Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]
![Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]](/images/Black-Hawk-Down-Blu-ray-B000G0O5N2-L.jpg)
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.86 You Save: $15.13 (56%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $9.00 (click here) Category: Blu-ray See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]
Movie Review: Feels authentic.
Summary: 5 Stars
With director Ridley Scott, you never can quite tell if you're going to get something modest but unsatisfactory [Kingdom of Heaven, Body of Lies] or epic filmmaking [Alien, Gladiator.]
Thankfully, with 'Black Hawk Down', Ridley Scott helms an ensemble cast in a modern warfare film that feels and smells authentic. It is 1993, and an elite, military extraction of a high-level priority target, Somalian warlord Mohammed Farrah, by U.S. special forces is derailed when an American helicopter is rocketed down. The extraction mission quickly turns into a search-and-rescue mission as ground and air forces coordinate their efforts to extract Mohammed Farrah as well as bring the downed crew of the helicopter to safety, all while the city of Mogadishu and its fierce militiamen seek to violently repel all American forces.
Most war films centers around core and familiar values of honor, duty, bravery, loyalty, and sacrifice. The audience expects to see these values represented and reaffirmed in the heroes and absconded by the villains. 'Black Hawk Down' is a remarkable piece of filmmaking since it captures the danger of modern warfare with such alarming imminence that we the audience immediately question the wisdom of these values. Nowhere is this tension between moral duty and survival instincts sharply juxtaposed than when the American helicopter is rocketed down and American forces continue to put themselves in harm's way to rescue the downed crew. Even though we the audience are a degree removed from the decision to rescue the downed crew, since we can evaluate all options with the luxury of time and safety, the choice to do the right thing is still hard even for us to agree with since the danger involved in rescuing comrades and brothers-in-arms comes across so authentically. This immersion to the emotional pressure and constraints of war can be credited to Ridley's incredible and artistic handling of the film and the historical events it portrays.
Most war films border on Michael Bay testosterone-and-guns slow-motion music video effect when armed conflict is not treated with a basic respect for loss of life. Ridley Scott, for his part, unflinchingly presents the carnage of modern warfare without ever diluting the human element of an individual's death. American and Somalian casualty alike, no matter how numerous it happens to occur in this film, never seems to be treated lightly or with indifference. In a world torn by war and conflict, men and women full of life and sharing a common link of humanity gun one another down almost senselessly. It is to the film's credit that the graphic violence it presents does not numb the audience to human death but rather elicits a consciousness of the true price of war.
It's always great to see an ensemble cast come together so vibrantly, and 'Black Hawk Down' continues this grand tradition when an ensemble cast clicks. Look for your favorite actors putting in pitch-perfect performances in roles that are either great or small. Tom Sizemore as the unflappable officer. Ewan McGregor as a green rookie. Jeremy Piven as a unconscious pilot. Eric Bana in a strange American accent offering stoic, veteran advice. And Josh Hartnett as a brave commanding soldier is the diamond hidden in the rough.
In conclusion, 'Black Hawk Down' is an incredible piece of filmmaking that has significant resonance in today's political climate and America's current conflict in Afghanistan. War films, when done correctly, honestly portray vulnerable human emotions in a time of bloodshed. They also attest to the spirit that noble values, such as sacrifice and loyalty, are indeed doubted in times of peril, but they nonetheless sustain individuals in times of peril. As I watched the film, I continually wondered aloud, "The Somalian militiamen would never live by the American military creed 'Leave no man behind!' They would make the pragmatic choice of leaving the downed crew in enemy hands." But I thought to myself that a country without noble values is not worth defending.
Movie Review: Cut the preconceived biases
Summary: 5 Stars
Every review of this movie that has given it any less than an 8 has been filled with one of two things--a) exaggerating the sometimes poor quality, or b) talking about how great this could have been if it had instead given more thought to the politics involved. To both I must say a grain of salt and a pattern of objectivism is needed to appreciate just how good this movie is. I saw it expecting a decent action film, because Ridley is a great action director, but came out feeling utterly overwhelmed because this movie is the epitome of recounting a battle in its horrifying, realistic sense. The dialogue is somewhat poor. At the end of the film in Hartnett (I think it was him)'s last monologue, especially, people have complained of the lame simplicity and gung-ho-ishness. But, I must say, having read the book for English (and everyone shoud both see this and read the book, for historical/appreciatory purposes involving the soldiers who make such valiant sacrifices) that the dialogue, while admittedly simplistic in intent and uncomfortably gung-ho; is true to the dialogue and feelings expressed by the soldiers who Bowden interviewed. Therefore, cut the bias, and recognize the realism present throughout the movie, even in dialogue. On the matter of the lack of political motivation the most obvious argument, of course, is that there is no time in the movie, and that is a good reason. Even better, and far more obvious, is that this movie is not at all about those events, as made clear in the sweet dialogue in which a Delta forcer tells Hartnett he'll be able to think about that plenty when he gets back from the battle. Even still, some symbolic stuff has been woven, things that did not happen in the battle, that works in the movie to express some of these motivations fairly well. Also, even further, the book did not occupy itself with these motivations much, either, and fittingly so. For, this movie is about the battle, and does a damn good job of presenting it, but that is so obvious I need not talk of it. On the biggest qualm people have had with this movie--lack of character development--I, too, felt a certain amount of lack in this. While I have yet to see Saving Private Ryan, I understand how getting to know the characters even further in this film might have served to its advantage. To that problem, the answer lies in a couple of sources. On the matter of editing, this film does a great job, I think, of focusing on the battle at just a long enought time for the events in it (this is after reading the book, mind you, so mock me if you want for that bias). They are especially hard to express because of the totally chaotic nature of the battle, but the movie did as well as the book (which was perfect) within its own timeframe. Which comes to the answer, which is, that having more character development would either a) make the movie too long or b) have to take away some of the events from the battle. A few of the important parts of the battle are not included in the movie, even, so removing any more would take away from the battle even farther. Also, the other thing, is that by not including as much the soldiers become more of a unit helping eachother, sometimes as individuals, creating even further the feeling of responsibility to this unit. IMHO. Now that I am done rambling about people having biases, all I have left is to say that this movie is perfectly directed and cinemated (not a word) and acted for what it is--a recounting of modern warfare. It is as intense and realistic as movies can go for that objective. The biggest problem is in the sometimes weak dialogue, and it is not only easily forgiven, but somewhat fitting for the people who speak the words. Everyone should see it for that reason (unless you have a weak stomach) and also for the historical fact of the matter.Movie Review: Blackhawk down is best in blu-ray
Summary: 5 Stars
There are a plethora of reviews of the movie, but my review is mostly a comparison of the BD vs DVD version.
