Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 12/29/2001 4:00:21 AM EST
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."
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 4:01:03 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 4:17:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:37:13 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:41:21 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:41:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:43:40 AM EST
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."
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:50:42 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 11:10:31 AM EST
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"
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 11:49:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 12:51:03 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 1:02:55 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 1:38:25 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 4:01:06 PM EST
i wouldnt expect a bunch of pussies to like BHD
Top Top