Black hawk down ++SPOILERS++

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0
Ok I didn't like this film, in fact I borderline hated it, although it was so bland it couldn't even raise full hatred in me. As an action flick it was passable but as a war/realistic movie it was awful.

My questions to those who liked the film for anything other than it's action elements are these:

1) Why does Tom Sizemore always play the invinsible army veteran who never ducks yet mysteriously never gets seriously wounded.

2) Why do they so obviously pilfer from films like Saving Pvte Ryan; nerdy desk-bound guy turns into a hero, deaf guy who shouts for comic relief, grainy flickery film stock.

3) Why are American soldiers in movies like these always shown in a simliar light:'We're brothers' 'No one is left behind' etc etc, whereas in reality the commanding officers are always more concerned about the destruction of the ordenance rather than the downed soldiers.

4) Did anyone else think, that once in battle all the soldiers began to look similar?

5) Caused by point 4 above no doubt but; didn't anyone notice how the guy who was shot in the leg and whose vein they were trying to grab, died, was seen being zipped into a body bag, appears again to talk to the general, then dies again and is left outside the bodybag in the final scene where that idiot from Pearl Harbor tells him he'll tell his 'mom' and 'pop' that he fought well??? WTF was going on?

6) Anyone count how many times they repeated the letters :'RPG'? Soldiers handbook page one: 'You MUST shout the name of whatever weapon the enemy are using!'


7) Again, token Somalian gets his pathetic one sided speech on his reason for fighting, very similar to Three Kings (ie. Lets try to explain the conflict in baby-language to the audience)

8) Eric Bana's character. Why must we always have the one guy who is bulletproof and is portrayed as being so very very brave. God bless America!

9) Slow motion combined with whispy music = deep and meaningful scene.

10) Echoes of the movie Aliens, when first copter goes down and slowly all the natives start swarming towards it.

11) Token Somalian No#2...You get to walk slowly in front of a jeep holding a child cause that way the audience will remember that shooting people is wrong.


So I didn't like it. I'm going to get flamed no doubt but could someone try to answer those questions above?
 

toph99

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2000
5,505
0
0
i didn't like it much either. as a war movie, it sucked. the acting was so-so, there was NO character development at all. In retrospect, i wish i had waited for it to come out on video
 

Antisocial Virge

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 1999
6,578
0
0


<< 9) Slow motion combined with whispy music = deep and meaningful scene. >>


This is all Jerry Bruckheimer(sp) same scene...every movie.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
1.Um, Seizmore's character did get shot.
2.it's hollywood. Grainy film stock is used to represent the grittyness of the battle. It also helps make the props and effects look less fake.
3.
4.Well the reason that the soilders started all looking the same is because it's combat at an intense pace. All you have time to recognize is the uniform and you know not to shoot it.
5. refer to #4
6. It's said incase one of the other guys doesn't see it. With all the weapons going off everywhere you have to warn your buddies.
7.The movie wasn't about why the Somalias were fighting. It was about a group of Americans fighting for their lives while being greatly outnumbered.
8.Some people are very brave and by luck,training, and skill they don't get hurt in combat.
9.It shows that civilians were involved.
10. Um cause thats what happened.
11. I don't remember shooting people is wrong. If I was driving I would of hit the bitch.
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
ummm, I am going to go out on a limb and say
1. you weren't aware this is based on real life events
2. you are very very young
3. you have no idea about Rangers and how they operate



<< 1) Why does Tom Sizemore always play the invinsible army veteran who never ducks yet mysteriously never gets seriously wounded. >>

Just because you would curl up in a ball like a coward doesn't mean all men do

<< 2) Why do they so obviously pilfer from films like Saving Pvte Ryan; nerdy desk-bound guy turns into a hero, deaf guy who shouts for comic relief, grainy flickery film stock. >>

nerdy desk guy is an actualperson
rolleye.gif
Deaf guy is an actual person. as for the grainy film...

<< 3) Why are American soldiers in movies like these always shown in a simliar light:'We're brothers' 'No one is left behind' etc etc, whereas in reality the commanding officers are always more concerned about the destruction of the ordenance rather than the downed soldiers. >>

Noone is left behind is part of the Ranger creed... Commanding officers are trained to focus on objectives and do not have access to all information about the battlefield...

<< 4) Did anyone else think, that once in battle all the soldiers began to look similar? >>

Ummm, you ever hear of a uniform. Maybe the next war movie should send all the actors to the mall for their costumes
rolleye.gif


<< 5) Caused by point 4 above no doubt but; didn't anyone notice how the guy who was shot in the leg and whose vein they were trying to grab, died, was seen being zipped into a body bag, appears again to talk to the general, then dies again and is left outside the bodybag in the final scene where that idiot from Pearl Harbor tells him he'll tell his 'mom' and 'pop' that he fought well??? WTF was going on? >>

really? didn't notice...

