All it is is one big giant action sequence, not a damn reason at all to care about anyone. What's really sad is that the massive casualties resulting from the incident and the genocide that occurs in Africa is very tragic.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Grimes was a character. Everyone else was based on a real person. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that.
If a day does not require an AK,
it is good
Ice Cube
Warrior Poet
His name was fabricated and he was a composite of a few people who were there (like most of the characters in the film), but he was mostly based on John Stebbins.
See you in hell, candy boys!share
OK describe the Grimes character for me? What about him makes him interesting? What about him is supposed to illicit an emotional response when his life is in danger? I mean we know that he is used to working behind a desk and he was selected for the mission at the last minute. It really isn't that hard to wrap your head around it. In fact it's really quite simple.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
blah blah blah. Character development smelaracter development.
You're taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
Ha, interesting that you say that. See, all of them are basing on real persons including Grimes, real name: John Stebbins. It just happens that Stebbins was later sentenced to 30 years in jail for repeatedly raping his 6-year-old daughter! The Pentagon pressured the movie's screenwriter to change Stebbins' name and, because they were providing military equipment and training to the actors, he had little choice but to agree.
shareSo like the 400 people that have said the same thing here in the past....you must have just gotten done with film school too. Who give a fvck?
You're taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
Right who needs character development when you can just have mindless explosions and non stop f-bombs. Michael bay would be proud.
shareTry reading the book this was based on. both the movie and book are very detailed about the actual battle. This isn't We Were Soldiers where they're in boot camp. They've already been deployed and are heading into battle. Kind of hard to get major character development for 20+ characters in a 2 hour movie. Get over it.
shareSo then why should the audience be absorbed in the story? It is nothing more than mindless explosions. By the way we were soldiers also had little to no character development. Other than Mel Gibson we knew pretty much nothing about the platoon.
Both were really bad movies
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Both movies were great. You're in the poor judgement minority.
shareTell me what was so great about them? People showed up they started shooting,end of story. If you want a Great War movie try watching apocalypse now or platoon, they aren't mindless action films pretty much on the same level of transformers. My guess is you like these two movies because you aren't smart enough to understand anything deeper.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Comparing the films to transformers proves that you aren't smart enough to draw a decent comparison. It also invalidates any opinion you have on the matter because it was such a piss poor attempt to trash 2 films.
shareThe film is as emotionally deep as Transformers, both films relied on action sequences and explosions to entertain and both movies are equally unintelligent. This movie had no central message or theme and therefore it leaves absolutely no emotional impact. It was a very poorly directed movie if they were really just going to turn it into one big long action movie then they should have just gone all out and gotten either Stallone or Swartzenegger to star in it. There is absolutely nothing to get about this film, it's nothing more than people shooting at each other. I can't believe the great Ridley Scott made this, definitely his worst movie.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Because it's a true story you stupid knob.
shareKnowing more about the battle wouldn't have helped, I'm asking to know more about the characters and both movies pretty much ignored the characters in favor of explosions. Everyone in the movie was basically an extra, the action was the main star. If the movie is meant to be a documentary about military tactics and the battle then they should have made it a documentary but instead they are both supposed to be war dramas and it's a pretty stupid idea to make a war drama when you don't even attempt to flesh out any of the characters. Both films failed miserably.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Didn't people complain that Black Hawk Down was too close to a documentary when it was first released? I distinctly remember hearing that.
The book didn't flesh out many of the characters either because it is for most purposes- a documentation of the events. The movie is based on the book so not a big surprise it comes across as a documentary.
If you want a movie on par with a Michael bay film just go watch lone survivor. They changed all the good parts from the book into action movie clichés.
Also, I have seen Platoon. Black hawk dawn falls in between Platoon and Lone Survivor. It's not as good as platoon but not nearly as mindless as Lone Survivor.
Well then maybe that's how they should have made it...as a documentary, because as a war drama it failed miserably, there was no deeper meaning or message to it, it was just about action sequences and violence. It was pretty much the last 20 minutes of Commando spread over 2 hours. Never seen Lone Survivor but this movie was about as deep as Transformers or better yet Rambo III. There was absolutely no point to this movie other than to show shooting and explosions and it's really sad that that's the way they chose to honor the lives of these brave soldiers.
Make no mistake there is absolutely nothing deep or thought provoking about Black Hawk Down, it is simply your standard action flick although it pretended to be intelligent and meaningful which is why I have a problem with it.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
The movie is great because:
- it is realistic (based on real events)
- it is thrilling
- it delivers the story of courage
The drama is in what people do, how they behave, look at the Randy Shugarth and Garry Gordon scene - the drama is in the fact that the guys fought overwhelming forces to save
downed pilot. This is what you expect from military drama.
it is a perfect "Real" movie about war. War is about bullets flying around, about sudden death.
If you want deeper characters - you can go watch Beagelow movies, but they are not war movies per se. Call them "war-related thriller or whatever".
The absence of deep characters is the strongest part of the movie - because this is about
100 people fighting and not about 1 guy running around killing 100s of somalies and then crying in the end.
it is very strange for me that your are expecting the same thing from a movie based on real events that you are expecting from a fictional movie.
You can't compare Full Metal Jacket to Black hawk Down - they Are two completely different movies - it is like comparing Ford Mustang and Military Hammer.
