Finally got around to this Ridley Scott war movie. I was saying the other day that Ridley Scott is underrated, but I was wrong. He's like independent coffeeshops. You're never sure what you'll get. Comparing Kubrick and Hitchcock to Starbucks seems wrong, but it's right in terms of expecting and receiving a certain level of quality. Not that Hitchcock didn't have his dogs and Kubrick was always likeable, but you can reliably count on genius. I used to include Billy Wilder with Hitchcock and Kubrick, but after seeing Seven Year Itch, I'd put him in a level with Fritz Lang and some others (Edgar Wright has slipped into this territory) just below Hitchcock and Kubrick and just above Scott.
But Ridley Scott has made some masterpieces - Blade Runner and Alien indisputably - with Thelma and Louise pretty damn close. I'm fond of White Squall, G.I. Jane, Gladiator. I like American Gangster, and Matchstick Men is fun. But Promethius, The Counselor, Body of Lies and The Martian weren't to my taste. There's the key, though. Scott is extremely versatile. If Hitchcock worked in multiple genres, maybe his canon would be less impressively consistent.
Scott is certainly capable with action, so there was a lot of good work in Black Hawk Down, though the action and decisions weren't as clear as I'd prefer. To be fair, it's hard to capture the feeling of chaos in such a situation without some confusion. But I rate the movie a 2, verging on 1, on my scale of 5) Love; 4) Like a lot; 3) Like; 2) Okay; 1) Dislike.
There were three specific reasons it failed for me: agenda, cowardice, and cast choice.
I hated the way the movie obviously softened the narrative for Garrison by having him double-check with the snipers that they knew what they were getting into before giving permission for them to insert and defend Durant at the second crash site. [Will add another issue when I remember it.]
Cowardice may be too strong a word, but I find the decision to leave out the horrific and well-known detail of dead U.S. soldiers being dragged and beaten by the mob unforgiveable in a war movie. I understand a desire to be sensitive, but reflecting man's inhumanity to man is one of the jobs of war movies. You can't just look away.
Both of those weaknesses contributed heavily to a failure to present the story in an unbiased, journalistic style, which the movie seemed to be going for.
My disappointment in the movie based on cast choice is due to one actor in an assortment of great actors. I think it's obvious Josh Hartnett was out of his league, and I wondered throughout the movie why Scott chose and kept him when his role was so important, and his weakness in it detracted so heavily from amazing performances by Eric Bana, in particular, William Fichtner, Ewan McGregor, and Tom Sizemore, who I could watch in war movies all day long. It's like Sizemore was born a soldier, whereas Hartnett doesn't get it. Why would you put a B level actor in the lead role over so many A level actors? Scott even had great actors like Jeremy Piven in small parts, but not in the lead. I don't get that. Hartnett wasn't bad, but he wasn't good, which was a waste, just like leaving out the most gruesome elements of the story. Also, how do you have a POW and end the movie without showing him being released?!
Actually, there was a fourth thing. Eric Bana gives this nice little speech near the end: "When I go home people'll ask me, 'Hey Hoot, why do you do it, man? You some kinda war junky?' You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the man next to you, and that's it. That's all it is." Which was great, but that concept, instead of being reinforced, was undone by some moments of falseness. Now, I don't know what it was like at the base, and maybe it was the way they showed it and it was that way for a reason, but I know if we had helicopters down and fellow soldiers trapped in fire fights a few miles up the road, the soldiers I worked with would not have been milling around the hangar in our t-shirts. We would have been fully suited up and ready to go on foot if necessary. They would have had to hold us back. There were also a couple times I was yelling at the screen, "Run!! What are you doing?!" The sense of urgency that comes from watching your brother and sisters' backs like Hoot was talking about is missing.
I didn't love this movie, and I wanted to, but I still love you, Ridley Scott. You've done some amazing work!
