Paul Tatara of CNN, one of the cynical critics, called it "one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio" and said the "unequalled slaughter is only one element of this film's considerable insult. The most distasteful part is that it's being presented as an unflinching tribute to fallen heroes, rather than the realistically rendered game of 'Doom' that it is." Tatara said that "Black Hawk Down" is "nothing more than a patriotism-cloaked excuse to stretch the shockingly graphic first 20 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan' across an entire film's length -- not that 'Black Hawk Down' is even remotely as useful as that picture."
Andrew O'Hehir of salon.com called it a "cliche-riddled script" and wrote that the movie was "pointless and misguided." Michael Rechtshaffen of the Hollywood Reporter called it a "major letdown as a motion picture." Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post said it was "powerful" and "realistic" but an "ultimately unsatisfying depiction of urban combat." Foreman was upset that the two-hour firefight was "tediously repetitive."
From atop his Ivory Tower, the New York Times' Elvis Mitchell called it "meaningless" and claimed that the movie's "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."
Rex Reed, writing in the New York Observer, said the movie is a "noisy, pointless war epic" and an "interminable mural of killing, famine, bleeding and devastation." He goes on to say that the film "examines the grit and heroism of boys waiting to be rescued after an idiotic military blunder."
Because the Somalis are a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts, gleefully pulling the Americans from their downed aircraft and stripping them. Furthermore, they are savages, whose muslim terrorist warlords purposely starved their own people gain power. The truth often hurts at the New York Times.