The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
After I had sat down with my watered down coke and cardboard popcorn and the film started, my first thought was Hanz Zimmer. Although this guy does make ace music, he hasn’t changed it for 3 films now! Gladiator, M:I-2 and now this have all been pretty much the same. When you can tell it’s him from the first note, then something’s a bit TOO similar. Anyway, the music is still good (just like it was it Gladiator) but that’s all I’ll say about it. Onto the film itself......
And in particular, the acting. Tom Sizemore was by far and away the best and since there wasn’t a main character as such, Mr. Hartnett didn’t get as much screen time as I expected to him to, which can only be a good thing. Still, when he was on screen, he was no where near as annoying as he was in Pearl Harbor. William Fichtner, for perhaps the first time in his life, didn’t play a retard and I could actually take him seriously, and Ewan McGregor hid his Scottish accent very well in all but one scene (where it appears he made no effort at all to sound American). There were a few other people I knew too including Spud from Trainspotting. I can’t say he really impressed me too much though. I think he was supposed to be the comic relief, but he just wasn’t funny. Oh and I spotted Orlando Bloom in there too.
And also, Jerry Bruckheimer’s seaming mission to make everything he touches corny beyond words, has been almost flushed out completely. I say almost because there are 3 corny moments. One near the end involving rangers running in slow motion whilst Somalians cheer *cringes*. One right at the end involving a voice over. And one being a “tell my parents I love them”, “no you can tell them yourself” moment. Trust me, that is good for a Bruckheimer production.
The film was based around real events that took place in Somalia in 1993 (can’t say I remember but I suppose I would have only been……ooooh……7?) where American Rangers were caught in the middle of a hostile city when their mission goes a bit wrong. The whole film is about groups of the rangers trying to get out and although this sometimes slightly drags on a little, most of the fighting and indeed, most of the scenes on the whole are very enjoyable to watch. However, there are a few pretty sick bits. Probably the worst of which, sees a man’s leg wound being held open whilst another man fumbles around inside the leg looking for an artery.
The shooting scenes are brilliant and they reminded me a lot of Rainbow Six, and thankfully there aren’t any slow motion parts with corny music playing. That would have been a shame, but Ridley Scott is too much of the man to have done that. :-D
Overall, Black Hawk Down was total quality. It did run on a bit when I was in the cinema but it seems really good now, and I want to see it again. So I will. And I recommend it to any one else too. Once again, Ridley Scott has shown that he is the absolute daddy when it comes to making films.
And in particular, the acting. Tom Sizemore was by far and away the best and since there wasn’t a main character as such, Mr. Hartnett didn’t get as much screen time as I expected to him to, which can only be a good thing. Still, when he was on screen, he was no where near as annoying as he was in Pearl Harbor. William Fichtner, for perhaps the first time in his life, didn’t play a retard and I could actually take him seriously, and Ewan McGregor hid his Scottish accent very well in all but one scene (where it appears he made no effort at all to sound American). There were a few other people I knew too including Spud from Trainspotting. I can’t say he really impressed me too much though. I think he was supposed to be the comic relief, but he just wasn’t funny. Oh and I spotted Orlando Bloom in there too.
And also, Jerry Bruckheimer’s seaming mission to make everything he touches corny beyond words, has been almost flushed out completely. I say almost because there are 3 corny moments. One near the end involving rangers running in slow motion whilst Somalians cheer *cringes*. One right at the end involving a voice over. And one being a “tell my parents I love them”, “no you can tell them yourself” moment. Trust me, that is good for a Bruckheimer production.
The film was based around real events that took place in Somalia in 1993 (can’t say I remember but I suppose I would have only been……ooooh……7?) where American Rangers were caught in the middle of a hostile city when their mission goes a bit wrong. The whole film is about groups of the rangers trying to get out and although this sometimes slightly drags on a little, most of the fighting and indeed, most of the scenes on the whole are very enjoyable to watch. However, there are a few pretty sick bits. Probably the worst of which, sees a man’s leg wound being held open whilst another man fumbles around inside the leg looking for an artery.
The shooting scenes are brilliant and they reminded me a lot of Rainbow Six, and thankfully there aren’t any slow motion parts with corny music playing. That would have been a shame, but Ridley Scott is too much of the man to have done that. :-D
Overall, Black Hawk Down was total quality. It did run on a bit when I was in the cinema but it seems really good now, and I want to see it again. So I will. And I recommend it to any one else too. Once again, Ridley Scott has shown that he is the absolute daddy when it comes to making films.