So you admit the movie is about "bullets flying around", glad we understand, Black Hawk Down is about as deep as Rambo III or Commando, doesn't deserve above a 5 on IMDB. Black Hawk Down isn't about the men who gave their lives, it's about explosions and bullets.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Your posts get tiresome very quickly. It's pretty much the following: blah blah Michael bays transformers. Whining. There's explosions in a war movie! More whining. No characters. Blah blah. Worst movie ever. My opinion is the only one that matters. Even more whining. End of post.
You clearly just hate the movie, and- no matter the counter posts- you post the exact same thing.
Sounds like I've proven my point.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Geez you're still running your cum receptacle about "character development" in BHD. It's a SURVIVAL film not a DRAMA about 120+ SOFs men that had to SURVIVE a day/night and hold a perimeter around the crash site with THOUSANDS of angry, hostile Somalis surrounding them and how they got out. That is it.
This stupid point that you keep bringing up:
but if you are going to show nothing but explosions and gunfire then it's really hard for the audience to develop any kind of emotional attachment to anyone who is tragically losing their lives.
Dude once again you need to chill out with the language, just because I don't like the movie doesn't mean you have to flip out. Oh I get the movie just fine, the objective is don't die and it's a film about bullets and explosions. Look if that's the way the movie was made then that's fine, I get it, some people like to watch explosions but let's be honest about the film and call it what it is...AN ACTION MOVIE! It's not a drama, it's not a war film, it's a generic action film. What gets on my nerves is that some people think BHD is a deep film, it's not, it's incredibly shallow, there is no deeper meaning or message to it. Personally I wish it had a message to it and was actually about the people who experienced the incident, it's not a particularly demanding request that a movie like this be about people and not explosions. This reminds me a lot of this episode of Home Improvement where Jill's Dad writes a war novel and Tim and Jill think it sucks because it's just about military tactics not characters or people and Jill's Dad retorts by saying "this is a novel about war, you can't waste your time talking about a bunch of people".
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I'll swear as much as I like, get over it. So Mr Wannabe Film Critic how would you have made this film so that it has "character development" more than the 35 minutes already shown into a max 2 and half hour film?
Keeping in mind you have to tell the story of over 120 soldiers and even more pilots from the 160th during Operation Gothic Serpent, it was the biggest URBAN battle of US Forces since Vietnam (so the the repeated gunfire and RPGs have to be shown because it happened) and honouring/showing the 19 KIA/80+ WIA and showing both Black Hawks shot down, holding a perimeter all night and then surviving while leaving no man behind? I'm listening...
Also just because a film has a lot of explosions and gunfire doesn't mean it's an ACTION movie. Django Unchained has plenty of it and it's considered a Western/Drama!
What gets on my nerves is that some people think BHD is a deep film, it's not, it's incredibly shallow, there is no deeper meaning or message to it.
OK fine go ahead and swear, it just makes you look like an immature brat. I'm not asking for a bunch of mindless subplots, it simply would have been nice if they actually attempted to tell a story and explain what these men were going through emotionally, psychologically and maybe tell us a little bit about who they were, what they left behind back home, etc. The battle didn't need to last an entire 2 hours, the first hour 15 minutes or so could have been spent establishing the characters and building up the battle and the battle could have taken up the last hour. It's kind of like how James Cameron didn't have the Titanic sink 30 minutes in, that would have been horrible, there would have been no reason to care about any of the people who died, the way he paced his movie was perfect. I don't know of a single war movie that spends 80% of it on an action sequence (well maybe We Were Soldiers but that wasn't exactly a cinematic masterpiece).
BHD is an action movie because the explosions are the main focus, Apocalypse Now has explosions also but the focus is the internal struggle of Captain Willard and how his mindset is slowly drifting into that of Kurtz, get it?
Oh OK so because I wasn't there I'm not allowed to dislike the movie? Seriously dude stop embarrassing yourself, not only was that an incredibly ignorant statement but unpatriotic as well. Tell me this, what have you done that's so great? Serve in Iraq? Afghanistan?
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
@OP The_Ultimate_Hippo,
I am speaking for myself: you are welcome to think that this is a bad movie, that this movies has no character, and very welcome to dislike the movie. I for one am not interested in convincing you otherwise. Please go a head, keep disliking this movie.
What I don't understand is why are you here for so long and keep posting. You don't like the movie, you think it is a really bad movie, then why do you spend so much time on it?
OK fine go ahead and swear, it just makes you look like an immature brat.
BHD is an action movie because the explosions are the main focus, Apocalypse Now has explosions also but the focus is the internal struggle of Captain Willard and how his mindset is slowly drifting into that of Kurtz, get it?
Oh so now you're trashing Saving Private Ryan, look up the data, Saving Private Ryan got higher IMDB ratings, killed Black Hawk Down on RT and received a Best Picture nomination and won Best Director. Saving Private Ryan absolutely KILLED Black Hawk Down.
Boy you are desperate aren't you and you still aren't getting it. American Sniper had a story, it explored the emotions and psychological struggles that Chris Kyle was going through. BHD never did that, 80% of it was just an action sequence. I never said that a war movie shouldn't have shooting in it so stop twisting my words., I said it should be more than just shooting. ARE YOU UNDERSTANDING THIS NOW?
