| BLACK HAWK DOWN Director: Ridley Scott Producers: Jerry Bruckheimer, Ridley Scott Screenplay: Adapted by Ken Nolan from the Nonfiction book by Mark Bowden Director of Photography: Slawomir Idziak Cast: Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Ewen Bremner, Sam Shepard |
 |
|
Ryan Kugler says: Hannibal wasn't really Ridley Scott's fault. After all, it was a very good adaptation of a very bad book. Thankfully, he has followed it up with his finest film since Blade Runner. Black Hawk Down is intense, realistic, and in-your-face. The film is based on the nonfiction book by Mark Bowden and was adapted for the screen by Ken Nolan. It tells of a true incident that took place in Somalia in 1993 involving a military operation that went horribly wrong. What was originally planned as a quick 30-minute mission turned into a 15-hour siege on the streets. When it was over, several people had lost their lives and many more were injured. The ensemble cast contains over 40 speaking parts and includes: Josh Hartnett, Sam Shepard, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana, and Ewan McGregor. Overall, they do a fine job, but there are no real showy roles, and no one actor stands out. McGregor struggles a bit with his American accent, but otherwise is fine in the role. One of the only problems I had is that most of the actors look alike (same costumes and same haircuts) and it's difficult to keep track of who is who. I suppose that all of them blending together says something about war and the situation that these particular Rangers found themselves in. The mission was a team effort and the team is more important than any one individual. Technically, the film is flawless. Cinematographer Slawomir Idziak does a remarkable job of capturing the horrors of war. For most of the film, you really feel like you're there, trapped with the men. The battle scenes have a documentary feel and come together with the flawless editing of Pietro Scalia. Scott is also working again with composer Hans Zimmer (Gladiator), who comes up with another memorable score. One of the biggest criticisms that I've heard is, "the battle scenes are amazing, but where's the story?" To the people that ask this, I say, what do you want, a love triangle? This film doesn't need anything more than what it already has. It's a bare-bones look at war and is stripped of all of the excesses that most clichéd movies in this genre contain. You get a 30- minute introduction to the men and their mission, then you're plunged into a 2-hour prolonged battle scene that plays like the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. You're there with these guys, as they fight for their lives, and it's wrenching. This is a no-fingernail movie, because when it was over, I had none left. The film ends, not with a sentimental wraparound, uplifting music or even a comforting message of hope, but the way a situation like this would end. This is a true event and Scott lays it out for you as I imagine it really happened. There's no room for anything else. When it's over, you're drained. Jerry Bruckheimer shared producing chores with Scott, and the two might be looking at an Oscar nomination and possible win, for a movie that's completely different than anything with which he's ever been associated. This has been called an anti-Bruckheimer film and I couldn't agree more. It's good to see him branch out and make something important. He has now produced the year's best (this) and worst (Pearl Harbor) war movies. Rating: |
H E A D S / T A I L S |
Ian Golding says: I mostly agree with what Ryan has to say about Black Hawk Down. It has some great battle sequences, and technically, the film is near perfect. I must, however, take issue that a story somehow is some kind of appendix to the body of a film; unnecessary and able to be removed on an outpatient basis. My chief concern with Black Hawk Down was that the wonderfully shot battle scenes came off as empty to me. I didn't have a chance to know the characters beyond a few simple moments, so their peril (and in some cases, death) held no weight. The film felt like a Playstation game, (Sony Pictures, Sony Computer Entertainment coincidence? Hmm...) with faceless, nameless bad guys whizzing across the screen in jeeps, waiting to be shot by our heroes. The inclusion of a particular (unnamed, BTW) villain was like a boss character, the final obstacle the heroes need to face before they can pass the level. Having read the book, as well as the series in the Philadelphia Enquirer that it was culled from, I was particularly enthused about this film going in. I especially hoped to see Scott's treatment of the ordeal of Mike Durant (Ron Eldard), captured after his Black Hawk helicopter, Super Six Four, was shot down. The book was really Durant's story, although it spent plenty of time on many noteworthy Rangers and Delta men. Durant's story tied the whole thing together, and to me, helped encapsulate the entire story. Despite the failures of policy makers and generals, the soldiers were the true heroes, and one of the reasons was because they stuck to their code: "Leave no man behind." Durant was captured by men loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid and taken prisoner. Even though they had been through an intense firefight, the Delta and Rangers had Durant foremost on their minds, and almost all of them were willing to go right back out and get Durant back. The moment when Durant finally reunites with his family is a great moment and was one I was eager to see, but Durant's story is relegated to an unforgivable text crawl at the end of the film. I don't know if the decision to trim's Durant's story back was in the script stage or was filmed and cut for time, but I feel its omission crippled the film. Instead of a human story about the best of men in the worst of situations, we got a film filled with action set pieces and audience-pleasing explosions. Don't get me wrong; there are some really good things in Black Hawk Down. Josh Hartnett gives the performance of a lifetime as Ranger chalk leader Matt Eversmann. He's not his usual, soulless self. He plays the role well and gives a nice touch of depth to the man. The battle scenes are, of course, well choreographed, but that simply isn't enough for me. These are professional filmmakers here, folks. It's their job to do the technical things right. They don't always, but I still can't give credit simply because they didn't screw up. The true measures of a film are the human touches; the acting, story, and the emotions, and there just wasn't enough soul in the film for me. Rating: |
Who's right here? Jump to the forums and weigh in.
|
|
|
|
|
