It does what it intended to do and does it well.

Rating: 7/10 (2 March 2017)

This film, which is about a controversial battle during the Clinton presidency, does not set out to cast aspersions on said presidency. Rather, it focuses on the battle, the men who fought in it, and the battle's futility.
In this sense the movie is anti-war. The battle itself makes the viewer uncomfortable and nauseous, that being the intention of the film. However, unlike many war films that routinely castigate some or all of the participants of these fruitless skirmishes, "Black Hawk Down" rather treats the men who fought and died in Mogadishu with respect. Each man has a little humanity given to him. When some of these men die, an emotional connection is felt, even if it's fleeting.
It becomes a problem, however, when the sheer number of characters you need to sympathize with before they are killed or otherwise incapacitated in the battle is something like ten or so characters. Add on another ten or so characters who survive the battle or are merely observing it, and the problem runs deeper. Even though I have now seen this film in the vicinity of thirty times, I still have trouble remembering who is who during the heat of battle and what they are doing and where they are going. Although I now know most of the actors who appear in this film, when I first watched the film I had no idea how to tell one apart from the other aside from their locations (in the city, in the helicopters, back at the base). I believe much of that problem stems from the fact that "Black Hawk Down" has a run time of nearly two and a half hours, which is not short, but the battle takes up so much of that time (at least two-thirds of the film) that any character who gets screen time (and most of them get a bit) is given so little in any meaningful way. If one wishes to give these characters the proper amount of screen time before all goes to hell, one ought to opt for a longer film, provided the director can sustain interest in a film surpassing two and a half hours.
I can say, however, that the inadequate screen time afforded most of the actors here is essentially my only gripe with this movie. It's a somewhat big gripe, but it does not ruin the movie for me. In any case, I would rather have some humanity given these characters than have no humanity whatsoever.
Everything else in this movie is at least up to snuff. All of the actors do fine and give their characters some of that needed humanity where they can, especially during the battle. There is no stand-out performance here, but I feel that is unnecessary here as the actors get the same amount of screen time for the most part (with Josh Hartnett as the de facto lead having the most by only a bit). This helps the viewer see all of the men as equal and as equally likely to die during the skirmish, which ratchets up the tension.
The music bolsters the emotional basis of the movie without overpowering it in the process. Since Hans Zimmer sometimes does exactly that, it is fortunate that he does not do so for this movie, especially during the death scenes.
The best part of the film, however, is the battle itself. While it seems strange to recommend a movie that seems anti-war for the warlike portions, the battle is, in a sense, the main character of the movie. It is never treated as a good thing, but it is treated with wary respect. The sound, the look, the feel, "Black Hawk Down"'s battle gets everything correct in the technical department. The special effects and sound design people deserve all the praise heaped upon them for creating an engrossing and sometimes squirm-inducing battle.
The emotional basis of the battle never devolves into the equivalent of a patriotic march. It instead displays a fraternal kinship amongst the soldiers as they are battered, shot, and sometimes torn into pieces. The phrase "No man is left behind" or a variation thereof is bandied about with frequency. Also, as Hoot (Eric Bana) says near the end of the movie: "They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand it's about the men next to you. And that's it." This, I believe, is why the film was made. I don't believe there exist many anti-war films that decry the nature of war without also denigrating the soldiers involved in the wars, nor do I believe there exist many pro-war films that don't lapse well into jingoism. (If someone wishes to prove me wrong, please let me know.) Ridley Scott instead, in my view, takes the nuanced position of being against war while understanding the struggles and hardships the men endure and why they do this. I appreciate this greatly, especially coming from a Hollywood movie. It is the main reason I love this film.
All in all, this is a fine technical achievement with a frequently overlooked message as its beating heart that, while not given its full due here, deserves more notice.