list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Black Hawk Down on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Black_Hawk_Down/203303/default.aspx Title: Black Hawk Down
Year: 2006
Director: Ridley Scott
Plot: A quickly forgotten chapter in United States military history is relived in this harrowing war drama from director Ridley Scott, based on a series of Philadelphia Inquirer articles and subsequent book by reporter Mark Bowden. On October 3rd, 1993, an elite team of more than 100 Delta Force soldiers and Army Rangers, part of a larger United Nations peacekeeping force, are dropped into civil war-torn Mogadishu, Somalia, in an effort to kidnap two of local crime lord Mohamed Farah Aidid's top lieutenants. Among the team: Staff Sgt. Matt Eversmann (Josh Hartnett), Ranger Lt. Col. Danny McKnight (Tom Sizemore), the resourceful Delta Sgt. First Class Jeff Sanderson (William Fichtner), and Ranger Spec. Grimes (Ewan McGregor), a desk-bound clerk getting his first taste of live combat. When two of the mission's Black Hawk helicopters are shot down by enemy forces, the Americans -- committed to recovering every man, dead or alive -- stay in the area too long and are quickly surrounded. The ensuing firefight is a merciless 15-hour ordeal and the longest ground battle involving American soldiers since the Vietnam War. In the end, 70 soldiers are injured and 18 are dead, along with hundreds of Somalians. Black Hawk Down was voted one of the top ten films of the year by the National Board of Review prior to its limited Oscar-qualifying release. On the basis of his work in this film, co-star Eric Bana, a relatively unknown Australian actor playing Delta Sgt. First Class "Hoot" Gibson, won the lead in director Ang Lee's version of The Hulk (2003). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 53
Number of Lists: 68
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 20:13:38 GMTBlack Hawk Down2006Ridley ScottA quickly forgotten chapter in United States military history is relived in this harrowing war drama from director <a href="/players/P___110579/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ridley Scott</a>, based on a series of Philadelphia Inquirer articles and subsequent book by reporter Mark Bowden. On October 3rd, 1993, an elite team of more than 100 Delta Force soldiers and Army Rangers, part of a larger United Nations peacekeeping force, are dropped into civil war-torn Mogadishu, Somalia, in an effort to kidnap two of local crime lord Mohamed Farah Aidid's top lieutenants. Among the team: Staff Sgt. Matt Eversmann (<a href="/players/P___241673/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Josh Hartnett</a>), Ranger Lt. Col. Danny McKnight (<a href="/players/P____66053/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Sizemore</a>), the resourceful Delta Sgt. First Class Jeff Sanderson (<a href="/players/P____23302/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Fichtner</a>), and Ranger Spec. Grimes (<a href="/players/P___196980/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ewan McGregor</a>), a desk-bound clerk getting his first taste of live combat. When two of the mission's Black Hawk helicopters are shot down by enemy forces, the Americans -- committed to recovering every man, dead or alive -- stay in the area too long and are quickly surrounded. The ensuing firefight is a merciless 15-hour ordeal and the longest ground battle involving American soldiers since the Vietnam War. In the end, 70 soldiers are injured and 18 are dead, along with hundreds of Somalians. Black Hawk Down was voted one of the top ten films of the year by the National Board of Review prior to its limited Oscar-qualifying release. On the basis of his work in this film, co-star <a href="/players/P___224103/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Bana</a>, a relatively unknown Australian actor playing Delta Sgt. First Class "Hoot" Gibson, won the lead in director <a href="/players/P___166472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ang Lee</a>'s version of <a href=/films/215719/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Hulk</a> (2003). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide53Tag Target (>10)68743http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88380ko72z.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Black_Hawk_Down/203303/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/40434/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: bailey822
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 2/12/2009 9:52:49 PM
Body: I agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote]
]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:52:49 GMTbailey822Top 52/12/2009 9:52:49 PMI agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/39479/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: flair
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:56:38 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie. [/quote]
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:56:38 GMTflairTop 51/13/2009 5:56:38 PM[quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/9/39323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/9/2009 3:00:24 PM
