3/10. Here's why: - Black Hawk Down (2002) Discussion

[–] drtagnjr 8 years ago

I appreciate your opinion, but firmly disagree with your rating and the noted reasons in your post for such a rating. The length of a movie, for me, is never a factor UNLESS you have a short movie that feels like it is missing a lot or a lengthy movie that has noticeable scenes that are unneeded or slow. This movie had neither of these issues. The fact that the scenes to you felt repetitive is unfortunate as have seen it again recently, each scene provided weight, information or resonance to the situation of the soldiers. Being a movie about a 19 hour firefight, perhaps the problem is more what you expected vs what this movie was about? I challenge you to rewatch and try and pick sequences that are useless that you would have cut and I am certain every one has importance to the story or development of characters.

I do commiserate with you on many of the soldiers blending together as I felt some of the same on a few, but not the main 8 or 10. But I prefer it that way than silly "costume" changes to differentiate some characters I guess.

reply

[–] ImperialTemplar 8 years ago

You realize this was all about a Firefight that existed for hours correct? And that its exclusively about the few dozen individuals against thousands of angry armed Somali's, and their fight to survive correct? And you also realize that they, in real life had little to no down time to discuss the Weather, Washington Redskins and the Nasdaq right?

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

So?

reply

[–] ImperialTemplar 8 years ago

So your whole criticism is B.S. Its a movie about a firefight that lasted for over 12 hours. Its not going to be about people standing around having long drawn out conversations. If you wanted that you should not have watched this movie.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Did I say that's what I wanted?

reply

[–] Mackentorsk 8 years ago

No, but what did you really expect?
I'd say the movie suceeded in making basically a long action sequence, which matches the real life-firefight that took place.

-*Inserting random phrase by famous madman/idiot that makes me feel intelligent*-

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

I expected a movie that wasn't all about the action, but the story and characters too. Since war movies made before 2001 were that way, my expectations were the right ones.

reply

[–] thepartydjz 8 years ago

"For example?" Red Dawn, White House down, or any of those other comic book type junk films.

My Top 50 Films http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033211402/

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

You replied to the wrong person.

reply

[–] dubyahsrobotminion 8 years ago

Don't quit your day job! So what is the point of rating movies? Well normally the point is to give other who have not viewed the movie a preview so they can decide whether they want to see it or not. I looked at your blog of other movie reviews....Dumb and Dumber To...you gave 4/10, that seals it for me. You gave that movie a 4 and this one a 3.

Here's why? Well actually you didn't give any intelligent insight into why you didn't like it. All you did was comment on its length for about half the length of your prose or more, compare its length to 2 unrelated movies, then comment about not knowing the actors.

You are in the minority with your opinion. Ebert rated it 4/4. 75% fresh on RT. It even gets 7.7/10 on IMDB. Your bias is as loaded as the NYT review.

You're thread will be deleted for advertising to an outside side to get traffic.....just an FYI.

You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Dumb and Dumber To...you gave 4/10, that seals it for me. You gave that movie a 4 and this one a 3.

What does that have to do with this? I rated that one as a comedy and I rated this one as a war movie.

All you did was comment on its length for about half the length of your prose or more, compare its length to 2 unrelated movies, then comment about not knowing the actors.

The lenght is a big deal. I mentioned those other 2 movies because I was comparing their quality. Why is it not OK for me to do that with war movies but it's OK for you to do it with a war movie and a comedy? I said I did know the actors.

You are in the minority with your opinion. Ebert rated it 4/4. 75% fresh on RT. It even gets 7.7/10 on IMDB.

I never said I was saying the absolute truth. I don't post my opinions to compete, but to express them.

Your bias is as loaded as the NYT review.

What bias?

reply

[–] thepartydjz 8 years ago

This film is crap, the OP makes some valid points. These "Yay USA" joke films are "Overly cliched" which OP mentioned, filled with overly dramatic action scenes (also mentioned) and filled with USA propaganda BS.

My Top 50 Films http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033211402/

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

"Yay USA" joke films are "Overly cliched"

For example?

filled with USA propaganda BS.

Example, please?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] jdlexus 8 years ago

Ridley Scott is English, so were a number of the actors. It was his film.

reply

[–] OldSamVimes 8 years ago

I agree.

I remember scenes at the end where they kept showing the rooftops filled with 'bad guys' as they drove by and it was liking watching the background scrolling by in a Flinstones episode.

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

I remember scenes at the end where they kept showing the rooftops filled with 'bad guys' as they drove by

'The scene at the end' took place back at the airbase.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] chas437 8 years ago

10/10. A flawless film.

reply

[–] movie80 8 years ago

10/10. A flawless film.

Totally agreed!!!

reply

[–] kmd11 8 years ago

You're both right.

reply

[–] JakeZen2 8 years ago

Any thoughts?

Sure, you obviously did not like the movie, good for you, that is your prerogative.

It is hard to take your review seriously since you are not very observant or bright or a combination of the two.

It’s basically one 145-minute-long action sequence

The fighting does not even begin until 40 minutes into the movie. And the last 20 minutes of the movie are after the battle and the credits. So, that is 60 minutes of your BS generalized 145 minutes.

