La Chute du faucon noir

I have seen many War movies and I am myself a very die hard Military Technology Enthusiast but I have hardly seen any movie which is as correct as this one. This movie simply gives you the feel of the actual action which went on during this battle.

Everything from the way the soldiers moved, took their position, fired from covered positions, gave covering fire to each other, the use of Explosives including grenade and the way they captured strategic places even without much help from Air Force gave a true and absolutely realistic view of Real Time Urban Combat. It shows that Humvees are not impenetrable and the Soldier manning the machine gun post is extremely vulnerable from Roof Top Fire. Again the way Small Arms like the LMG & UMG were used were impressive and the tactics used by Special Forces to fend off attackers and secure the perimeter was true to all my knowledge.

I appreciate the Director and actors to carry out this War Movie with such accuracy. If you are a Defence Enthusist this movie is must watch and if not then too one must watch it to understand is WAR is nothing less then HELL.

Since this based on true incident let's pay respect to those who sacrificed their lives and salute those who have lived another day to fight.

While the theatrical cut still resulted in a meaningful film, it irked me originally in the theater and then again recently upon seeing it again that very significant moments from the original Philadelphia Inquirer articles were left out. It was as if someone hadn't just forced Ridley Scott to cut the film down for time, but to de-emphasize the disparity in training and personalities between the Tier One units and everyone else. Was it because they wanted the Rangers to do interviews and go on the talk circuit to help publicize the film? Regardless, the Extended Edition adds back footage I had no idea they bothered to even shoot. The only big thing missing is that Delta medic Earl Fillmore isn't a character, but I assume his family wasn't interested in him being portrayed at all, which is unfortunate. In the Extended Edition, Wolcott instead serves the Fillmore role of reassuring someone and then himself becoming an early KIA. In fact, Fillmore was killed while moving to Wolcott's crash site. So, this was a very smart and fitting proxy. The theatrical cut is, frankly, an inexcusable version that no one should be watching when the extended exists.

When you break it down and look at it both honestly and cynically (assuming that that is possible for a minute), there are really only two kinds of war movie: pro and con. The underlying theme of virtually every war movie - particularly since APOCALYPSE NOW - generally comes down to an analysis of the 'value' of war, of its worth. It's pointlessness, or its need. Is the action of battle warranted because of the attempt to find peace, or is war never justifiable, no matter what the intention?

Pro or con?

What is interesting is that since the Second World War, this underlying message that is found in nearly all war pictures has slowly changed from the former to the latter. This again is generally shaped in two ways. Either we see the play-by-play results following the issuance of what appears to be a bizarre and foolhardy set of orders from high command (i.e., APOCALYPSE NOW or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN). Or we get a glimpse of being right in the action as it all falls apart: hearing the bullets whizzing past our noses, reeling from the impact of RPG's and gazing blankly as the bodies begin to mount (PLATOON, say). BLACK HAWK DOWN, directed by Ridley Scott and accurately following the true story of the best-selling book by Mark Bowden, very much adopts the latter perspective.

On October 3, 1993, a small unit of U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force troops were dropped by helicopter into hostile territory in Mogadishu, Somalia, with what is perceived to be a straightforward mission: the capture of two lieutenants of the Somali warlord, General Aidid. The unit is under command from Major William Garrison (Sam Shepard), and headed by Staff Sergeant Matt Eversmann (Josh Hartnett) in his first direct experience of frontline leadership. He also has a personal goal - to ensure everyone comes back alive.

Yet, these things are never as easy as they appear - hence the development of the book and the film - and when 18-year old frontline rookie Todd Blackbird is injured early on, the entire mission begins to fall apart. More U.S. troops are injured, and when Somalis down two Black Hawk helicopters, the mission changes completely: it's now a rescue operation.

And for about ninety minutes, you are subjected to some of the most intense, disturbing, graphic, violent and chilling pieces of conflict representation that you will ever see. Remember the Omaha Beach scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? That was about half an hour long. Think of something three times that length, yet more 'realistic' and with (thankfully) no flag-waving. That is the gist of BLACK HAWK DOWN.

Ultimately, one hundred-and-twenty-three U.S. troops were involved in the Mogadishu conflict. Nineteen were killed, and one thousand Somalis also perished.

Unlike RYAN, BLACK HAWK DOWN doesn't build up a core group of characters, focusing on their emotional makeup and depth. No. Instead, we barely know our 'heroes', with very little time devoted to each characters motivation or purpose. And this is a good thing. At first, you find yourself a little bewildered by the sizeable cast, and this isn't helped by the many distant POV scenes that found this reviewer wondering just who he was seeing living and dying. But surely that is an important and crucial element of war - you're involved in these suicidal missions with men you barely know. You don't have time to share your life-stories. You may have only met that week, that day, or within the last hour. And then it's full on.