The movie is more about the men who were sent to rescue him, it was about their conflict with whether it was the right thing to do to risk the lives of many men to save the life of one.
F.ck me how old are that gets you offended by online swear words, get your big boy pants on today!
Apocalypse Now is a FICTION movie script that happens to be set during the Vietnam War. It was: During the Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade colonel who has set himself up as a god among a local tribe.
When broken down it is a ridiculously long 202mins (Redux), that is just ridiculous that nobody can sit in a cinema for more than 3 hours, many AVERAGE movie goers simply don't have the patience to sit through a movie that long! It's just one character going after another character, try writing a script that's for a 120+ men from soldiers to pilots.
Then you stupidly bring up another FICTITIOUS film like Saving Private Ryan which was SET in WWII about a Unit sent out on mission to bring home one kid because of all his brothers are KIA.
BHD was a filmed based on a real life event and Ridley did such a good job that there are only a few "goofs" or has delved into "artistic licence". Don't even try compare SPR to BHD because one being a FICTITIOUS and therefore Spielberg got to show whatever he wanted, just look at this page with all the mistakes and goofs:
Big f.cking deal if SPR got more Oscar nominations, getting an Oscar isn't the be all of a being classic movie of all time, BHD which was bound to telling the story to honour the military personnel as close as they could and are limited in artistic licence Look in the link above and in SPR you've got Factual errors, Anachronisms, Character error, Continuity, Crew or equipment visible, Plot holes, Revealing mistakes. Well Done Mr Spielberg
Nope nobody is understanding you right now, American Sniper is the based on an autobiography/LIFE story about the most lethal sniper in US Armed Forces history. That's right 1 MAN not 120+ MEN!
Now you're getting it, there were Rangers that were second guessing themselves about getting into the back of a Humvee driving back into that hostile heavily armed city and that they may end up losing their own lives. Ranger's motto is Rangers Lead The Way and also leave no man behind.
So once you learn that the movie was made as an homage to the people that fought that day and it was a SURVIVAL story depending on the man next to you to cover your back the better.
I don't get offended at all, I'm just advising you that you are coming across as an immature child.
OMG how are you not getting this? BHD didn't develop ANYONE!!! All of the men in the movie were basically reduced to extras. Stop saying that BHD had to develop 120 people because they didn't even make an attempt to characterize a single person. Apocalypse Now is a deep, psychological insight into how the human mind. It makes the viewer think, it has a message, it has strong characters and a strong story. yeah it has explosions but the explosions aren't the main focus, they were the main focus of BHD, what about this aren't you getting? A film being fictitious has nothing to do with the quality of the film. The Benghazi movie was also based on a real event also and it doesn't have particularly strong reviews. Oh and sorry that your tiny brain isn't able to handle a film over 2 hours.
Just give up. He is going on and on about the same thing over and over again. I totally agree. It was about a nonstop battle that depicts a small regimental force going against basically an entire city and the actions they did to survive. I bet he's never seen combat or talked to anyone that has to find out that they don't have time to have Soap Opera type conversations while they are under heavy enemy fire. He's a classic IMDb troll. You can't feed them.
shareOh so you have seen combat ImperialTemplar??? Tell me what have you done with your life that makes you so special other than talking on an IMDB message board?
The fact that you have to question my patriotism (which I find incredibly offensive by the way) merely because I don't like this film just shows how badly you are getting owned.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
If you actually worked a day in a blue collar job swearing just magically every second word is profanity. Ever heard the quote "swears like a Sailor:"?
The only thing thing that Ridley Scott would do to appease your whining ass if you were to turn BHD into a 8 part mini-series like Band of Brothers whereby we watch the Rangers start off in boot camp and progress through to deployment. Watch Jarhead for a soldier's mindset in war and not just "bullets and explosions".
The thing about writing a FICTITIOUS script set in an real life event like what happened in Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan means the Screen writers/editors can make up whatever they want and change everything because it never happened and both those movies had less than 10 characters main characters
Easy to write for and plenty of time to film and create a back story for.
You can't in about 2 and half movie is based on Operation Gothic and the BATTLE not their background, family and hobbies. Battles like this which for the 100th time was the largest URBAN battle of US troops since the Vietnam War then OF F.CKING course it's going to be full of "bullets and explosions" so just accept that is what happened in real life and Ridley wasn't embellishing the violence of the fight.
If Ridley decided to just to focus one soldier's POV or even one Chalk then there would outcry from all the Veterans as to why are we focusing only on this Chalk? (ironically some 160th pilots and Rangers who was there and fought there helped fly in the helos and let the real Rangers fast rope in the movie in Morocco).
I don't see ANY Veterans of that fought that day come out after the movie crying "why wasn't I given screentime"?! SURVIVAL FILM but if all you see is "bullets and explosions" then you're pretty dense and can't see many of the undertones of what they went through in real life NOT FICTION.
You don't have a point. Every post you have is repetitive and ignorant.
shareWanting a movie to have a story is ignorant?
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
It does have a story. It has characters. It goes through what they left behind and their background- wives, friends, guy drawing a coloring book for his kids, & guy good a typing. It tells what is going through their head- 2 snipers willingly going to their death to defend a single helicopter pilot against hundreds of people, the general being distract over the situation, McKnight being pissed off about horrible directions, people being cowards, people being heroic...etc. simply put, you're wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Your comparisons are just horrible. First you compare it to transformers- incredibly stupid comparison. Now compare it to the titanic which is a completely fictional story based on an event. The main focus of that movie was the love triangle (3 people) not the sinking of the ship.
