Unoriginal depiction of blood-and-guts combat doesn't tell the full story

Rating: Null/10 (11 November 2002)

Let's face it, Jerry Bruckheimer's films about military life are not known for being accurate or innovative--note Top Gun, Crimson Tide, and of course the syndicated tv show Special Ops Force. Ridley Scott's GI Jane and Gladiator haven't been much better. Hence, Black Hawk Down's saturation with cowboy imagery and gung-ho catchphrases can be expected. What viewers might find disappointing is that all of the lessons taught by the Battle of Mogadishu, most importantly our failure to learn from the past, end up taking a back seat to appropriate but overemphasized gory footage. When General Thomas Montgomery (whose name is not mentioned in the film) is denied by Washington the sufficient resources to enact this mission, does he risk angering the top brass by refusing to accept supervisory responsibility unless his demands are met?? Of course not. Instead, Ranger Task Force Leader General Garrison is ordered to send troops into harm's way from the safety of an office bunker. Critics of this "going along to get along" trend also consider it to have seriously undermined our efforts in the Vietnam War. Even if we can forgive that, why does the film neither mention the previous seven missions in Somalia conducted by Garrison nor explain that they were all identical, giving the enemy plenty of insight to our methods? If the writers didn't want to be political or point fingers, maybe they should have just constructed an entirely fictional street battle. Instead, they decidied to present an incomplete picture of what happened on 10/3/93.