We get snippets of character data: Eversmann's entire focus is on not letting the team down; Specialist Danny Grimes (Ewan McGregor), for so long tied to his desk simply because he excelled at typing; and Delta Sergeant 'Hoot' Hooten (Tom Sizemore, soon to be playing Bruce Banner in THE HULK), wise despite his years, somehow making more sense of the nonsense than anyone else.

But any characterisation is underplayed and to the point, which is how it should be. The fresh-facedness and naivety of the troops is key to the success of the film, and of the emotional impact therein. As the errors and bodies mount, we get to see the horror of the conflict - the carnage and devastation, relentlessness and never-ending waves of Somali forces - directly through the eyes of the U.S. Rangers and Delta Force squad. I was somewhat stunned by the impact of the movie, both in the way the action grips you and shakes you violently until you want to let go, and in the occasional and very touching soft moments. Indeed, the action is so intense that I found myself at times glazing over, thinking of something else, and with hindsight I put this down to some kind of need for an emotional release; certainly, I cannot fault the film in that sense. It was simply a case of 'too much.'

Throughout the movie both the acting and direction are superb; Ridley Scott has an eye for detail and filmography that is probably unmatched. Even his lesser efforts like HANNIBAL are beautifully shot. And BLACK HAWK DOWN is one of his best efforts to date.

The musical score is also superb, and I was encouraged to hear the Stone Temple Pilot's CREEP near the beginning of the flick. I believe this is the first time I have heard a STP song in any movie.

What is also very welcome is the lack of U.S. nationalism in this picture. Of America saving the day. Unlike, say, brother Tony Scott's TOP GUN - which yes, was making a different point entirely (i.e., let's make some money and recruit some boys to the Navy at the same time) - this isn't about the might of the U.S. There is no wake-leaving in BLACK HAWK DOWN. Real people made mistakes, and real people died.

Speaking of Tony Scott, however, my only minor quibble was Sam Shepard's performance. He was probably in the wrong movie, as all his mannerisms (especially the way he took off his sunglasses in that quick-draw kind of way that stereotypical military types always seem to do) appeared to me to come straight out of TOP GUN. He was a little too 'bleh' for my tastes. For all I know William Garrison could have been exactly like that, but it still seemed a little Hollywood.

I also wasn't completely comfortable as to how the Somalis were portrayed; this movie wasn't really about good versus bad in my opinion, but on the face of it the U.S. are the bad guys here. At least inasmuch as they were at fault. Comparisons are made with Vietnam both in the unnecessary involvement of the U.S. in the Somali civil war, and in the end credits of the film where we learn that the Medal of Honour was awarded to two U.S. soldiers for the first time since the Vietnam conflict. Yet, throughout the film the Somali are seen in only two ways - either a relentless force of bloodthirsty killers, or a simple people trying to stay out of the way. Now yes, this may be what it really was like - I cannot say because I wasn't there - but the overall message didn't fit well with me. They seemed too one-dimensional, a bit TOO bloodthirsty, and that left a bitter taste.

Also as mentioned above the film is often confusing during the extended battle scene, and warrants more than one view. As the blood and dirt begins to pile, you will find yourself wondering who you are looking at, particularly when the perspective is on several soldiers from a distance. But that can be forgiven. This isn't PREDATOR, and while that film is outstanding as a piece of science fiction, it made a great effort to separate the marines so that the viewer would have an easy time following each one.

That, of course, isn't real life, and BLACK HAWK DOWN is, perhaps, as close as we've come yet to an accurate capture of the true feel of war.

Rating: **** 1/2 (out of five)

Unlike most of the war movies of our time, Black Hawk Down sticks to the facts about what happened in Mogadishu and doesn't romanticize the story. To support this observation, the viewer will notice that there is not really one main character. This shows that the film focuses more on what happened in Somalia instead of on the characters personality and/or struggles. Another important aspect of the film that makes it so great is the cinematography. Not only was the setting of the film accurate to the real thing, but the way that the movie was filmed is great because it seems like someone is running along the battle scene getting everything on tape. In addition, the film contains small aspects that one may not notice that are important to the situation in Mogadishu. For instance, the bullet shells that fell from the firing helicopter fell into one of the soldiers' vests, and he scrambled to get it out because of how hot it was. This small detail makes the movie that much more realistic. To conclude, Black Hawk Down is a great movie that is both an eye opener that sticks to the facts as well as a quality film. I recommend this movie to any war-film fan, as well as anyone that likes watching movies in general.

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.