Then you use apocalypse now as a comparison saying it focused on the internal struggle of 1 man- 1 man. BHD is about over 100. Do you understand math? If you did, you'd see there is no way they can go in depth on every person involved.
Platoon comparison- about a couple of people. BHD- over a hundred.
Basically, you don't like the film because you want the movie to focus on 1 or 2 people. Black Hawk Down had more than your attention span can handle so you call it crap. Also, the other films have the benefit of being fictional stories rather than an account of a division of soldiers. You clearly prefer fiction so, by all means, go enjoy some fiction and quit pushing your ridiculous opinion on people here and calling them brats because they have valid counter arguments.
WHAT??? The movie never explored the characters, what was going through their heads or what they left behind. We saw one guy (and after multiple viewings I still don't know his name), try to call his wife before the attack and that's it. There absolutely wasn't a story at all, 80% of the movie is an action sequence, that is incredibly poor pacing and writing. My comparisons aren't horrible at all, Apocalypse Now also fleshed out Kilgore, the photojournalist and the guys on the boat but having said that, AN did far more with the central two characters than BHD did with 100. Apocalypse Now and Platoon were able the psychological struggles that the soldiers went through, Black Hawk Down was about shooting guns, period. Not a single soldiers was developed.
Basically, you don't like the film because you want the movie to focus on 1 or 2 people. Black Hawk Down had more than your attention span can handle so you call it crap
You don't understand math very well do you?
If you and I were in a room talking, you'd learn a lot more about me in an hour than if there were 100 people in the room that you had to speak to in a hour. How many names do you think you'd remember? How many life stories would you remember? Would you remember who had kids and who didn't? Or is it possible that you'd remember more about a single person you spoke to for an hour? Can you understand that?
You also keep saying there was no story. That is about as disrespectful to those involved as you can get. This film is not just a story; it's an account of a real battle that took place. The battle wasn't a duel; it was a group of soldiers against a city.
About the titanic, it was about a poor kid who illegally boards a ship and seduces a stuck up woman from a rich prick. Nothing new about that story at all especially when the movie is based on an event with an "unsinkable" ship sinking. Oh, we have a story about a massive ship sinking? Let's focus on a love triangle rather than what went wrong and caused the ship to sink. Also, lets shove the sinking into the a 10 minute clip and have one of the main characters run around trying to kill someone who, for all he knew, was probably dead.
You still don't understand fiction very well. Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, and Titanic are fictional stories based on actual events. They can do whatever they want with the story. They also focused on a small group of people which brings us back to your terrible mathematic abilities. Tell me what the name of the German was in Saving Private Ryan?
If you and I were in a room talking, you'd learn a lot more about me in an hour than if there were 100 people in the room that you had to speak to in a hour. How many names do you think you'd remember? How many life stories would you remember? Would you remember who had kids and who didn't? Or is it possible that you'd remember more about a single person you spoke to for an hour? Can you understand that?
You also keep saying there was no story. That is about as disrespectful to those involved as you can get. This film is not just a story; it's an account of a real battle that took place. The battle wasn't a duel; it was a group of soldiers against a city.
it was about a poor kid who illegally boards a ship and seduces a stuck up woman from a rich prick.
Nothing new about that story at all especially when the movie is based on an event with an "unsinkable" ship sinking.
Let's focus on a love triangle rather than what went wrong and caused the ship to sink.
Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, and Titanic are fictional stories based on actual events.
They also focused on a small group of people which brings us back to your terrible mathematic abilities.
You keep beating this "I like emotionally deep films like The Notebook, or Apocalypse Now" horse.. and now you've hurt the horse mate!
Look, why compare apples with oranges in the first place? Apocalypse Now is a cinematic classic, and is a study of the mind. It's barely a war film. It just takes place in a hostile environment during 'Nam. Platoon is more based upon Vietnamese warfare and evidently also gives us a complex character study. Great. You won't find anyone saying Platoon or AN are poor films.
Black Hawk Down is what it is. It's a play by play depiction of the actual battles that took place on that fateful day. It cannot characterise, because A) theres no time B) these are REAL stories and C) the film would not be what it is if it did.
I want to know about the contact. I wanna know about how the communication broke down and how many American lives were up against the odds. To this point, it's a phenomenal film.
if you wanted to see more of Grimes plunging coffee, and Delta shooting boars talking about their children, maybe this film isn't for you. Films are made to be different.
So back to the horse you were beating. A standard action flick? Transformers is funny and fictional. Rambo III is a SS fest. Black Hawk Down is a depiction of a real battle to honour the lives of those who fell. This is a very real film, and if you had a heart you would have felt the 'depth' to their suffering.
Your horse doesn't know why you keep hitting him!
I would have felt the "depth" if the movie was more than just flying bullets and explosions. I would have felt the depth if there was some kind of deeper meaning to the film other than people dying, I would have felt the depth if they actually told us something about these characters. During the battle sequence, these brave men were basically reduced to extras and it was a very bad way to tell their story. The movie is basically nothing more than one giant action sequence and comparing it to Rambo III is very legit.
