NYT MOVIE REVIEW | 'BLACK HAWK DOWN' Mission of Mercy Goes Bad in Africa

New York Times ^ | 12-28-01 | ELVIS MITCHELL

[vannrox]

"...eye-catching misfire, color-coordinated down ..."


".... Lean, lissome white soldiers ..."


"...teeth pearlier than their eyes ..."


"...their Yankee soldier accents, with vowels so oddly enunciated ..."


"...converts the Somalis into a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts ..."


"...Intended or not, it reeks of glumly staged racism ..."


".... The only African-American with lines ..."


"...raises questions of racial imbalance ..."


"...dated martial wisecracks of the "Let's rock 'n' roll" ..."

This guy sounds like a racist. Let me guess... he's Black isn't he? Divide the country and disparage anyone in the military. let me guess... Democrat.

[Betteboop]

LL
has BR seen this or plan to see it? I'd like his take on it!!

[Jefferson Adams]

Sam Shepard, as Major General Garrison, seems to be smoking a Montecristo No. 2

I like it already - BEST cigars in the world!!!

[Jefferson Adams]

In "Black Hawk Down," the lack of characterization converts the Somalis into a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts, gleefully pulling the Americans from their downed aircraft and stripping them. Intended or not, it reeks of glumly staged racism.

Sounds like it reeks of Truth.

[Jeff F]

Elvis focuses obsessively on three things: the film's color scheme, the buffness of the actors (contrasted with an unacceptable level of buffness in one of Mr. Cruise's earlier efforts - thank goodness he shed those nasty pounds later on), and an unappealing racial makeup of the otherwise attractively buff cast. Such penetrating analysis. Evidently this is what it takes to be a NYT film critic.

[VOA]

He described it as one long battle, just 90 minutes of pure war.

So I guess the thread with the report from NewsMax.com about the scenes that showed
Bill Clinton in a bad light (just by showing the truth) did end up on the cutting-room floor
(or were never shot).

As far as I'm concerned, if this film didn't spend the last 5-10 minutes on who caused
this mess...and Gordon Shugart's refusal to shake Clintons hand at the medal ceremony
for his son Randall Shugart...I ain't gonna' pay to see this film.
Shame of Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott. I'll save my money for Mel Gibson's
film "We Were Soldiers" opening March 1, 2002.

[hattend]

I suspect Elvis was one of the "journalists" who got to preview the movie and pitched a fit when Clinton came out looking like a bumbling boob. Once the knee-pads are on, I imagine it's deadly to take them off.

[hattend]

But this is what actually happened.

When has a Clinton Butt-Boy ever let the facts get in the way of a story.

[doug from upland]

A GOOD DISCUSSION IS GOING ON HERE

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for the link, DFU. I learned some.

[robomurph]

I saw the first public screening to a packed house in Santa Monica on Friday. The theater was full of film industry people (there definitely is some Best Picture buzz).

The review in Comming Attractions pretty much nailed it. Read the book first(or read most of it in Philly Inquier web site). Definitely go see it. I will pay to see it again when I recover the emotional fortitude.

The fact that the Clinton/Aspin/Powell fiasco is not addressed is IMHO a positive. The focus of the film is the action on the ground in Mog. It would have been a mistake to try to deal with the poll driven politics.

You will be proud of our guys. Can you believe a Santa Monica crowd applauding a war movie? Believe it. Go see it.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for the Freepview of the flick. It's definitely on my short list.

[oldlizzie]

I'd be surprised if the film made any mention of Clinton's phone call to the media which, I have heard, was the cause of these American soldiers being slaughtered. Didn't they land in Somalia only to be greeted by CNN spotlights and, soon after, a "streetdragging" by Somali thugs??

[kassie]

It happened so long ago, but I do remember something of that nature. Was it this time or another one? He was always orchestrating something.

[VOA]

The fact that the Clinton/Aspin/Powell fiasco is not addressed is IMHO a positive.
The focus of the film is the action on the ground in Mog. It would have been a mistake
to try to deal with the poll driven politics.

(What follows is just my opinion. I respect your position, but honestly approach the
subject of responsibilty over the Somalia imbroglio as follows.)

Funny thing...when the cause of a team's problem is some extra-terrestrial, Ridley Scott
has no problem showing an Alien burst out of somebody's chest.

But...when 18 brave men are sacrificed to a pack of blood-thirsty savages, Ridley and his
buddies decide that they should protect all the folks in the audience from the ugly
truth that many of they are responsible...because they voted for Bill Clinton and his
addled sidekick Les Aspin.
Heck, when they had to do a re-write, they were even willing to waste money to "protect us"
from the truth. Ridley and Bruckheimer would have been excellent workers for Stalin...
editing out unflattering images that would show their Alpha-Male role model in a bad light.
No matter its' technical brilliance, this movie would make a fine "afterword" for that
book on Soviet editing of photographs "The Commissar Vanishes", to show that deception
by deletion marches on.

Just my guess, but I suspect that 9-11 probably caused a scramble to get segments about
Clinton/Aspin out of the film. Scott and Bruckheimer don't want their colleagues in Hollywood
to be muttering behind their backs at cocktail parties "Those two won't ever eat lunch
in this town again. Their movie connected the dots between bin Laden's involvement in
Somalia and Clinton's first failure to actually deal with Osama."

I'm saving my $ for "We Were Soldiers".

[6ppc]

Sounds like this guy never saw a war movie he didn't hate. I haven't seen Black Hawk Down yet, but based on this guy's opinion of Gladiator (which I loved), I think it's probably a great film.