The hypocrisy...!

Rating: 2/10 (30 July 2002)

Not just of the movie, but also of its defenders.
"Save your political commentary for another website," says one reviewer, who goes on to add, "Don't dishonor the memory of those who fought and died in an attempt to stop bloodshed and starvation among the Somalis" and "the personnel of our armed forces secure our freedom day in and day out" and "I'm grateful to our soldiers that have sacrificed for our nation so that I can type these words". (I presume this last reference is to the US soldiers who fought in the Second World War, rather than the ones who fought in Somalia, but you never can tell with someone who believes with apparent sincerity that the United States army is securing "our" freedom "day in and day out".)
Actually, political commentary (yes, even the sort of stuff quoted above) IS appropriate here. This is a movie that opens with the words "based on an actual event" followed by a series of statements that purport to give an accurate history of what had been going on in Somalia at the time of the events the movie depicts. It closes with a statement of fact and a list of names. It's a hybrid work, NOT pure fiction, and not automatically immune to charges of inaccuracy in the way that pure works of fiction (like "Star Wars") are. Some charges of inaccuracy (or confirmations of accuracy) will take the form of "political commentary". There is just no way around this.
One can't even say, in defence of the film, that we should ignore its documentary pretensions and enjoy it as if it were a work of pure fiction. It can't be so enjoyed. Almost all of the footage is in the form of a music video montage of gore, explosions and rushings to and fro; if this were a movie about an imaginary war between two made-up countries, nobody would give it the time of day. (Contrast this with something like "The Bridge on the River Kwai", which is further removed from reality, but less likely to deceive - and in addition, thoughtful, imaginative, even-handed, suspenseful, well crafted, etc.)
By the way, my impression is that the majority of people here who object to the film on the grounds that it's deceitful have not only read the book, they object to the film BECAUSE they've read the book. That's because the book was written in an honest attempt to enlighten its readers and tell the truth, while the film was a flimsy excuse for two hours of cool-looking (in a Ridley-Scottish kind of way) war porn.
Also by the way: if speaking the truth about America's involvement in Somalia involves "dishonouring" American soldiers who fought there - not that I have a clear idea what this word means - well, tough luck; we should speak the truth anyway.