I feel like in the late 90's - early 2000's, many directors saw what a great film Saving Private Ryan was and they were like "wow that opening 25 minutes was amazingly realistic and it got very positive reviews, let's make a whole movie like that", what they failed to recognize was that Saving Private Ryan had a story and a point to it. It was a lot more than just watching people get shot.
Black Hawk Down was a BAD movie, plain and simple.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Ok your viewpoint is absurd.... this is based on a real life event... SPR is a story based in a real war.... BHD is the account of the soldiers who forced to survive a massive cluster *beep* they were all under equipped for... read the damn history of BHD this was the story about the men who fought and died trying to protect their own... these soldiers were highly trained and when their initial mission was a total bust, they had to fight to survive just to make it back to base... seriously these guys don't need character development, the events that transpired in the film are not depictions of a generic action movie... it was a depiction of the soldiers who had to fight through a hellzone just to survive... the real guys who had to live this thanked the actors who took the time to represent them in the film knew what the film was about... if you cannot see that then I think you need to watch fictional war movies.... not BHD.
Seriously read the book or the damn reports or hell watch the *beep* documentary!
If the guys don't need character development then he should have shot it as a documentary instead of just your standard, mindless, shallow action flick, however I am guessing it wouldn't have sold as many tickets.
read the damn history of BHD this was the story about the men who fought and died trying to protect their own...
seriously these guys don't need character development,
if you cannot see that then I think you need to watch fictional war movies.... not BHD.
You don't seem to understand what historical fiction is. Every film you compare this to is a fictitious story set in a real world event. Every film you mentioned is about a group of less than 10 soldiers.
For the record, saving private Ryan wasn't the greatest. Battlefield tactics were terrible. Acting was average. Story was okay. if you're using fleshing out characters as an argument against BHD, then you'd have to say we would care more about Private Ryan if they showed him playing with his brothers when they were little, and them dying tragically during the war. Instead we are forced to feel something for Private James Ryan because we are told to feel something for him because his fictional off screen brothers died.
You also disliked We Were Soldiers. Which is, again, an account of a battle more so than the soldiers. Honestly, learn to tell the difference.
Oh so now you're trashing Saving Private Ryan, look up the data, Saving Private Ryan got higher IMDB ratings, killed Black Hawk Down on RT and received a Best Picture nomination and won Best Director. Saving Private Ryan absolutely KILLED Black Hawk Down.
Battlefield tactics were terrible. Acting was average. Story was okay
Then you'd have to say we would care more about Private Ryan if they showed him playing with his brothers when they were little, and them dying tragically during the war. Instead we are forced to feel something for Private James Ryan because we are told to feel something for him because his fictional off screen brothers died.
Blew it out of the water? It got .4 higher of a rating than BHD and won 3 more oscars with BHD picking up 2. Coincidentally, the film you want to compare everything to only got 1 point less than Savin Private Ryan and was also nominated for oscars- Transformers. Side facts, Apocolypse Now won the same amount of oscars as BHD. Platoon only won 2 more than BHD with only .4 higher of an IMDB rating. Tell me more about how people's ratings on IMDB are applicable towards anything? By your logic, the Dark Knight Rises is better than Saving Provate Ryan because it has a higher IMDB rating. Yeah, really solid thinking there.
Tom Seizmore was great in Saving Private Ryan. Barry Pepper and Giovanni Ribici were also excellent in the film. Eric Bana, Sam Shepherd, and the supporting cast of every other soldier in the film performed their roles greatly, and the things they did were not out of character. In saving private Ryan, we have Ryan hugging his knees and crying at the end of the film as if this is his first time in a fire fight even though he is part of the 101st airborne and has been behind enemy lines for weeks- completely out of character.
It got .4 higher of a rating than BHD and won 3 more oscars with BHD picking up 2.
Savin Private Ryan was over my head? All the movie is known for is the beach scene which is- shooting and explosion aka Transformers.
That's sarcasm. I'm not ignorant enough to claim a story with guns and explosion is on par with Transformers because they share a common occurrence.
I get the moral of the story. I for one agreed with Ed Burns character in that the mission was stupid for risking the lives of a squad to find 1 guy which is somewhat contradictory since I feel Vin Diesels character helping the family was the right thing to do. Hanks got pissed at him because that family wouldn't get him home, so screw them right? He's got a wife and was a teacher yet he wouldn't help a little girl? If he had just helped, they would've got the family down before anyone was shot.
Hanks got pissed at him because that family wouldn't get him home, so screw them right?
read the damn history of BHD this was the story about the men who fought and died trying to protect their own.
For *beep*'s sake.... just read the *beep* book... the characters have little development they took the real life accounts of had happened and translated it to print and film... it was about courage... and the brotherhood these men had towards one another, as they fought a war of impossible odds just to get back to a safe zone... about how these men developed the courage to bring their fellow comrade home wether they dead or alive... hell the documentary focused on the whole event... the soldiers who fought bravely did not need development... we as the audience did not really need to know who these men were or what their backstories were... this movie is about the clossal *beep* up that transpired in MOG.
BtwIi have seen Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket. And i love those movies because it doesn't focus mainly on a war, it has alot of character development...
Black Hawk Down is telling about the event not the tale of who these soldiers were, Scott did no disrespect to the real men the film was representing as those men were not concerned about how much backstory they were getting.