After I had sat down with my watered down coke and cardboard popcorn and the film started, my first thought was Hanz Zimmer. Although this guy does make ace music, he hasn’t changed it for 3 films now! Gladiator, M:I-2 and now this have all been pretty much the same. When you can tell it’s him from the first note, then something’s a bit TOO similar. Anyway, the music is still good (just like it was it Gladiator) but that’s all I’ll say about it. Onto the film itself......
And in particular, the acting. Tom Sizemore was by far and away the best and since there wasn’t a main character as such, Mr. Hartnett didn’t get as much screen time as I expected to him to, which can only be a good thing. Still, when he was on screen, he was no where near as annoying as he was in Pearl Harbor. William Fichtner, for perhaps the first time in his life, didn’t play a retard and I could actually take him seriously, and Ewan McGregor hid his Scottish accent very well in all but one scene (where it appears he made no effort at all to sound American). There were a few other people I knew too including Spud from Trainspotting. I can’t say he really impressed me too much though. I think he was supposed to be the comic relief, but he just wasn’t funny. Oh and I spotted Orlando Bloom in there too.
And also, Jerry Bruckheimer’s seaming mission to make everything he touches corny beyond words, has been almost flushed out completely. I say almost because there are 3 corny moments. One near the end involving rangers running in slow motion whilst Somalians cheer *cringes*. One right at the end involving a voice over. And one being a “tell my parents I love them”, “no you can tell them yourself” moment. Trust me, that is good for a Bruckheimer production.
The film was based around real events that took place in Somalia in 1993 (can’t say I remember but I suppose I would have only been……ooooh……7?) where American Rangers were caught in the middle of a hostile city when their mission goes a bit wrong. The whole film is about groups of the rangers trying to get out and although this sometimes slightly drags on a little, most of the fighting and indeed, most of the scenes on the whole are very enjoyable to watch. However, there are a few pretty sick bits. Probably the worst of which, sees a man’s leg wound being held open whilst another man fumbles around inside the leg looking for an artery.
The shooting scenes are brilliant and they reminded me a lot of Rainbow Six, and thankfully there aren’t any slow motion parts with corny music playing. That would have been a shame, but Ridley Scott is too much of the man to have done that. :-D
Overall, Black Hawk Down was total quality. It did run on a bit when I was in the cinema but it seems really good now, and I want to see it again. So I will. And I recommend it to any one else too. Once again, Ridley Scott has shown that he is the absolute daddy when it comes to making films.
And in particular, the acting. Tom Sizemore was by far and away the best and since there wasn’t a main character as such, Mr. Hartnett didn’t get as much screen time as I expected to him to, which can only be a good thing. Still, when he was on screen, he was no where near as annoying as he was in Pearl Harbor. William Fichtner, for perhaps the first time in his life, didn’t play a retard and I could actually take him seriously, and Ewan McGregor hid his Scottish accent very well in all but one scene (where it appears he made no effort at all to sound American). There were a few other people I knew too including Spud from Trainspotting. I can’t say he really impressed me too much though. I think he was supposed to be the comic relief, but he just wasn’t funny. Oh and I spotted Orlando Bloom in there too.
And also, Jerry Bruckheimer’s seaming mission to make everything he touches corny beyond words, has been almost flushed out completely. I say almost because there are 3 corny moments. One near the end involving rangers running in slow motion whilst Somalians cheer *cringes*. One right at the end involving a voice over. And one being a “tell my parents I love them”, “no you can tell them yourself” moment. Trust me, that is good for a Bruckheimer production.
The film was based around real events that took place in Somalia in 1993 (can’t say I remember but I suppose I would have only been……ooooh……7?) where American Rangers were caught in the middle of a hostile city when their mission goes a bit wrong. The whole film is about groups of the rangers trying to get out and although this sometimes slightly drags on a little, most of the fighting and indeed, most of the scenes on the whole are very enjoyable to watch. However, there are a few pretty sick bits. Probably the worst of which, sees a man’s leg wound being held open whilst another man fumbles around inside the leg looking for an artery.