<< 6) Anyone count how many times they repeated the letters :'RPG'? Soldiers handbook page one: 'You MUST shout the name of whatever weapon the enemy are using!' >>

note to commander-in-chief, replace all meaningful battlefield communication with pointless expressions like "wwot!" "1337" and "Hi mom!"

<< 7) Again, token Somalian gets his pathetic one sided speech on his reason for fighting, very similar to Three Kings (ie. Lets try to explain the conflict in baby-language to the audience) >>

exactly which scene are you talking about here? Besides this was about a battle not a politcal analysis.

<< 8) Eric Bana's character. Why must we always have the one guy who is bulletproof and is portrayed as being so very very brave. God bless America! >>

A 3 hour movie with nothing but mortally and critically wounded soldiers would be entertaining how?

<< 10) Echoes of the movie Aliens, when first copter goes down and slowly all the natives start swarming towards it. >>

I am sure that is what the somalis were thinking when they were swarming towards people who were brave enough and honorable enough to put their lives in danger for your flag...

<< 11) Token Somalian No#2...You get to walk slowly in front of a jeep holding a child cause that way the audience will remember that shooting people is wrong. >>

Actually that was more of a symbolic statement regarding the insanity of combat in a civilian zone where not everyone is trying to kill you. There were many similar events throughout the book and the real battle.

So there you have it, as requested. Flames AND answers to your questions/comments
 

propellerhead

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2001
1,160
0
0
Why do you guys get so critical about movies? Is that how you watch movies? Always looking for faults?

You'd probably enjoy movies more if you let go and let the fantasy take you.
 

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0


<< 1.Um, Seizmore's character did get shot.. >>



Yes, but he never ducked, never even attempted to avoid any fire. It's always the same in movies like that, to show 'courage' they show stupidity, to show 90% of other emotions they use slow motion and music.



<<
5. refer to #4..
>>



The same guy dying, coming back alive, dying again and then jumping out of his body bag??!?



<< 6. It's said incase one of the other guys doesn't see it. With all the weapons going off everywhere you have to warn your buddies... >>



Why do they never shout 'BULLETS! BULLETS!"?


<<
7.The movie wasn't about why the Somalias were fighting. It was about a group of Americans fighting for their lives while being greatly outnumbered....
>>



The film was an action film masquerading as something more. I personally think that if they wanted to show Americans fighting for their lives there are millions of other ways to do it. If they insist using 'real life' events to showcase the Americans fighting, then they owe it to historical accuracy to show both sides. Otherwise you end up with a film like U571 which was based on a lie yet claimed to be based on a true story!
 

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0



<< 1) Why does Tom Sizemore always play the invinsible army veteran who never ducks yet mysteriously never gets seriously wounded]Just because you would curl up in a ball like a coward doesn't mean all men do >>



I'm sorry, it must be good policy to stand tall when under fire! The higher the rank the taller you stand and to hell with the fact that people are shooting at you. The cowards run for cover, we throw ourselves at the enemy and accomplish nothing.
 

chuckieland

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2000
3,148
0
0

6) Anyone count how many times they repeated the letters :'RPG'? Soldiers handbook page one: 'You MUST shout the name of whatever weapon the enemy are using!'


yes, if you get your ass into the army, you would know, you must yell out the explosive weapon you see that is coming your way. in order to warn your boddy.

just like the movie said
"you won't understand"
 

Novgrod

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2001
1,142
0
0
The film was an action film masquerading as something more. I personally think that if they wanted to show Americans fighting for their lives there are millions of other ways to do it. If they insist using 'real life' events to showcase the Americans fighting, then they owe it to historical accuracy to show both sides.

Read the book. The Somalis are not treated too harshly; certainly about the same as in the book, and nobody has questioned Bowden's honesty. Among his citations that didn't make the movie:

Women were used as arms carriers since Americans wouldn't shoot them.

Somalis would hind behind women in the street to shoot at the Rangers. The Americans then shot the women and the somalis behind them (seems not unreasonable to me, though certainly not good). All in all, the movie was remarkably even-handed. You have a distinct feeling (cf _For Whom the Bell Tolls_) that the operation won't do any good, and yet it's done anyway. You also see many civilians die for no reason. Not as even handed as the book, but certainly not over the top patriotism.

I would appreciate direct citations of how the Somalis are portrayed as evil.