The actors during their week-long training recieved letters from the soldiers thanking them for their hard work, and to take their time to tell the their true story... if the film failed to do that, then during it's release the film would have gotten horrible reception from those that lived through that terrible nightmare... they wanted their story about the event to remain faithful, seriously go read the book....
the characters have little development they took the real life accounts of had happened and translated it to print and film...
it was about courage... and the brotherhood these men had towards one another,
the soldiers who fought bravely did not need development.
BtwIi have seen Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket. And i love those movies because it doesn't focus mainly on a war, it has alot of character development...
Black Hawk Down is telling about the event not the tale of who these soldiers were,
The actors during their week-long training recieved letters from the soldiers thanking them for their hard work, and to take their time to tell the their true story..
Just read the damn book....
shareAnd for your information there is a documentary which also focuses on the *beep* event and not the *beep* soldiers.... go watch that and then you can tell me that scott disrespected the men who died that day... by making the film into a pure action flick with nothing but bullets and mother *beep* explosions and your piddly ass issue of no *beep* character development!
shareDude you need to calm down and can it with the language. Please tell me, where in the movie did they tell us anything about the soldiers? I mean we know that Grimes (who is made up) doesn't like getting people coffee, we know that Blackburn is young and well that's about it. Why should the audience are about these men? What makes them different from the people that Arnie gunned down in Commando, or that Rambo gunned down in any of his films?
Just accept the fact that this is a bad movie plain and simple. I don't need to read the book, I'm not talking about the book, the book could have been a complete masterpiece for all I know and I honestly don't care. The movie was very poorly made, instead of relying on a strong story and well defined characters they decided to just focus on action and explosions which is incredibly shallow. If you are trying to say that the book was the same way then I guess I would have the same exact issues with the book. That's beside the point though, Scott could have chosen to dive more deeply into the soldiers and their psychology, backstories, etc. but instead he chose to focus on explosions.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
The film is adapted from the damn book... there is no character development in the book, the soldiers didn't need any development... because the story was not about them it was about the incident... there were many questions when news broke out as why this happened... hell when the news outlets showed the somali's extracting the dead pilots and mulitaling their bodies and dragging their corpses around... it sparked a massive outrage, so much so it brought even more questions as why in the hell were we even there to begin with, this whole mission was actually a covert mission that went badly, the book, documentary, and the film focused on what transpired those 2 days what those men had to endure to survive and the courage they all had, just to bring their faen comrades from that horrible *beep* again there is no character development because it was not about who these men were it was about then devotion to not leave any of their comrades behind...
So please stop saying scott disrespected these men by taking out the development of the characters when they did need to be explored in the 1st place...
Scott did not make this as a mindless action flick, he made this because alot of people needed to know what actually happened those 2 days...
And your comment about the actors getting training with guns is highly disrespectful, they didn't learn just how to shoot guns, they learned about movement, tactics, and had personal 1 on 1 with some of the survivors just so that they could understand just how terrible that event was for them...
And Ridley Scott could have chosen to tell more about the men. If the movie is about the "incident" (ie. stuff blowing up) then they shouldn't have tried to pass it off as a war drama, it should have been marketed as an action film or it should have been made into a documentary. Understand???
If the movie is supposed to be paying tribute to the men who died (and don't tell me it's not because it recognizes them at the end) then how in the hell is developing the characters not important? If the goal is to recognize the bravery of these soldiers but then don't tell us anything about them then it pretty much failed. Scott did make a mindless action film, he chose not to focus on the men but instead focus on guns and explosions.
What comment about actors getting training with guns? I don't remember saying anything about that nor do I know what you're talking about? I said nothing disrespectful, I have stated numerous times I have nothing but the deepest respect for our military and the sacrifice these soldiers made, in fact I have shown FAR more respect for them than you have because I would have preferred BHD to be more character focused rather than explosion focused, so if anyone is showing disrespect to these men it's you my friend.
it was about then devotion to not leave any of their comrades behind...
I'm also still waiting to hear how wanting to know more about these men makes me disrespectful? You really have a lot of nerve for going there.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I also have a feeling that you aren't smart enough to understand anything deeper than BHD, your behavior on this board and your constant use of profanity backs me up.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Tell me this, the names that they listed at the end, do you know a single thing about any of those people from the film?
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I noticed that you completely ignored almost every point that I made. That just proves that you don't have an intelligent comeback. All you did was start yelling a bunch of profanity like an immature 5 year old.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Ok it's pointless to talk to you, your refusing to see that whole event was the focus of the film and the book, and the documentary, as for the men who died.
OPERATORS OF 1ST SPECIAL FORCES OPERATIONAL DETACHMENT- DELTA
MSG GARY IVAN GORDON: AGE 33:
KILLED WHILE DEFENDING SUPER SIX-FOUR'S CREW
SFC RANDY SHUGHART: AGE 35: KILLED WHILE DEFENDING SUPER SIX-FOUR'S CREW
SSG DANIEL D. BUSCH: AGE 25: KILLED AFTER CRASHING IN SUPER SIX-ONE WAS MORTALLY WOUNDED WHILE DEFENDING THE REST OF THE CREW
SFC EARL ROBERT FILLMORE JR: AGE 28: KILLED WHILE MOVING TO THE 1ST CRASH SITE
MSG TIMOTHY "GRIZ" LYNN MARTIN: AGE 38: KILLED AFTER BEING MORTALLY WOUNDED BY AN RPG ON THE LOST CONVOY, DIED SHORTLY AFTER WHILE EN ROUTE TO A FIELD HOSPITAL IN GERMANY
3RD RANGER BATTALION 75TH RANGER REGIMENT
CPL JAMES "JAMIE" E. SMITH: AGE 21: KILLED AROUND CRASH SITE 1
SPC JAMES M. CAVACO: AGE 26: KILLED ON THE LOST CONVOY
SGT JAMES CASEY JOYCE: AGE 24: KILLED ON THE LOST CONVOY
CPL RICHARD "ALPHABET" W. KOWALEWSKI JR: AGE 20: KILLED ON THE LOST CONVOY BY A RPG
SGT DOMINICK M. PILLA: AGE 21: KILLED ON STRUECKER'S CONVOY
SGT LORENZO M. RUIZ: AGE 27: KILLED AFTER BEING MORTALLY WOUNDED ON THE LOST CONVOY, DIED SHORTLY AFTER WHILE EN ROUTE TO A FIELD HOSPITAL IN GERMANY
PILOTS AND CREW OF THE 160TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS AVIATION REGIMENT AKA SUPER SIX-FOUR AND SUPER SIX-ONE
SSG WILLIAM "WILD BILL" DAVID CLEVELAND JR: AGE 34: KILLED ON SUPER SIX-FOUR (CREW CHIEF BTW)
SSG THOMAS "TOMMIE" J. FIELD: AGE 25: KILLED ON SUPER SIX-FOUR (AGAIN CREW CHIEF BTW)
CW4 RAYMOND "IRONMAN" A. FRANK: AGE 45: KILLED ON SUPER SIX-FOUR (CO-PILOT BTW)
CW3 CLIFTON "ELVIS" P. WOLCOTT: AGE 36: KILLED AFTER SUPER SIX-ONE CRASHED (PILOT BTW)
CW3 DONOVAN "BULL" BRILEY: AGE 33: KILLED AFTER SUPER SIX-ONE CRASHED (PILOT BTW)
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST
SOLDIERS OF THE 2ND BATTALION 14TH INFANTRY REGIMENT 2ND BRIGADE 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION
SGT CORNELL LEMONT HOUSTON SR: AGE 31: KILLED ON A RESCUE CONVOY
PFC JAMES HENRY MARTIN JR: AGE 23: KILLED ON A RESCUE CONVOY
OH AND HERE'S A BONUS DEATH
SOLDIER OF THE 19TH BATTALION ROYAL MALAY REGIMENT OF THE MALAYSIAN ARMY
LANCE CORPORAL MAT AZNAN AWANG: AGE 18: KILLED WHEN HIS VEHICLE WAS HIT BY AN RPG ON OCTOBER 3RD.
as for my vulgarity, I apologize for that but I am not keen on arguing with someone who refuses to listen that something is classified as a war drama because of the story... just because it doesn't have any character development... at the time this event was going the american public had no clue about it until the 2nd black hawk went down and the somali's extracted and stripped our dead soldiers and mutilated their bodies on live television that we knew about the event.
The point of that list is that we were never to know who these men were just their names... in war sometimes the people we lose aren't always remembered for who they were, they are remembered for what they did... Black Hawk Down highlighted that by giving viewers what these men died for and what were their names. Having known their names is a big thing... this issue of yours of not getting any character backstory is absolutely pedantic and pointless... if your so interested in the characters go look them up... doubt you will find much about who they were.
shareThe movie didn't care to give us any character development because as you said it's not about the characters, it's about explosions. Look dude when you go in to see a movie it's not a particularly unreasonable request that the movie actually has characters and a story.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Wow, great rebuttal to his post about the movie being more about the even than the men.
Since you're so intelligent and ignored that point, let's take another world renown battle as an example. Tell me another Spartan at Thermopylae other than Leonidas without using Google? Were there more people (allies) other than the 300 Spartans, and if so who were they? What was Xerxes military commanders name? What happened to Xerxes after the battle?
Tell me a name of a real person that fought on Omaha beach. How about the famous sniper during Vietnam?
Did you get upset because American sniper had bullets and explosions between telling about the character?
Tell me another Spartan at Thermopylae other than Leonidas without using Google? Were there more people (allies) other than the 300 Spartans, and if so who were they? What was Xerxes military commanders name? What happened to Xerxes after the battle?
Tell me a name of a real person that fought on Omaha beach.
Did you get upset because American sniper had bullets and explosions between telling about the character?
They died defending each other. Shugart and Gordon died defending the crew of the second downed blackhawk. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the character of the men they were portraying, then you're a joker.
share
The actors during their week-long training recieved letters from the soldiers thanking them for their hard work, and to take their time to tell the their true story..
(My comment)
-----------------
They fired guns, that's not telling a story. Special Effects do not equal Story.
(Your comment)
-------------------
That's what you said... which is extremely disrespectful.
It's not disrespectful at all, I'm very offended that Scott decided to just turn the sacrifice of these brave men into a cheap action flick. There is no story at all, to have a story you need characters and you've admitted that the movie just skipped over the characters.
