Technically magnificent, but otherwise lacking.

Rating: Null/10 (4 February 2003)

It's funny how a film like this can provoke such aggressively political critiques; it isn't a particularly political film, after all. Yes, you could argue that it has propagandist tendencies, but that is just a hazard of the genre, even with the most well-meaning films. Yes, the emphasis on 19 American dead seems rather disproportionate to the 1000-odd Somali dead; but then, the film is the story of the US soldiers, not the Somalis. It is told from a Western perspective, and it is entirely natural that the story - which is in any case an adaptation of a book - should focus on the US forces. Critics with an anti-American agenda should perhaps note that not only did an Englishman direct this film, but it features two Scots, a Welshman and a couple of Kiwis in significant roles as US servicemen.
One of the primary intentions of this film appears to be to relate events as they happened. That is, the film is not about what is good, or what is bad, but simply what IS - was, I should say. In this the film appears to be reasonably succesful, conveying the chaos of modern battle in a way that I can imagine is very realistic. (Not that I'd know.)
This does not excuse the film's many flaws. I shuddered a little when I saw Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore and Ewen Bremner all together again - not that any of these three is an unwelcome presence on screen, far from it - but rather that I was immediately reminded of Pearl Harbour - a film which presents the viewer with an operatic mythologising of warfare and real events, comparisons with which Black Hawk Down would truly be best served by avoiding.
This was not helped by moments such as when a soldier rips a cast from his arm in hyper-macho fashion, or when a dying soldier actually says 'Tell my mom I done ma best', or words unbearably similar to that old cliche. These may well be real for all I know, but in the context of a film which has pretensions to seriousness, they simply feel crude and obvious.
I actually went into this film expecting to enjoy it - I enjoyed nonsense like Pearl Harbour, and my expectations of a Bruckheimer film had led me to believe that whatever its flaws I could enjoy BHD. Tragically, BHD commits the greatest sin for an action film - it isn't actually very exciting. This strikes me as a terrible shame as the story really is a gripping one, and a BBC documentary of a few years ago conveyed this very well. However, the battle scenes in this film are, if anything, almost too routine. As an exercise in verisimilitude it is a technical feat to behold; and yet, there is a feeling of detachment from the events. Perhaps it's the blandness of the characters, perhaps because they're TOO real, but there's a feeling of general anonymity about this bunch of bald guys that I haven't really felt in a cast since Alien 3. Only Eric Bana really is memorable as the quiet soldier who demonstrably knows his job.
And what does the film actually give us in its discussion of war (if discussion it is)? There is a good moment concerning an accidental shooting, another concerning the simple bad luck that can befall a soldier before he even sees battle, and an appropriately horrible scene with a wounded soldier... but these are perfunctory and even that last is undercut by the dialogue which is stilted and cliched.
I suppose ultimately this film provokes indifference in me. It's difficult to enjoy as an action movie because it's too serious. It's difficult to appreciate as a 'serious' war movie because it's not quite serious enough. If anything, it's like playing a computer game... and that's not the feeling I would like a film about armed conflict to provoke in me.