For what it's worth, the Rangers don't leave people behind. Furthermore, I think that even based on your fantastically cynical interpretation, whereas in reality the commanding officers are always more concerned about the destruction of the ordenance rather than the downed soldiers. is bunk: If you were the direct commander of people, would you want their blood on your hands? Honestly, your mettle as a CO is often determined by how many of your men die. Furthermore, if you were the CO of a group in a country that HATES casualties, would you let people die needlessly? While I'll agree with you that commanding officers have their own objectives, nearly all good generals ever have cared about the well-being of their troops. You're flat-out wrong on this point.

Furthermore, there *was* a nerdy desk guy who was turned into a hero in the course of events in 1993.

Thought number umpteen: Three Kings was distinctly opposed to American participation in the war--scriptwriter obviously thought it was a hoax for money.

As for questions on cinametography, I'll gladly admit that I think you're right.
 

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0
Whether or not they have to shout about explosives, my point was that it was over used in the movie.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< As an action flick it was passable but as a war/realistic movie it was awful. >>



How do you figure? As a war/realistic movie, it was probably as realistic a portrayal of the "fog of war" in combat as Hollywood has ever gotten, and was as faithful to the real events of what happened as could be reasonably expected.

*Hint* If you disliked Blackhawk Down, you should probably avoid seeing Titanic, i've heard at the end the boat sinks. Major bummer.
 

Rooster286

Senior member
Dec 20, 2000
396
0
0


<< Ok I didn't like this film, in fact I borderline hated it, although it was so bland it couldn't even raise full hatred in me. As an action flick it was passable but as a war/realistic movie it was awful.

My questions to those who liked the film for anything other than it's action elements are these:

1) Why does Tom Sizemore always play the invinsible army veteran who never ducks yet mysteriously never gets seriously wounded.

-He Did

2) Why do they so obviously pilfer from films like Saving Pvte Ryan; nerdy desk-bound guy turns into a hero, deaf guy who shouts for comic relief, grainy flickery film stock.

-Desk Bound Guy Actually Went Into Battle (In real life). Temp Deaf People tend to not know what volume they are speaking at., Grainy Stock is symbolic, like the man above says

3) Why are American soldiers in movies like these always shown in a simliar light:'We're brothers' 'No one is left behind' etc etc, whereas in reality the commanding officers are always more concerned about the destruction of the ordenance rather than the downed soldiers.

-Actual Rangers and Delta Force, along with most special forces DO NOT leave fallen brothers behind. It's a oath they take when initiated. And more sacred than anything you will prob ever know.

4) Did anyone else think, that once in battle all the soldiers began to look similar?

-75,000 rounds of ammunition and switching between almost 100 different soldiers tends to make things blurry when you've only seen it once, and you need to take everything in for the first time.

5) Caused by point 4 above no doubt but; didn't anyone notice how the guy who was shot in the leg and whose vein they were trying to grab, died, was seen being zipped into a body bag, appears again to talk to the general, then dies again and is left outside the bodybag in the final scene where that idiot from Pearl Harbor tells him he'll tell his 'mom' and 'pop' that he fought well??? WTF was going on?

-Nope, missed that one. Maybe you were confused? Or it was a flashback sequence?

6) Anyone count how many times they repeated the letters :'RPG'? Soldiers handbook page one: 'You MUST shout the name of whatever weapon the enemy are using!'

-Common sense should prevail here. Dodging bulletts is not dodging a RPG. If someone shoots an RPG and you don't take cover, you die more often than not. Contrary to popular belief, soldiers do not have 360o panoramic vision. They are not all seeing, nor all powerful, and tend to cover different feilds of fire, and trust there fellow soldiers are covering theirs. So when an RPG is shot from the east, only 4 or 5 people are going to notice, the rest are left clueless and in the open.

7) Again, token Somalian gets his pathetic one sided speech on his reason for fighting, very similar to Three Kings (ie. Lets try to explain the conflict in baby-language to the audience)

-Prob 65% of the audience has NO CLUE what occured in Somalia, If you've ever read the book, you would realize that. Hence, the speech was for the sheep, to help them understand why we were fighting such a relentless enemy.

8) Eric Bana's character. Why must we always have the one guy who is bulletproof and is portrayed as being so very very brave. God bless America!

-If you do it right in the past you tend to create a "Acting Stereotype" for yourself. Your cast at what you do best.

9) Slow motion combined with whispy music = deep and meaningful scene.

-Deep and meaningful could not be conveyed by kisses and sweet love in the movie. Nor with a plastic bag (ala American Beauty)

10) Echoes of the movie Aliens, when first copter goes down and slowly all the natives start swarming towards it.

-Echoes of the human race. Ever notice what happens when a house is on fire, when the police show up at a neighbors house?

11) Token Somalian No#2...You get to walk slowly in front of a jeep holding a child cause that way the audience will remember that shooting people is wrong.