If the film really was just supposed to be an analysis on the incident then it should never have been a Hollywood movie, it should have been a documentary but I will bring you back to my original point: Documentaries don't make as much money. If you want to make a movie about the Somalia incident then great, more power to you, but if you are going to show nothing but explosions and gunfire then it's really hard for the audience to develop any kind of emotional attachment to anyone who is tragically losing their lives.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I've seen the movie several times and I don't seem to remember them mentioning any of these people.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I read all of these comments. Static, Friend, This Hippo dude is a certified idiot. Its not worth it. *beep* that, you wont win this discusion even though You're right, lets end this
shareSo I very politely list the reasons why I don't like this movie and your epic retort is "I'm a certified idiot". Thank you for that very thought provoking argument. All I said was that it would be nice if we actually knew something about these people who we are supposed to care about. And don't give me this "oh you got to read the book" argument, I shouldn't have to read the book, plus from what I understand the book is pretty much the same thing as the movie, all action, no story, no complex character development.
I am still waiting to hear why I am such "an idiot" for wanting a movie to be about characters and their story and not just mindless explosions? This movie is really the same to me as any typical Michael Bay film, the action is the focus, not the people and it just comes off as really boring.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
It doesn't really matter what you 'want'. Its about a true story. Take it in, take something away from it or don't bother watching it. Lets say you watched Lincoln, and going into it you knew absolutely nothing about Abe. When you watch that movie can you fully figure out that 'character' just based on the portrayal in the movie? No you can't and if you say you can you are lying to yourself. No what this kind of movie should do is awaken a thirst for you to read outside the lines, literally to read other sources to learn more. Because it is too complex a story to waste time developing characters. Yes a waste of time. You don't need to know about Eversmanns childhood or the intricacies of why he joined the Army. Its simply unnecessary. And to boot it draws away from the story
You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
The_Ultimate_Hippo
In response to your comments:
I've seen the movie several times and I don't seem to remember them mentioning any of these people
Tell me this, the names that they listed at the end, do you know a single thing about any of those people from the film?
The_Ultimate_Hippo,
I came on here to see if anyone felt the same about BHD as I did... and lo and behold, there was your post! I cannot believe how much you're getting piled on, and some of the weak arguments that are being made in response to yours. I may have appreciated BHD a bit more than you did -- it is an extraordinary technical achievement, and the acting is far superior to anything seen in a Michael Bay film -- but there is no denying that it is just a ninety minute-long action scene with very little context -- emotional, socio-political, or otherwise. I actually liked the first 30 minutes the best, when we are introduced to the members of the operation with their little quirks of personality. I wish I had gotten to know these guys better. Once the battle is underway, though, it's just one big explosion.
felstein, BHD fans are a very special group of people apparently, if you don't like the movies that they like apparently that means that you must hate the military or you hate the United States. I have never seen a bunch of thin skinned, self-righteous arrogant jerks in my life. I simply came here to express my opinion that the movie focused way too heavily on the violence rather than the drama and I got torn to pieces and even my patriotism was questioned. They don't have a defense for this film, deep down they know it's an action film so they decided to hit me below the belt. It's really pathetic.
I once asked them to name a single character in BHD who was developed as well as any of the men in SPR and no one could name a single person.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Oh heck yeah... SPR is SuPeRior in every respect!
Oh heck yeah... SPR is SuPeRior in every respect!
Once the battle is underway, though, it's just one big explosion.
His name was Jamie Smith and he was 21 years old who died in a foreign s#$t hole saving one of his friends.
shareDon't feed the troll. The guy is just here to argue as he doesn't have anything better to do.
He didn't like the movie, saw the high score and praise the film got, couldn't get why he didn't like the movie while the majority did and wanted to find a reason to console himself so he used the first thing the film critic books teach; character development.
So even though this film is not about character development -nor would it utilize it-, he decided to use it as his reason even though he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The sole fact that this guy compared this film with transformers shows that he's either a troll or doesn't even have a single idea about the core elements of films.
Edit: I've checked some of his rating and oh boy, it's even worse than i thought. Some of his scores:
The Green Mile: 1
Paths of Glory: 1
Matrix: 1
Forrest Gump: 1
The lion king: 1
Dances with Wolves: 1
WALL·E :1
Grave of the Fireflies: 1
The Great Dictator: 1
Django Unchained: 1
The Lives of Others: 1
Free Willy 2: 10
Hobbit 3: 9
Spectre: 10
Starship Troopers: 9
Hollow Man: 9
Mr. Deeds: 10
Commando: 9
Die Another Day: 9
The Human Centipede III: 10
You have just been exposed!
So even though this film is not about character development -nor would it utilize it-, he decided to use it as his reason even though he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I personally didn't like it and I wish you would quit getting your panties all bundled up merely because my opinion is different than yours. I was never disrespectful, I never trolled this board, all I did was explain why I didn't like it.
Yet you continue to respond to me, sounds to me like you're an attention whore, either that or you are very insecure with yourself and can't stand the fact that not everyone likes your movie. "Character development" is essential to any movie, especially action/war films, if you don't know about the people involved in the action sequences then there is no reason to care and therefore the movie comes off as boring. Any rookie film student will tell you that. I guess by your logic Black Hawk Down is the Seinfeld of War Movies.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Grimes was based on John stebbins, who had his name changed for the movie into Grimes because stebbins, who won a silver star for his actions in Mogadishu, was convincted in 2000 of child molestation and sentenced to 30 years
share