I read a review at www.countingdown.com by a man who had seen the movie, and he seemes to be VERY VERY Happy about the movie!
Since I live in Los Angeles I have had the oportunity to see Black Hawk Down. I saw it on opening day on December 28th, 2001 and twice more since then.
I have to say that they nailed this movie. I was so afraid of what they were going to do to it. Be assured that they did an excellent job.
Basically this movie tells you what events "went down" on October 3, 1993. I think they made a wise decision not to go into great detail about each individual character. The reason why? There are just too many people to go indepth with.
The movie just tells the story. It's important to tell this story so that people realize what men go through in combat. This movie does not sugar-coat anything nor does it hollywoodize anything.
Some will say that this movie doesn't go into as great of detail as the book. What movie based on a book does? If you want more information, read the book as well. You should do both anyway.
Extremely well done! 4 Stars!
The army men who was in the battle in Mogadishu talkes about the movie, and they are very happy about it...I just cant wait to see it now, I realy have to wait to April..tooooo loooooooooong.
When even teh army men sais this movie is GOOD, then it is good!
The Accuracy of Black Hawk Down
| The Orange County Register looks at the realism in Black Hawk Down:
To make sure he got it right, Scott brought in three military advisers, two of whom were directly involved in the battle depicted in the movie.
Retired Col. Lee Van Arsdale, a former squadron commander in the elite Delta Force, said the filmmakers took certain liberties in making their movie but none that concerned the military advisers.
"They cheated on the radio transmissions (in the movie, they use names instead of numbered designations) and in the use of soldiers' names on helmets (the military no longer does that). Both were done to avoid audience confusion, but almost everything else from a technical or equipment standpoint was on the mark.
"The guys out there who make a living by picking things apart are going to have a tough time on this one."
In fact, all the equipment, from the helicopters to the weapons, were exactly the same ones in use in Somalia in 1993.
Van Arsdale, who earned a Silver Star and a Purple Heart during his military service, said he and the other advisers also acknowledged that the element of time would have to be compromised.
"The intention was never to make a documentary," he explained.
"We made a conscious decision to compress time and to make some composite characters. There was just too much time and too many people. If we didn't take certain measures, we would have ended up with a 10-part series like (the HBO series) 'Band of Brothers.' "
Another adviser, retired Col. Thomas Matthews, said the only compromise that would not be tolerated was in the depiction of what happened to those soldiers on the ground in Somalia.
"We were in those units," Matthews said. "We knew those 18 men (who died). Five of them were in my unit. They were our people. It was very important to us to make the best possible product to honor the memory of those people."
Van Arsdale said the movie also was an opportunity to set the historical record straight.
"This is not a pro-war movie, and it is not an anti-war movie," he said. "It replicates very well what street combat is all about. And it properly portrays the troops on the ground that day. They were not the idiots that the press would have us believe they were.
"These combat soldiers fought like hell to protect their brothers, and they won that battle. They didn't lose it by any definition. These troops won the day."
Jonathan Ross
The English film critic, Jonathan Ross is a bag of shit. He critised BHD just for the fact that it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. What exactly is wrong with popcorn films (I'm not saying BHD is a popcorn film)? If they entertain the audience, then who cares if it has a basic storyline and no complicated narratives. All the old film critics give Psycho 5 stars. Well directed it may be, but where's the &*#@ ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!
*deleted for language*
Re: Jonathan Ross
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bad Boy
[B]The English film critic, Jonathan Ross is a bag of shit. He critised BHD just for the fact that it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. What exactly is wrong with popcorn films (I'm not saying BHD is a popcorn film)? If they entertain the audience, then who cares if it has a basic storyline and no complicated narratives. All the old film critics give Psycho 5 stars. Well directed it may be, but where's the @#$ ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!
Totaly agree with you!
A lot of critics use @#$$@! up exampels,like its a bruckheimer production, and the somalians are props and shit.
They have to see what the film is aout, and the point, not boder how has made it, I totaly agree Bad boY!!!!
Sorry my language, but I got caried away!