"Black Hawk Down" - terrible movie!

As I said, it was a great reconstruction based on memories and sketchily documented events. I don't know if it was 'realistic' because I wasn't there... and I dare say most of the soldiers that were there were only in one place at any one time so couldn't really comment on what they didn't see or experience.

People are also allowed to find the film not to their taste, even if their taste is staged/hero type war films. It does not necessarily make them dumbasses.
 
ZzzZzzZzzZzzZzzzzZZZz

"people are entitled to their opinions" bla bla bla. Their opinions can be questioned too. Otherwise its boring.
 
I liked it. I saw it at the flicks (and gave it positive feedback) after reading the book and I thought they did a decent job of adapting it for the big screen.
It's kind of confusing for folks that don't know any background to it though, which makes it a film that's easy to dislike if that's your choice.
The prolonged firefight didn't bother me, nor did the lack of a conventional or linear story, sub plots, love interests or anything like that. Could have been better balanced though, as some details like friendly fire etc got left out. It's not a film I could just throw in the player though, I'd have to be in the mood for it.
 
I read the book a couple of weeks back, before seeing the film and that did help me have an idea of what went on. The history etc.

There was loads that was left out. The chap who had the RPG buried in him for example was merely a brief film moment where there was a greater impact of it in the book.
 
There will always be lots of things left out or at least brushed over in any book to film conversation. The two are different media for a start.
 
Originally posted by Desticado
There will always be lots of things left out or at least brushed over in any book to film conversation. The two are different media for a start.

I knew they would skip some bits but I was looking forward to that scene. Oh well. Still a very good film though.
 
I thought this film was excellant, to the poster, what do you mean no plot? this is real events life does not have a plot? what are you talking about, if you want a plot get a film which is pure fiction and made up, leave the "based on real events" films to action junkies like me who loved the 2 hour great battle.

:)
 
Well, I consider BHD to an great film, it is different from the other war films that I am also a fan of, but I like it just as much.

If you were to ask me today to rate my current fave war films in order:

1) Saving Private Ryan
2) Black Hawk Down
3) We Were Soldiers
4) Glory
5) Platoon
6) Behind Enemy Lines

Just my opinion of course :D
 
It's not as bad a film as I was lead to believe. I found it rather good.

Loved the cinematography and style of the film, sound design was excellent. A good plus point was I didn't see an American flag waving anywhere. Shame it's was a little ambiguous about the extent of the screw ups. Plus it was reasonable blood thirsty as war isn't pretty, and what happens to a human body when it's hit by a RPG or large caliber bullet should been shown to bring the horror home.
 
Originally posted by kevb
Plus it was reasonable blood thirsty as war isn't pretty, and what happens to a human body when it's hit by a RPG or large caliber bullet should been shown to bring the horror home.

Totally agree. For another example of a brillianty brutal portrayal of what actually happens when weapons meet humans, check out the battle sequence in 'Jacobs Ladder' (definitely in my top ten films overall too - I guess it qualifies as a war film as well?).
 
I also though the film was great, the way it didn't glamorise war and was very hard hitting. I have it in my collection and will definatly watch it again.
 
Black Hawk Down did not need a plot as it was simply something to be experienced and as such gets better with repeated viewings IMO. Does anyone remember A Bridge Too Far, watching BHD was very reminicent of that film. They both just recount an event and allow you to see the mistakes that even professionals can make when under pressure. When I first saw both films I felt my time had been wasted, but that did not stop me re-watching them on dvd and enjoying them more.:)
 
Originally posted by nwgarratt
Does anyone know how long the events actually took?


18 hours i think.
 
The plot problem with BHD is one of historical context. I know the film had a "Text" intro, but I think that more time should have been given to scene setting.
Anyone over twenty probably remembers Desert storm, but Somalia was meant to be a Policing operation, in theory less hazardous, hence the initial news coverage being if not less extensive perhaps less memorable.
I remember the landing on the beach, the gunships and those terrible pictures of the naked Marines bodies being dragged through the streets. By the time that these images were on the news the mission had gone wrong and the US was looking to get out.
If the US had "Won" in Somalia it would have been a very minor victory, an arrest.
As a failure it obtains an importance far greater, but of course, no one likes remembering a failure.
 
Originally posted by sanejo
no one likes remembering a failure.

Unless its an American one.

Then we LOVE to remember them. :D
 
Hi,

I saw this last night, and all I can say is wow!, it was far better than the critics made out, at the end of the day its entertainment, if you want fact watch the news.

With this film I felt I was right in the middle of that war, the action was relentless. The effects were superb with all that gunfire. The music was great. OK, the character development was'nt there, it seemed more a jerry b/simon west movie, than a ridley scott film.

But the emotion of the battle came through, and I take my hat off (if i was wearing one) to those soldiers, or any soldiers when there go into war, as we saw in that movie, you can't measure their bravery, their courage with all those bullets flying around, whilst their best friends are dead around them. They are the real supersoldiers.

ta

rai
 
I haven't read every ones reply, so I don't know if this has been posted already but..................

............Read the book you will understand it a lot more and realise that if they had taken it straight from book to film it would have been about 6 hours long.

The book is wickid.
 
I am about an hour into it and I am enjoying it a lot. There doesn't seem a lot of sub output but I like the surround output.
 
Originally posted by nwgarratt
There doesn't seem a lot of sub output but I like the surround output.

You're right, the bomb explosions are a bit flat.
 
I still haven't watched it yet but I think the sub output is intential as there seem to be a lot of detail in the rest of the sound. Anymore sub would hide the detail.
 
Well i got my DTS version of BHD today and have to say it is better than the 5.1 version i borrowed. The soundtrack is incredible, explosions etc have the additional bass lacking in the other version. Certain scenes and gunfire are slightly muted but it blends better as subtle effects and the music sounds crisper. I couple of good examples would be the scene at the start of battle when the gun on the helicopter lets rip, and the first crash itself which floods the room with extra bass. :D
 
Which release has DTS on it?

Regards
 
I definitely agree with Martin - the DTS version improves over the DD version mainly in the explosion department. Gunfire still sounds a little muted, but I'm pretty sure the sound was designed that way.

I did a review which you can read HERE

Cheers
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom