has very little to offer me.

What's left? Essentially, formal masturbation. What is the camera telling you? Scott puts it right in the middle of every explosion, trying to relate the horrors of combat through a subjective camera. This is something that's been done, oh, maybe 12 times in the last 5 years. And so the film becomes redundant, a retread of this new found fascination towards realism in depicting violence. So as I view the film as being hollow, it most certainly becomes another example of "war porn".