Cool! Man the general news media seems to be on a roll so far NY Times, Newsday, CNN. My day is now complete. Though not as stinging as NY Times. See review from NY Times at [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=81595[/url]
==========================================================

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/28/hol.review.blackhawk.down/index.html[/url]

[img]http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/28/hol.review.blackhawk.down/1.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/28/hol.review.blackhawk.down/2.jpg[/img][img]http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/28/hol.review.blackhawk.down/3.jpg[/img]
CNN.com - 'Black Hawk' a letdown - December 28, 2001

'Black Hawk' a letdown
December 28, 2001 Posted: 1:41 PM EST (1841 GMT)

By Paul Tatara
CNN Reviewer

(CNN) -- Look out, everybody: Two of the most pandering, tactless
filmmakers in Hollywood history are now teaching us about honor among
soldiers.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Ridley Scott have pooled their
always-questionable cinematic tastes to bring us "Black Hawk Down," a war
movie that, pound for pound, is one of the most violent films ever
released by a major studio (Columbia Pictures, in case you're keeping
score).
However, 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. Forget the American
military, this is more an homage to the visceral thrill of exploding arms,
heads and legs.

"Black Hawk Down" stars Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore and Sam
Shepard (who should have known better) as American soldiers who find
themselves trapped in a hellish bloodbath when a couple of United States
helicopters crash in Somalia during a 1993 United Nations peacekeeping
mission.
That's all there is to say about the narrative. Audience members who
aren't inclined to salute human butchery -- even when it's brilliantly
designed and photographed -- will be sickened by this picture's vulgarity
long before it's over. It's nothing more than a patriotism-cloaked excuse
to stretch the shockingly graphic first 20 minutes of "Saving Private
Ryan" (1998) across an entire film's length ... not that "Black Hawk Down"
is even remotely as useful as that picture.
Whereas Steven Spielberg drove home the brutality of warfare in a
condensed dose and then proceeded with a tale that's haunted by the
specter of bloodshed, Scott dispenses with character concerns altogether.
Virtually nothing is revealed about the people who are dying in "Black
Hawk Down" -- whether they're soldiers or Somalian civilians -- except
that they fly to pieces when struck by bullets and mortars. If you happen
to miss anything, never fear: Somebody else will be screaming and grabbing
their entrails before you know it.
Scott has proven many times over that he understands the intricate
psychology of violence and visual composition, and he uses his nearly
unrivaled technical skills to create the illusion that manipulating an
audience through pitiless imagery is "art."

Add the charisma of attractive screen performers, and it's possible to
convince desensitized viewers that you're actually making a point.
Unfortunately, the only points made by "Black Hawk Down" are that people
get killed in horrendous ways during combat, and that it takes a lot of
different camera lenses and film stocks to make it look suitably "cool."
Undoubtedly, even viewers who walk out on "Black Hawk Down" will have been
stirred by it, just as they've been stirred by a car accident or a bloody
TV news report. But that's the easiest possible response to get from
another human being.
It's much more difficult to convey an intricate idea than it is to make
someone jump from a shocking sight or sound. Scott and Bruckheimer have
made lucrative careers out of refusing to discern the difference between
the two acts, and this film is the nadir of their anti-achievement. They
should be ashamed themselves.
"Black Hawk Down" is the best-looking worthless film you'll ever see. It's
impossible to convey how many people get shot, stabbed, burned, beaten
and/or blown apart during its 150-minute running time. Welcome to the
future of movie violence: Lay it on thicker than ever, but make sure
everyone's wearing fatigues.

Back to the top© 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

I think that it is less, that they hate these kind of movies and more, that they resent this movie for rehashing the Fubars committed by their beloved and perfect "Klinton" Administration.

The news media tried their best to bury this story, but it just wounldn't go away. Now everyone will know the truth about who really is responsable for all of those soldiers needless deaths. And I'm not talking about Osama.

The movie puts the Clinton lovers on the defensive and they will not have it. This is AFTER the director removed those scenes that reflect badly on Clinton.

Clinton, NYTimes, CNN -- they're nothing but cowards, circle jerking to the drum beat of radical liberalism.

You know, after I read the book and found out that it was being made into a movie, I said to myself "There isn't a single movie reviewer who will like this film.  It will show soldiers - American soldiers - doing what armies do in actual combat:  kill everything that opposes them.  It will show the bonds between men in the military, and the fact that when the SHTF, these guys do what is necessary to survive and keep their friends alive and FVCK political correctness.  

"Unless, of course, the film-makers make a love story out of it."

LA times love it, so did USA today.  As far as NY, the magazine New Yorker like the movie.  Most of all, I love the movie.

Let's Face it, What these lefty B*stards wanted in this Movie was three things.
1. Show how poor helpless starving villagers were terrorized by the U.S.
2. Show that the Military is a tool of imperialism and racism
3. Show that American soldiers are killers.
This is the formula that Hollywood applies to Every war movie, to varying degree. It is all B.S. but that does not stop Hollywood. Here is two examples of what I'm talking about.
Ex.1 Platoon-American soldiers  murder civilians, and each other.
Ex. 2 Private Ryan-American Soldiers shot unarmed Germans trying to surrender.
CNN LOVES this stuff why else would they have run fake stories about SOG teams killing American defectors in Vietnam.
This list goes on and on. How ever this Movie BHD did not follow the trend and Captured the true spirt of the American fighting man. This thumbing of the nose at this movie by the left-wing media makes me want to see again even more.

JerrY
_________________________________
"That depends on what your definition of what "IS" is"

Well said gentlemen. I was going to post a reply on what I felt, but everyone has hit on it already. It's truly sad that these journalists feel this way.

I'll just leave you with words from one of the greatest generals ever...

"The bilious bastards who wrote that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post (in this case CNN) don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fucking."

General George S. Patton

That says it all.

I don't give a flying damn what CNN, or any other media outlet thinks about the film. I read the book and enjoyed it. The book was intense also, I suppose the reviewer didn't bother to read it.

Anyway Paul Tatara can kiss my ass and make it a love story, he'd probably like that better.

I plan to see the movie when its released, and maybe just because asshole CNN doesn't like it, maybe I'll see it twice.

The two initial Steven Seagal movies Marked for Death & Hard to Kill was not even reviewed and generally ignored by the mainstream news media because these folks hate people who are self-reliant, mascaline, macho, etc.  The values the liberal/news media people favor the negoiator/compromiser, and that many subjects are too complicated for ordinary mortals to comprehend and so they need an "expert" to show them the way.  These two movies developed such a huge ground swell of following by "word of mouth" that they couldn't ignored subsequent movies anymore.

i wouldnt expect a bunch of pussies to like BHD