Body: Back in September, Kathryn Bigelow told SpoutBlog that there’s a misconception regarding the failure of movies dealing with the Iraq War because so far we’d really only seen dramatic films about soldiers coming home. We hadn’t exactly seen any war movies about the ongoing conflict. “I mean, war is inherently dramatic, look at Black Hawk Down,” she explained, picking a film released a year prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now it should make more sense that she referenced that specific title, as a new international trailer for Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker almost makes this film appear to be Black Hawk Down reset in Iraq. There seems to be a lot of similarly chaotic action involving an ensemble of talented actors running around a war-torn metropolis. The main difference is all the stuff with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), which actually makes it potentially even more appealing to the action movie crowd, they who never tire of the “which wire do I cut?” cliches. So why are we only seeing an international trailer, with no domestic release date for The Hurt Locker in sight (Summit Entertainment’s 2009 preview only mentions a Spring opening)? Over at Vulture, they joke that Summit is too busy with the Twilight sequel to pay attention to the acclaimed and awarded The Hurt Locker, yet they also speculate that this movie could leap over the supposed Iraq War film hurdle due to its action-heavy plot. I think it could do more than be a breakthrough for the subject matter; it should appropriately blow away the hurdle. Then again, The Kingdom, which didn’t even mention or take place in Iraq, should have done the same thing. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:00:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/9/2009 3:00:24 PMBack in September, Kathryn Bigelow told SpoutBlog that there’s a misconception regarding the failure of movies dealing with the Iraq War because so far we’d really only seen dramatic films about soldiers coming home. We hadn’t exactly seen any war movies about the ongoing conflict. “I mean, war is inherently dramatic, look at Black Hawk Down,” she explained, picking a film released a year prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now it should make more sense that she referenced that specific title, as a new international trailer for Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker almost makes this film appear to be Black Hawk Down reset in Iraq. There seems to be a lot of similarly chaotic action involving an ensemble of talented actors running around a war-torn metropolis. The main difference is all the stuff with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), which actually makes it potentially even more appealing to the action movie crowd, they who never tire of the “which wire do I cut?” cliches. So why are we only seeing an international trailer, with no domestic release date for The Hurt Locker in sight (Summit Entertainment’s 2009 preview only mentions a Spring opening)? Over at Vulture, they joke that Summit is too busy with the Twilight sequel to pay attention to the acclaimed and awarded The Hurt Locker, yet they also speculate that this movie could leap over the supposed Iraq War film hurdle due to its action-heavy plot. I think it could do more than be a breakthrough for the subject matter; it should appropriately blow away the hurdle. Then again, The Kingdom, which didn’t even mention or take place in Iraq, should have done the same thing. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/36924/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/3/2008 10:59:21 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie.
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:59:21 GMTpippin06Top 511/3/2008 10:59:21 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/36917/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/3/2008 6:19:24 PM
Body: [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous.
]]>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:19:24 GMTleeroy711Top 511/3/2008 6:19:24 PM[quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. http://www.spout.com/blogs/thomasjeffersongeronimo/archive/2008/10/24/36636.aspx Post By: ThomasJeffersonGeronimo
Post To: ThomasJeffersonGeronimo Blog
Post Date: 10/24/2008 10:17:31 AM
Body: This is not particualrly timley spy stuff. It probably could have been set during say, the Cold War and played out the same way. Leo DiCaprio really doesn't pull off the mercenary/spook/tough guy thing, but bless his heart, he does keep trying. There's some ok intense action towards the beginning, but once we settle in the movie gets a biut dull and loses it's way, getting a bit predictable. The Kingdom did action and timeliness better. It kind of has the Western patriarchial/white man's burden themes of Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven; if seen as part of the "Ridley Scott Foreign Policy" trilogy, it's the weakest of the three.
]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:17:31 GMTThomasJeffersonGeronimoThomasJeffersonGeronimo Blog10/24/2008 10:17:31 AMThis is not particualrly timley spy stuff. It probably could have been set during say, the Cold War and played out the same way. Leo DiCaprio really doesn't pull off the mercenary/spook/tough guy thing, but bless his heart, he does keep trying. There's some ok intense action towards the beginning, but once we settle in the movie gets a biut dull and loses it's way, getting a bit predictable. The Kingdom did action and timeliness better. It kind of has the Western patriarchial/white man's burden themes of Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven; if seen as part of the "Ridley Scott Foreign Policy" trilogy, it's the weakest of the three. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/7/36013.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/7/2008 4:01:26 PM
Body: io9 has confirmed an earlier report that Ridley Scott will direct an adaptation of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s classic dystopian future novel. Scott says that Leonardo DiCaprio approached him about adapting the book, and it looks like he will star in the film as well. This is exciting news; not only does it herald the return to science fiction for the director of Blade Runner and Alien, it also means that Leo, who is working on a live action adaptation of Akira, has two dystopian future projects in progress. Brave New World is one of my favorite books, and Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, for many of the same reasons, but I’m still having trouble getting excited about this news. Scott’s work on Blade Runner was amazing, but that was 26 years ago, and he hasn’t made a science fiction film since. I’d like to believe he can jump back in the saddle, but considering what he’s been up to for the past two and a half decades, I have my doubts. While the quality of Scott’s filmography is admittedly debatable, it’s safe to say he’s made some pretty terrible movies, Kingdom of Heaven and A Good Year come to mind. Even his films that have some potential end up falling short. American Gangster, while not a bad movie, felt like only like a sufficient execution of a script Scorsese would have passed over in the nineties. Even if Scott can get his Blade Runner mojo working again for Brave New World, it could still be really bad. Blade Runner and Brave New World are very different stories, set in very different worlds. Blade Runner took cues from Neuromancer and the dystopian stories of Philip K. Dick to create a dingy future noir, complete with brutal violence and assassinations. Brave New World, on the other hand, takes place in a world where technological advances and a strict caste system have sanitized society. People are conditioned to desire nothing more than their predetermined station in life, dutifully ingesting a drug called soma to dull any inappropriate desires. While Blade Runner used rich visuals to convey the bleak state of the world, Brave New World features nearly unfilmable social situations. Family structures have been abolished and children are grown in futuristic farms. Sex is nothing but a social activity for the sterile citizens, and they are encouraged to start young. Bernard, an agitator who has the courage to suspect that something is wrong with this way of life, begins to be slightly disturbed by constantly seeing groups of children having orgies. How are you going to film that, Ridley? Brave New World also differs from Blade Runner in that there is much less violence. There’s a riot scene that could be pretty cool, but it’s safe to say that the action would look nothing like Black Hawk Down. In one scene a child is beaten senseless as part of a ritual. In another, a man flies into a rage and beats a woman he has unrequited feelings for, in front of a crowd of on-lookers. Having not been exposed to violence in their sanitized lives, this scene sends them into a frenzy, which of course results in a massive orgy. The Brave New World film will either be the most ambitious porno in history, or it will be scrubbed of its controversial content. I’m not sure which would be worse. Of course, on the page Brave New World reads nothing like porn –– on the contrary, it’s satire. Huxley, a Brit, was inspired to write it after seeing what he viewed as degenerate American youth culture and runaway industrialization on a trip to the States. It’s a dark comedy with no punch lines. In some ways it’s more similar to Terry Gilliam’s Brazil than to Blade Runner. Which raises another problem: Ridley Scott is an extremely serious filmmaker. While Nicolas Cage attempts to get some laughs in Matchstick Men, the heart of that film, and all Scott’s films, is undeniably earnest. In Brazil, on the other hand, we’re encouraged to laugh at the future, despite the fact that it’s soul-crushing and bleak. Huxley had a similar goal in mind. I do have some hope for DiCaprio’s involvement, however. His acting skills have steadily improved over the years, and the fact that he’s taken the initiative to produce both Brave New World and Akira adaptations is a good sign. We haven’t seen a lot from Leo the Producer, but there are more interesting projects on the horizon. In Atari, set for a 2009 release, Leo will play Nolan Bushnell, godfather on the video game industry. He’s also producing The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Scorsese will direct, and Leo will play the budding young president. Sounds good. I wonder if it’s too late for Leo to offer Brave New World to Scorsese? Now that would be a dystopian science fiction movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:01:26 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/7/2008 4:01:26 PMio9 has confirmed an earlier report that Ridley Scott will direct an adaptation of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s classic dystopian future novel. Scott says that Leonardo DiCaprio approached him about adapting the book, and it looks like he will star in the film as well. This is exciting news; not only does it herald the return to science fiction for the director of Blade Runner and Alien, it also means that Leo, who is working on a live action adaptation of Akira, has two dystopian future projects in progress. Brave New World is one of my favorite books, and Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, for many of the same reasons, but I’m still having trouble getting excited about this news. Scott’s work on Blade Runner was amazing, but that was 26 years ago, and he hasn’t made a science fiction film since. I’d like to believe he can jump back in the saddle, but considering what he’s been up to for the past two and a half decades, I have my doubts. While the quality of Scott’s filmography is admittedly debatable, it’s safe to say he’s made some pretty terrible movies, Kingdom of Heaven and A Good Year come to mind. Even his films that have some potential end up falling short. American Gangster, while not a bad movie, felt like only like a sufficient execution of a script Scorsese would have passed over in the nineties. Even if Scott can get his Blade Runner mojo working again for Brave New World, it could still be really bad. Blade Runner and Brave New World are very different stories, set in very different worlds. Blade Runner took cues from Neuromancer and the dystopian stories of Philip K. Dick to create a dingy future noir, complete with brutal violence and assassinations. Brave New World, on the other hand, takes place in a world where technological advances and a strict caste system have sanitized society. People are conditioned to desire nothing more than their predetermined station in life, dutifully ingesting a drug called soma to dull any inappropriate desires. While Blade Runner used rich visuals to convey the bleak state of the world, Brave New World features nearly unfilmable social situations. Family structures have been abolished and children are grown in futuristic farms. Sex is nothing but a social activity for the sterile citizens, and they are encouraged to start young. Bernard, an agitator who has the courage to suspect that something is wrong with this way of life, begins to be slightly disturbed by constantly seeing groups of children having orgies. How are you going to film that, Ridley? Brave New World also differs from Blade Runner in that there is much less violence. There’s a riot scene that could be pretty cool, but it’s safe to say that the action would look nothing like Black Hawk Down. In one scene a child is beaten senseless as part of a ritual. In another, a man flies into a rage and beats a woman he has unrequited feelings for, in front of a crowd of on-lookers. Having not been exposed to violence in their sanitized lives, this scene sends them into a frenzy, which of course results in a massive orgy. The Brave New World film will either be the most ambitious porno in history, or it will be scrubbed of its controversial content. I’m not sure which would be worse. Of course, on the page Brave New World reads nothing like porn –– on the contrary, it’s satire. Huxley, a Brit, was inspired to write it after seeing what he viewed as degenerate American youth culture and runaway industrialization on a trip to the States. It’s a dark comedy with no punch lines. In some ways it’s more similar to Terry Gilliam’s Brazil than to Blade Runner. Which raises another problem: Ridley Scott is an extremely serious filmmaker. While Nicolas Cage attempts to get some laughs in Matchstick Men, the heart of that film, and all Scott’s films, is undeniably earnest. In Brazil, on the other hand, we’re encouraged to laugh at the future, despite the fact that it’s soul-crushing and bleak. Huxley had a similar goal in mind. I do have some hope for DiCaprio’s involvement, however. His acting skills have steadily improved over the years, and the fact that he’s taken the initiative to produce both Brave New World and Akira adaptations is a good sign. We haven’t seen a lot from Leo the Producer, but there are more interesting projects on the horizon. In Atari, set for a 2009 release, Leo will play Nolan Bushnell, godfather on the video game industry. He’s also producing The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Scorsese will direct, and Leo will play the budding young president. Sounds good. I wonder if it’s too late for Leo to offer Brave New World to Scorsese? Now that would be a dystopian science fiction movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/15/31263.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 11:31:24 PM
Body: FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:24 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/15/2008 11:31:24 PMFORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great clich&eacute;. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/downwest/archive/2007/12/13/22762.aspx Post By: downwest
Post To: downwest Blog
Post Date: 12/13/2007 9:44:56 AM
Body: For it's time it was the next best thing since Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line. Thematically, it was almost better than Saving Private Ryan, for it's message about the soldiers fighting for our country and the support that they need from us, wherever they are.I consider it Ridley Scott's greatest work as a director. Definitely one of my favorite war films.
]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:44:56 GMTdownwestdownwest Blog12/13/2007 9:44:56 AMFor it&#39;s time it was the next best thing since Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line. Thematically, it was almost better than Saving Private Ryan, for it&#39;s message about the soldiers fighting for our country and the support that they need from us, wherever they are.I consider it Ridley Scott&#39;s greatest work as a director. Definitely one of my favorite war films. http://www.spout.com/blogs/ritobaan/archive/2007/6/18/11340.aspx Post By: ritobaan
Post To: ritobaan Blog
Post Date: 6/18/2007 8:50:00 AM
Body: What would have happened had Private Jessica Lynch been captured by Iraqi militia, handed over to an angry mob of residents who then proceeded to murder her and drag her body through the streets of Baghdad? Would the US government, withered by public pressure, have withdrawn troops from Iraq? Would the price paid by Lynch and her loved ones been justifiable for the greater good of an end to the US military action in Iraq? Questions like these keep cropping up when looking back at the Mogadishu ‘incident’ in Somalia in 1993 when US troops suffered heavy losses in streetfighting with militias and the ignominy of seeing a captured US soldier killed on the streets and dragged through the streets by the Somalian populace, an image that was broadcast to every household on international television networks. Suddenly the ugly spectre of war came uncomfortably close to American civilians, prompting a public outrage that forced the Clinton government to pull out of Somalia. This battle on the streets of Mogadishu has been captured faithfully by Ridley Scott in his war epic Black Hawk Down. In true war movie style, the film is a prolonged battle scene captured from multiple points of view that exhausts and numbs the viewer with the sheer ferocity, brutality and mindlessness of urban warfare. Not in true war movie style, Scott has no pro or anti-war message for the audience, no deliberations on the purpose of the US mission in Somalia or the wider interpretations of US involvement in international affairs. Instead, he focuses on the managerial aspects of the mission – the mission plan and how things went terribly wrong and what the soldiers trapped in a hostile zone did to get themselves and their comrades to relative safety. The result is tough, technically accomplished and austere cinema. The film opens with a haunting montage, suitably backed by an African song, of a starving village somewhere in Somalia where people walk, ghost-like, across an eerie landscape, tending to their dead while gazing at the remaining few who lie in their last moments, their bodies and souls carved out by persistent hunger. The world had woken up to Somalia, ravaged by civil war between warring militias, who had now taken to controlling the distribution of food across the country as a strategic tool, a tactic also used by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Faced with the prospect of looking at famine-induced deaths on a massive scale, the US send a deployment of marines to assist UN peacekeepers restore supplies of food and essential supplies by aid agencies. A ruthless and particularly clever warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, waits for the dust to settle and for the US marines to withdraw before launching a vicious attack on the UN peacekeepers, killing a detachment of Pakistani soldiers. Aidid takes over the food distribution networks, terrorising civilians and aid agencies alike, using hunger as a negotiating chip and ensuring the acquiescence of the local people. The US, surprised by Aidid and urged by the West, decide to take out Aidid and his inner circle by sending in an elite force comprised of Special Operations Force Detachment – Delta, popularly known as Delta Force, and US Rangers. This is the strand where Scott begins his exploration of “Irene”, the mission to take out Aidid which, as we are soon to see, hurtles into confusion and mayhem. There is little room in this sort of film to sketch in details of characters or to build up sub-plots. Scott does not try too hard either. Instead, he dedicates a few opening scenes to outline the volatile situation faced by Western armies in the middle of a civil war and the layout and atmosphere in Somalia. Funnily enough, the best lines and the most beautiful shots take place in this first hour before the mission is launched and the final battle begins. Of these – Atto, an arms dealer and a member of Aidid’s inner circle, is kidnapped by US forces and taken to the US base where he calmly offers a Cuban cigar to General Garrison, chief of special operations in Somalia. While Garrison looks on, Atto lays bare the weaknesses of international intervention in civil wars, in particular, the knowledge of the warring parties that sometime in the future, such an international force must leave, upon which the real power struggle is resumed. “Don’t make the mistake of thinking that since I grew up without running water I’m simple”, rounds off Atto. Of these – an early morning aerial shot of a muezzin reciting the morning prayers from a beautiful mosque as the sun rises over the coast in the distance and the bombed out Mogadishu cityscape surrounding the mosque fills the screen. On the beach, a militia member bows rhythmically to the prayer, then folds his prayer mat and picks up his AK 47. The disconnect between a people who exercise the rigorous discipline of praying to a strict religious code several times a day and the clinical brutality they inflict upon each other is expressed briefly and well.Ridley Scott also draws on two soldier stereotypes that have been explored in Hollywood war movies before. One is the young, freshly trained, gung-ho private who cannot wait to put his newly acquired fighting skills to use but dies due to a freak accident even before the fighting begins. Private First Class Todd Blackburn (serial number 72163427) is such a character in the actual incident who has been dramatized in the movie. Blackburn reports to the base, is enlisted in the attack "chalk" or troop and falls 70 feet to his death, trying to rope his way down from the helicopter to his position.Another is the soldier who is deployed to all the "hot zones" in the world but never actually engages in combat. Ewan McGregor plays such a character in solidly understated fashion. He plays the Ranger who is well known around the base for his typing and coffee-machine skills and bears the cynicism of one who knows a real soldier is one who has combat experience. In these and other depictions of life for young American soldiers in a forward base, the director draws an intimate scene with his camera. To business - because this is a movie that does not have or depend on much of a plot. The mission is for the "D-boys" to make a quick snatch of two top Aidid aides, his political adviser and interior minister, and with cover from the Rangers, bring them back to base, ostensibly to gather information about Aidid's operations as well as to persuade him to surrender. The combined force of Delta unit special forces and Army Rangers is brought in by a convoy of helicopters and humvees, only to realise that the Somalians had been forewarned and had encircled them with the help of superior local intelligence. The snatch is pulled off without a hitch but then a rocket propelled grenade fired by a militiaman brings down a Black Hawk transport helicopter. As the airwaves fill with the shrill cries of "Black Hawk down....Black Hawk down", General Garrison prophetically remarks: "We've just lost the initiative." The rest of the film is about the troops attempting a withdrawal to the safe haven of a football stadium manned by UN peacekeepers and the race to do it before an angry Somalian mob and trained militias tear them apart. This is easily one of the best war movies shot although it does make a concession to popular sentiment. The actual incident of the dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu is shown in a veiled manner, leaving the audience to imagine what really happened. The studios and the director obviously anticipated that the misery of that event should not be inflicted on the American cinegoing public again.
]]>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:50:00 GMTritobaanritobaan Blog6/18/2007 8:50:00 AMWhat would have happened had Private Jessica Lynch been captured by Iraqi militia, handed over to an angry mob of residents who then proceeded to murder her and drag her body through the streets of Baghdad? Would the US government, withered by public pressure, have withdrawn troops from Iraq? Would the price paid by Lynch and her loved ones been justifiable for the greater good of an end to the US military action in Iraq? Questions like these keep cropping up when looking back at the Mogadishu &lsquo;incident&rsquo; in Somalia in 1993 when US troops suffered heavy losses in streetfighting with militias and the ignominy of seeing a captured US soldier killed on the streets and dragged through the streets by the Somalian populace, an image that was broadcast to every household on international television networks. Suddenly the ugly spectre of war came uncomfortably close to American civilians, prompting a public outrage that forced the Clinton government to pull out of Somalia. This battle on the streets of Mogadishu has been captured faithfully by Ridley Scott in his war epic Black Hawk Down. In true war movie style, the film is a prolonged battle scene captured from multiple points of view that exhausts and numbs the viewer with the sheer ferocity, brutality and mindlessness of urban warfare. Not in true war movie style, Scott has no pro or anti-war message for the audience, no deliberations on the purpose of the US mission in Somalia or the wider interpretations of US involvement in international affairs. Instead, he focuses on the managerial aspects of the mission &ndash; the mission plan and how things went terribly wrong and what the soldiers trapped in a hostile zone did to get themselves and their comrades to relative safety. The result is tough, technically accomplished and austere cinema. The film opens with a haunting montage, suitably backed by an African song, of a starving village somewhere in Somalia where people walk, ghost-like, across an eerie landscape, tending to their dead while gazing at the remaining few who lie in their last moments, their bodies and souls carved out by persistent hunger. The world had woken up to Somalia, ravaged by civil war between warring militias, who had now taken to controlling the distribution of food across the country as a strategic tool, a tactic also used by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Faced with the prospect of looking at famine-induced deaths on a massive scale, the US send a deployment of marines to assist UN peacekeepers restore supplies of food and essential supplies by aid agencies. A ruthless and particularly clever warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, waits for the dust to settle and for the US marines to withdraw before launching a vicious attack on the UN peacekeepers, killing a detachment of Pakistani soldiers. Aidid takes over the food distribution networks, terrorising civilians and aid agencies alike, using hunger as a negotiating chip and ensuring the acquiescence of the local people. The US, surprised by Aidid and urged by the West, decide to take out Aidid and his inner circle by sending in an elite force comprised of Special Operations Force Detachment &ndash; Delta, popularly known as Delta Force, and US Rangers. This is the strand where Scott begins his exploration of &ldquo;Irene&rdquo;, the mission to take out Aidid which, as we are soon to see, hurtles into confusion and mayhem. There is little room in this sort of film to sketch in details of characters or to build up sub-plots. Scott does not try too hard either. Instead, he dedicates a few opening scenes to outline the volatile situation faced by Western armies in the middle of a civil war and the layout and atmosphere in Somalia. Funnily enough, the best lines and the most beautiful shots take place in this first hour before the mission is launched and the final battle begins. Of these &ndash; Atto, an arms dealer and a member of Aidid&rsquo;s inner circle, is kidnapped by US forces and taken to the US base where he calmly offers a Cuban cigar to General Garrison, chief of special operations in Somalia. While Garrison looks on, Atto lays bare the weaknesses of international intervention in civil wars, in particular, the knowledge of the warring parties that sometime in the future, such an international force must leave, upon which the real power struggle is resumed. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t make the mistake of thinking that since I grew up without running water I&rsquo;m simple&rdquo;, rounds off Atto. Of these &ndash; an early morning aerial shot of a muezzin reciting the morning prayers from a beautiful mosque as the sun rises over the coast in the distance and the bombed out Mogadishu cityscape surrounding the mosque fills the screen. On the beach, a militia member bows rhythmically to the prayer, then folds his prayer mat and picks up his AK 47. The disconnect between a people who exercise the rigorous discipline of praying to a strict religious code several times a day and the clinical brutality they inflict upon each other is expressed briefly and well.Ridley Scott also draws on two soldier stereotypes that have been explored in Hollywood war movies before. One is the young, freshly trained, gung-ho private who cannot wait to put his newly acquired fighting skills to use but dies due to a freak accident even before the fighting begins. Private First Class Todd Blackburn (serial number 72163427) is such a character in the actual incident who has been dramatized in the movie. Blackburn reports to the base, is enlisted in the attack "chalk" or troop and falls 70 feet to his death, trying to rope his way down from the helicopter to his position.Another is the soldier who is deployed to all the "hot zones" in the world but never actually engages in combat. Ewan McGregor plays such a character in solidly understated fashion. He plays the Ranger who is well known around the base for his typing and coffee-machine skills and bears the cynicism of one who knows a real soldier is one who has combat experience. In these and other depictions of life for young American soldiers in a forward base, the director draws an intimate scene with his camera. To business - because this is a movie that does not have or depend on much of a plot. The mission is for the "D-boys" to make a quick snatch of two top Aidid aides, his political adviser and interior minister, and with cover from the Rangers, bring them back to base, ostensibly to gather information about Aidid&#39;s operations as well as to persuade him to surrender. The combined force of Delta unit special forces and Army Rangers is brought in by a convoy of helicopters and humvees, only to realise that the Somalians had been forewarned and had encircled them with the help of superior local intelligence. The snatch is pulled off without a hitch but then a rocket propelled grenade fired by a militiaman brings down a Black Hawk transport helicopter. As the airwaves fill with the shrill cries of "Black Hawk down....Black Hawk down", General Garrison prophetically remarks: "We&#39;ve just lost the initiative." The rest of the film is about the troops attempting a withdrawal to the safe haven of a football stadium manned by UN peacekeepers and the race to do it before an angry Somalian mob and trained militias tear them apart. This is easily one of the best war movies shot although it does make a concession to popular sentiment. The actual incident of the dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu is shown in a veiled manner, leaving the audience to imagine what really happened. The studios and the director obviously anticipated that the misery of that event should not be inflicted on the American cinegoing public again. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176179607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 488

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:00 GMT1643130488Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT99948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/survival/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurvival
Number of films tagged: 67

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 98

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:56 GMT674898Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/police/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolice
Number of films tagged: 3104

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 172

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:49 GMT310437172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/military/MemberTagFilms.aspxmilitary
Number of films tagged: 1650

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 95

]]>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:38:51 GMT16503095Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/desert/MemberTagFilms.aspxdesert
Number of films tagged: 567

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 52

]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:19:55 GMT5672952Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/army/MemberTagFilms.aspxarmy
Number of films tagged: 867

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 76

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT8672776Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/quest/MemberTagFilms.aspxquest
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 48

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT3162348Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reality/MemberTagFilms.aspxreality
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6122033Tag