I might have enjoyed it if it wasn't for that damn American flag that was waving in front of the picture.

Rating: 3/10 (22 February 2002)

**WARNING**SPOILERS**
Riddley Scott again baffles me with his new film Black Hawk Down. Scott has shown time and again that he is an extremely talented filmmaker and director. Alien and Bladerunner are masterpieces of the science fiction genre, and in each of his other films (including Thelma & Louise, Hannibal and Gladiator) his expertise as a director shine through. But, and this is a very big but, his choice of subject matter is rather baffling and disappointing. For example, Hannibal although very interesting in that it is an attempt to bring a form of opera-style story to the big-screen, fails to do justice to the original. Gladiator effectively revived the epic genre. However, Hannibal and Gladiator fail in that they have thin plots and, dare I say, seem very corny at times. This isn't necessarily Scott's fault (no it is the writers fault), but a defining characteristic of a brilliant director is their choice of films (such as Lynch or Kubrick).
Black Hawk Down is another example of Scott's poor judgement. It is a very simple story made very complicated by a large number of characters that look alike. In essence, the story is so: it is 1992 in Somalia where the U.N. (lead by the U.S military) try to `help' the starving Somalian civilian population by preventing local warlords from controlling the food supply. Hence, the U.S decide that the best method to achieve such an objective is by using their military might to arrest the leaders of the local militia. A plan is conceived but the practical outcomes are disastrous. Some, or should I say a lot of the Somalians didn't like the American's actions and they fight back. A Black Hawk helicopter crashes, the ground forces get stranded and separated, and rescue missions become difficult as resistance continues.

Scott probably chose this movie to show off his skill behind the camera, and admittedly it is impressive. The urban battle sequences are first-rate (if you like that sort of thing); this was helped by the fact he had a whopping eight camera's to use for each scene. The result is we, the audience, are placed in the middle of the horror of urban warfare. This is an admirable achievement.
However, Black Hawk Down has many traits that are less than admirable and even offensive. Principally, the sickening American patriotism was distracting, which completely ruined the movie. A laughable and ludicrous example is when the last of the soldier's get back to safety and the locals applaud them. Additionally offensive is the final listing of the 19 killed U.S soldiers while only mentioning on the side that over 1000 Somalians were killed while not even attempting to name any of the Somalian victims. The movie ventures close to the borderline of racism: I almost left the cinema when the Somalian implied that the gun is their way of life; and why is there only one token African American in this movie? All of these factors utterly destroy this film as an intelligent remaking of an historical event.

So why does Riddley Scott, who I have to assume is an intelligent person since he can be talented as a director, choose such stupid movies? Is it money? A probable answer, you can't help but wonder about the timing of this film so soon after the tragic incident of September 11 and the distressing actions by the U.S government (and its military) consequently following. Or is he so stupid that he believes in what he makes? I hope not.
3/10, 3 marks for Scott's skill as a director.