The movie is about The Battle of Mogadishu. The heaviest U.S. casualties experienced in battle since Vietnam. A good portion of the movie should be a lot of action since that is what happened.

A very repetitive one

Go to this url

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMt2_lYOpUE&feature=youtu.be&t=592

and listen to an actual soldier who was there, retired 1st Sgt. Matt Eversmann, describe the battle. Listen to how he describes how the battle is so loud that his teeth hurt and how he describes the chaos.

The fact that many who were actually there have praised the book and the movie for representing what happened there very well, I am going to dismiss your repetitive critique as an admonition of your limited abilities in discernment.

even though it has very little content

That you could not keep up with various actors in the movie is all on you and your lack of ability to concentrate. I bet the average moviegoer fared better than your limited abilities.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

The movie is about The Battle of Mogadishu. The heaviest U.S. casualties experienced in battle since Vietnam. A good portion of the movie should be a lot of action since that is what happened.

I've seen plenty of war movies. I have a good understanding on how much action they should show and how frequent it should be. Why do you think I gave a better grade to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which has an almost 30-minute battle sequence? Because the overall movie balanced that with non-action scenes.

listen to an actual soldier who was there, retired 1st Sgt. Matt Eversmann, describe the battle. Listen to how he describes how the battle is so loud that his teeth hurt and how he describes the chaos.

Of course that anyone who has been in the battlefield of any war will say how bad it was. Am I supposed to think about that everytime I watch a war movie? It's the filmmakers' job to make the viewer feel what it's like to be there.

many who were actually there have praised the book and the movie for representing what happened there very well

If you disagree with my opinion, it's fine, but you shouldn't disrespect war veterans by using them as shields. Why do you feel the need to quote others and remind me that it was considered a good movie by most people instead of telling me your opinion? I'm in the minority on this movie, but at least I said how I felt.

That you could not keep up with various actors in the movie is all on you and your lack of ability to concentrate.

I did keep up with them. It was a way of saying that the character development was poor.

reply

[–] JakeZen2 8 years ago

using veterans as shields? Your critical thinking and critiquing skills really are poor.

This movie was based on a factual event, not a pure exercise in fiction.

As such, I am citing them as an expert witness to bolster my opinion of how well the movie was done, not just pulling an opinion out of my arse, as you did when stating the movie was just one 145-minute-long action sequence. Which I gave you more facts to refute that part of your movie critique.

See, my response was in response to your critique of the movie and since you seem to be fine with giving it out and not receiving, I guess we are done.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

using veterans as shields?

That's right. You use their opinions (which I could have and did search by myself) instead of your own, as if you didn't have any... but I think you do have one. That's the sad part.

This movie was based on a factual event, not a pure exercise in fiction.

So? It's still a fictional movie and not a documentary. If it had something innacurate enough to ruin the story, I would consider it a flaw. Does that mean that being accurate should be a pro? No, that's like saying that I want to praise the cinematography for not looking like a home-made video.

I am citing them as an expert witness to bolster my opinion of how well the movie was done

Accuracy isn't related to the quality. At least not as directly. There are many movies based on true events that are considered classics despite innacuracies.

stating the movie was just one 145-minute-long action sequence.

Re-read the O.P. I used the word "Basically"

reply

[–] JakeZen2 8 years ago

The very first frame of the movie states "based on an actual event."

I am not sure why you do not get the concept of when dealing with a piece of art based upon an historical event, citing other sources - especially expert ones, for making a case for or against is good form. Did you not take a language arts class in high school where you had to learn critical thinking skills to explain your reasons?

Does that mean that being accurate should be a pro?

Yes, again, not sure why you do not understand that simple fact when dealing with a work of art based upon an historical event.

that's like saying that I want to praise the cinematography for not looking like a home-made video

That is a false equivalency argument. Cinematography is used to impart a psychological or emotional effect to a movie, and nothing to do with the factual content.

Re-read the O.P. I used the word "Basically"

That you prefaced your inaccurate statement with an adverb which means 'in the most essential respects; fundamentally' only shows that you chose a word to double-down on your inaccurate statement. How can anything be essential if 40% of it is something else. That is incongruous.

The entire reason I clicked into your post was your headline of '3/10, here's why' and I was intrigued to get insight into something I must have missed it and would be good to understand but instead found the exact opposite with generic comments like:

it has very little content
145-minute-long action sequence
very repetitive

Your best statement was 'I had to constantly check my clichés list' and it would have been interesting to cite examples in the movie using war cliches.

The 'it’s still longer than the average movie' piqued my interest and created an interesting tangent to follow. I did do some research and found a site showing the top 14 grossing action films of all time ran on average 159 minutes.

http://www.slashfilm.com/by-the-numbers-the-length-of-feature-films/2/

Lastly, you explicitly asked me for my opinion so I gave you a response but reading your rebuttals is an interesting exercise in itself so I am happy to keep this discussion going.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

That is a false equivalency argument. Cinematography is used to impart a psychological or emotional effect to a movie, and nothing to do with the factual content.

