Ridley Scott + Jerry Bruckheimer: a so-so war movie

Rating: 5/10 (12 March 2005)

The third movie made by Ridley Scott in less than two years after "Gladiator" (2000) and "Hannibal" (2001), "Black Hawk Down" is a movie too much for him just like it's a movie too much in the genre of the war movie. Yes, I know it enjoys a very good mark on this site (7.6 out of 10) but I don't think it is fully justified and by writing a very mixed review about this movie, I will surely provoke an angry response from its admirers.
I think I know why the director was interested by the presented topic which is besides a true story: the critical situation of an American army who after a failed military operation finds herself besieged in a town full of Somalians armed to the teeth. Scott attempted to make this tragic episode authentic and for this he doesn't pull his punches. It's true that visually and technically his making is breath-taking. The dramatic evolution of the conflict, the shooting and fight sequences are carefully shot with style. The thread of the story is perceived by several bunches of soldiers but we are never out of one's depth. Moreover, the film-maker depicts with a very straightforward and gritty way à la "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), atrocities of war. The film includes quite a lot of shots with bloody faces or ripped bodies which are difficult to forget.
"Saving Private Ryan" showed similar horrors during its first half an hour. "Black Hawk Down" stretches them during about an hour and a half (only the beginning is devoted to the introduction of the most important characters and to the careful preparations of the operation) and this is where things go wrong. Scott wants to impress and insist on the tragic nature of the war. But by constantly climbing in violence and opting for (very) realism, "Black Hawk Down" gradually becomes monotonous to watch. Sometimes, one can feel that the machine turns without gripping and the whole is lackluster. Ultimately, you are never really touched by the hardness of the fights and the soldiers' distress causes more indifference than sympathy.
If Scott's making is awesome (in spite of the reserves we can have about it), one can't say the same thing for a repetitive screenplay which tends to fray throughout the movie. It tries hard not to keep turning over the eternal clichés about war (and for once, they aren't too overwhelming). But it is overall weak for other reasons. For example, the dramatic extent of the conflict is always perceived from the Americans' point of view. In front of them, the Somalians always seem to be distant. We virtually don't know what they think or feel. They just keep on fighting against their adversaries. In another extent, some characteristics of the script testify the producer Jerry Bruckheimer's signature like dominating patriotic feelings but also a salutary image from the USA eager to put an end to Aidid's dictatorship in Somalia and for this don't think twice before directly intervening in the country.
There aren't big surprises at the level of the cast. It's just an adequate and tailor-made casting with actors accustomed to act in action or war movies like Tom Sizemore or William Fichtner. For them, it's business as usual and they act military characters like the ones we can imagine. However, one can't say that there's a sole main character but several which brings a little of credibility and neutrality in the story.
Overrall, if we could compare "Black Hawk Down" to a present, this is how it could be presented: the wrapping is alluring but what the box contains is hollow. We just retain Scott's spectacular making and the bloody effects. And for Bruckheimer, it's just potboiler for him.