The DVD version was quite good, but the BD version is great. Its audio does not have the imaging of HBO's Band of Brothers, but its still a good use of a wider sound stage with sound quality FAR above DVD.
The BD transfer still has the grain and high contrast that was how the movie was shot. However, the details are far sharper and clearer, so many of the background elements have more detail given the higher quality of BD.
The greater details make snafus much clearer: in the final scene of Durant's downed chopper, the same assaulting Somali rebels are seen attacking and are killed twice in 2 separate attacks; in the end where Hartnett is reviewing fallen comrades in the morgue, one of the bodies starts moving his eyeballs; in many scenes direct lines of site are made with weapons pointing at targets and despite a hail of gunfire, nothing is hit nor bullets impact the area. Considering the marksmanship caliber of these troops, it was distracting. By contrast, in Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers, a view through weapons was succeeded soon by the effect of fire hitting the area viewed.
Disk extras are identical to the DVD version but there is a commentary track with some living veterans of the event. The veterans suggest events on almost every other scene is less true, but they do say that the spirit and most key events are true. For example, the Durant rescue is close to true, but the depiction of what the Somali's do to the rescuers bodies are not. The General was never hands on the radio during the entire battle, and the actions on ground depicted by Hartnett's character was actually done by another officer. These veterans testimony are in stark contrast to the book author and screen writer, who suggest most of the movie depictions are factual.
Movie Review: Emotional, Action-Packed Movie
Summary: 5 Stars
I really like this movie, both for the action and for what I believe to be fairly realistic portrayals of war. It is action-packed, but it's emotional to me because of how realistic it is. It is raw with real language, real injuries, and real death.
Several people have reviewed the movie content already, and I wanted to review the quality of the blu-ray version. I've seen this movie several times, with the most recent before tonight being on DVD this past weekend. I almost didn't buy the blu-ray because of recent reviews here about how the blu-ray isn't much if any better than the DVD. I disagree. I am impressed with the video quality of the blu-ray. I have a Panasonic TC-P50G10 television and DMP-BD60 blu-ray player, and I believe that they do a pretty decent job of upscaling DVDs. While this movie may not be the best showcase for blu-ray, the blu-ray version is certainly a step up in terms of video detail. It is unquestionably high definition. The details on text (names on helmets, subtitles, etc.) makes it easier to read, facial details show off the characters emotions better, and the image quality of the M-16s made some scenes more realistic to me because I've shot similar weapons.
One thing that I did notice is that the blu-ray has one less track marker than the DVD - there isn't a new chapter near the beginning when they get the code to start the mission. I mention this because that is one of my favorite chapter markers. I find that scene to be pretty exciting with the helicopters taking off.
If you enjoy this movie a lot and have a high definition TV, then I'd say that the blu-ray version is at least worth a rental. I don't regret the $16 that is cost me to buy it at all.
Movie Review: Testament to the Courageous or to the Inept or Both?
Summary: 5 Stars
It often seems that moments of courage are a result of military expedience characterized simultaneously with a predilection of military ineptness. How a general could ever let his men enter a maze-like city surrounded by thousands of hostile inhabitants is beyond comprehension. Sam Shepard as that general exceeded the scope of his mission and his command putting his men in harm's way in broad daylight. Ridley Scott seems uniquely capable of ferreting out the military decisions that led to this debacle but places no blame. However, all the blame is up there on the screen if you choose to take note similar to the way Sam Shepard watches it on his TV monitor. Scott instead places the viewer into a 180-degree maelstrom of bullets, bombs, shrapnel, blood, sweat and tears. In 160 years of technology it is amazing how some of the images are reminiscent of the last stand at the Alamo. What has been learned in all those years? Every good war film needs a hero and Tom Sizemore gives the best performance as one hardened and dedicated officer. The most interesting shot in this film is where a tired and weary group of Americans finally emerge from the city covered in dirt, gunpowder, blood and grease and they are greeted by foreign United Nations troops wearing turbans. These UN fellows offer the Americans glasses of water served from silver trays with white linen napkins draped over their arms. So much for modern technology it would seem.