What I meant is that, if a movie has competent cinematography, it shouldn't be praised since it's a minimum requite. The same applies to a historical movie being (at least for the most part) accurate.

That you prefaced your inaccurate statement with an adverb which means 'in the most essential respects; fundamentally' only shows that you chose a word to double-down on your inaccurate statement.

I chose the word because otherwise it would've sound like a generalization. Not every second of the movie has action.

it would have been interesting to cite examples in the movie using war cliches.

There's not enough space. It would be easier to list what isn't a cliché.

I did do some research and found a site showing the top 14 grossing action films of all time ran on average 159 minutes.

I didn't say "average action movie"; I said "average movie". The average running time is 90-100 minutes.

Lastly, you explicitly asked me for my opinion so I gave you a response but reading your rebuttals is an interesting exercise in itself so I am happy to keep this discussion going.

You make it sound like I'm against others' opinions. The rebuttals have to do with you wrongly talking about how I comment or review.

reply

[–] bubblenator 8 years ago

I've seen plenty of war movies. I have a good understanding on how much action they should show and how frequent it should be. Why do you think I gave a better grade to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which has an almost 30-minute battle sequence? Because the overall movie balanced that with non-action scenes.

The Battle of Mogadishu aka operation Gothic Serpent was the Biggest Urban firefight involving US troops since Vietnam! There were 19 KIA and 70-80 Wounded in Action so of course there is going to be a lot gunfire and explosions because that's what happened. There are lulls in the movie like at the casualty collection point with Captain Steele, Yurek, Trombley and Nelson getting lost and when the Skinnes were in prayer and Jamie Smith died on the table!

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is fiction based in a real life war and goes for 3 hours so of course there will be A LOT of non-action scenes when you have such freedom in writing the script post a real Omaha Beach invasion scene!

I did keep up with them. It was a way of saying that the character development was poor.

How can you character develop a 120 man COMPANY of Rangers, a SQUADRON of Delta Operators, all the 160th SOAR pilots of the Blackhawks and Little Birds that weren't shot down then the whole Humvee Column? Then don't forget the rescue convoy at the end involving the Pakistanis and Malay APCs!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is fiction based in a real life war and goes for 3 hours

1) Every non-documentary movie is fiction. This one is based on a real event, but that doesn't mean that the same rules don't apply.
2) And this movie couldn't be longer? Or shorter?

How can you character develop a 120 man COMPANY of Rangers, a SQUADRON of Delta Operators, all the 160th SOAR pilots of the Blackhawks and Little Birds that weren't shot down then the whole Humvee Column? Then don't forget the rescue convoy at the end involving the Pakistanis and Malay APCs!

Who says that they all had to be main characters?

reply

[–] jamielow1984 8 years ago

Worst post i have read for a while. It is an accurate account of events that happened. Character development is not essential to this movie, but you do see it in parts. It mainly takes place before the conflict starts. As for identifying characters i had no problem. Would you rather they all had different uniforms and hair styles? That was how rangers looked. To give it a rating of 3/10 because of this is a poor piece of film critique.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Character development is not essential to this movie

What?! It's essential to every movie!

As for identifying characters i had no problem. Would you rather they all had different uniforms and hair styles? That was how rangers looked.

Maybe I should've made it more clear, but I wasn't talking about anything related to a person's exterior.

reply

[–] jamielow1984 8 years ago

Did you not watch the first 25 minutes or so, introducing all the soldiers and getting a bit of insight into their lives?

reply

[–] Polaris101 8 years ago

IMDB_Vits

Of course that anyone who has been in the battlefield of any war will say how bad it was. Am I supposed to think about that everytime I watch a war movie? It's the filmmakers' job to make the viewer feel what it's like to be there.

But you think the filmmakers should make the viewer feel what it's like to be there without using guns and explosions for what amounted to less than half of the movie? The 60 minutes of the movie depicting the battle wasn't even continuous shooting. By the time the last soldiers got to the stadium I felt tense and exhausted from having watched what they went through so I think the filmmakers more than accomplished the goal you think they should have had.

I expected a movie that wasn't all about the action, but the story and characters too. Since war movies made before 2001 were that way, my expectations were the right ones.

Why does it matter how war movies were made before 2001? Perhaps your expectations were not on par with what the filmmaker or the trailer indicated the movie would be. I thought Ridley Scott did a fine job of showing the camaraderie and dedication within the Ranger, Delta and SOAR units, the intensity of the battle, and the aftermath.

As the previous poster mentioned, the first 25 or so minutes was spent introducing us to the characters. Do you remember what Eversmann thought of the skinnies, what game Durant and Wolcott were playing, what game Gordon and Shughart were playing, or even the name of the newly arrived soldier? All of these things were shown. Not indepth information but enough to show us how the days of this group of soldiers and pilots on deployment were spent before undertaking a mission which would greatly impact all of them.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Why does it matter how war movies were made before 2001?

They all set the bar, like all movies do for their respective genres. Some set it high and some set it low.

Perhaps your expectations were not on par with what the filmmaker or the trailer indicated the movie would be.

Why do you think that? The trailer didn't feel misleading to me.

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Yes, but I don't think it was enough.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]