-If I have to explain this scene.....watching this movie obviously was a waste of your time

So I didn't like it. I'm going to get flamed no doubt but could someone try to answer those questions above?
>>




This movie in no way did justice to the book, or the event.....however complemented it nicely. Books don't quite convey the awful feeling of watching someone die on screen, watching their blood pumping out of them, with no way to save them. Nothing convey's human emotion like body language...
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
<< Otherwise you end up with a film like U571 which was based on a lie yet claimed to be based on a true story! >>

Wrong. It IS......BASED on a true story. The British captured a U-Boat. The Americans also captured a U-Boat. The movie is about capturing a U-Boat. In addition, the credits at the end of the movie tell exactly when and who captured U-Boats in WWII.
So how is it based on a lie?

 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Make some valid points rather than comparing parts to other movies and maybe you'll be credible.
 

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0


<< I would appreciate direct citations of how the Somalis are portrayed as evil. >>



Scene one, somali shoots innocent people trying to get food. Obviously he doesn't represent all Somalis but what are we presented with that *does* try to represent the majority of Somalis? Some people cowering in a house and an old man walking with a child in his arms.

Scene two Somali shooting at surrounded Americans, relying on heavy artillary from behind. Americans capture said heavy artillary and we get a nice shot of previous Somali turning around, 'Oh no I'm going to die' and then BOOM he dies, graphically. But, you know, he deserved it.

You call my assessment highly cynical. Do you blame me when there are a million and one movies just like BHD with all the gung-ho attitude and sentimentality that goes with such hokum.

I haven't read the book and thus can't comment on that, but it did seem to me that the film was overly long, confusing and full of elements I'd seen before. But you know, I'm the guy who thinks seeking cover when under fire is a good idea, perhaps you should ask Tom Sizemore.
 

skeletor

Member
Aug 7, 2001
189
0
0


<< << Otherwise you end up with a film like U571 which was based on a lie yet claimed to be based on a true story! >>

Wrong. It IS......BASED on a true story. The British captured a U-Boat. The Americans also captured a U-Boat. The movie is about capturing a U-Boat. In addition, the credits at the end of the movie tell exactly when and who captured U-Boats in WWII.
So how is it based on a lie?
>>





I wasn't aware the Americans captured the enigma machine. I thought it was the British. But it's a movie so it must be right.
 

chuckieland

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2000
3,148
0
0


<< My friend's uncle is William F. :) >>


what that got to do with anything?

sekeletor are you Somali?
well what i'm try to said is, don't expect U.S.A to make a movie where somali(or any other country) a good guy, while U.S.A is the bad guy. that would never happen
no county in the right mind would produce a movie that make themself look bad
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
<< 11) Token Somalian No#2...You get to walk slowly in front of a jeep holding a child cause that way the audience will remember that shooting people is wrong. >>

Actually that was more of a symbolic statement regarding the insanity of combat in a civilian zone where not everyone is trying to kill you. There were many similar events throughout the book and the real battle.


That "scene" REALLY DID HAPPEN. It was apparently a bit "Hollywoodized" in terms of when and where it happened (can't recall exact details), but there was actually an elderly man who carried a child across the street in the midst of the convoy.

Yes, but he never ducked, never even attempted to avoid any fire. It's always the same in movies like that, to show 'courage' they show stupidity, to show 90% of other emotions they use slow motion and music.

There are plenty of historical examples of men acting like this under combat. Remember that he was the commander, and his bravado inspired his men.

Whether or not they have to shout about explosives, my point was that it was over used in the movie.

It was "overused" in Mogadishu which is why it was so commonplace in the movie. Maybe if you read the book...

I wasn't aware the Americans captured the enigma machine. I thought it was the British. But it's a movie so it must be right.

No, it was actually the Polish who captured the first example of Enigma before the war. Get your facts straight if you're going to start criticizing others.
 

fatbaby

Banned
May 7, 2001
6,427
1
0


<< 5) Caused by point 4 above no doubt but; didn't anyone notice how the guy who was shot in the leg and whose vein they were trying to grab, died, was seen being zipped into a body bag, appears again to talk to the general, then dies again and is left outside the bodybag in the final scene where that idiot from Pearl Harbor tells him he'll tell his 'mom' and 'pop' that he fought well??? WTF was going on? >>



j00 are confusing 2 different ppl
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
<<I wasn't aware the Americans captured the enigma machine. I thought it was the British. But it's a movie so it must be right. >>'

The Brits captured an enigma machine. The Americans did too. In fact, the Americans captured the whole U-boat.....we still have it,
It's in Chicago

 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
<<No, it was actually the Polish who captured the first example of Enigma before the war. Get your facts straight>>

No, the Polish actually BOUGHT a commercially-available version of the Enigma in the late 1920's. They basically hacked it in the early 30's, but the Brits and Americans were the ones who captured the machines or parts of them in the war.