The shooting scenes are brilliant and they reminded me a lot of Rainbow Six, and thankfully there aren’t any slow motion parts with corny music playing. That would have been a shame, but Ridley Scott is too much of the man to have done that. :-D
Overall, Black Hawk Down was total quality. It did run on a bit when I was in the cinema but it seems really good now, and I want to see it again. So I will. And I recommend it to any one else too. Once again, Ridley Scott has shown that he is the absolute daddy when it comes to making films.
Do you want to repeat that in a used language?
It would help. :-D
It would help. :-D
that is a film i am going to see in the very near future. they changed the ending though didnt they?
Ridley Scott is a great director, I really like Enemy of The State. Its a bit of a weird partnership though, Scott and Bruckheimer, hope it works. I haven't had a chance to judge for myself yet, but hopefully will do in the next couple of weeks.
Oh poo, i'm sorry i didn't see this B.H.D forum until i'd written mine, sorry.
How long is Orlando Bloom in it for? I'd heard he was just an extra.
The GingerLord wrote:
> Ridley Scott is a great director, I really like Enemy of The State. Its a bit of
> a weird partnership though, Scott and Bruckheimer, hope it works. I haven't had
> a chance to judge for myself yet, but hopefully will do in the next couple of
> weeks.
Okay, you are right saying that Ridley Scott is an excellent director but you appear a bit confused. He didn't direct Enemy of the State. That was Toni Scott.
And Gaz, Orlando "what a name" Bloom isn't in it too long but he is more than just an extra. Strange thing is, I thought he was somebody else first of all but then later, when he actually came on screen, I realised it was him. I didn't even know he was in it so mistaking him for somebody else first is quite a coincedence. :-D
> Ridley Scott is a great director, I really like Enemy of The State. Its a bit of
> a weird partnership though, Scott and Bruckheimer, hope it works. I haven't had
> a chance to judge for myself yet, but hopefully will do in the next couple of
> weeks.
Okay, you are right saying that Ridley Scott is an excellent director but you appear a bit confused. He didn't direct Enemy of the State. That was Toni Scott.
And Gaz, Orlando "what a name" Bloom isn't in it too long but he is more than just an extra. Strange thing is, I thought he was somebody else first of all but then later, when he actually came on screen, I realised it was him. I didn't even know he was in it so mistaking him for somebody else first is quite a coincedence. :-D
As i sat down in my comfortable cinema seat with popcorn in one hand and a bottle of Fanta in the other i was wondering if i should of been there at all?
I read and saw alot of reviews on T.V. and in magazines, i saw the adverts and listened to the reviews on the radio before hand, and they all seemed to be about the action rather than the story. Even though i love action movies, it sounded like there was no plot, like it was another all action war film about the US entering a foreign country and succeding again. At the beginning of the film there is about 5 minutes of uninteresting talking which suggests whats going on and what the US military are hoping to do. This is giving away the whole story and you start thinking to yourself is it worth it. Some people, like me, are even seen trying to keep their self awake.
There was also alot of mixed opinions which led me to believe that if you weren't the right kind of person then you would find the film boring.
I went with some friends ( me not being a person with no friends), and i found that what i had heard was true. We all had mixed opinions about the film. Some of us thought it was a brillient film with the best action scenes around at the moment, and i was one of them. I thought it was a classic film, and NO you won't get better action scenes anywhere else. It had the lot, a bunch of skinys that went mad when they saw US military soldiers, and a large group of Americans that always think that they will win and save the day. But then again, i went over the story and what some of my other friends were saying was also true. There was no story, the events repeated themselves time and time again and when soldiers are on there on in no mans land they all seem to run out of ammo really quickly or never get hit. The film just didn't seem realistic enough for me.
Some would say it was a waste of money, but others would go and see it again. Are war films of today all the same or are the writers going to come up with some way of making a war film different other than one big missiles killing most of the opposition and men that are on their own, surrounded by enemys running out of ammo quickly then surviving because one of the officers of the other side intervenes and they end up being released a year later?
Maybe that could be a new discussion topic. NEW IDEAS FOR A MORE REALISTIC WAR MOVIE!
Black Hawk Down - a good movie or not?
Personlly, i can't really deside.
I read and saw alot of reviews on T.V. and in magazines, i saw the adverts and listened to the reviews on the radio before hand, and they all seemed to be about the action rather than the story. Even though i love action movies, it sounded like there was no plot, like it was another all action war film about the US entering a foreign country and succeding again. At the beginning of the film there is about 5 minutes of uninteresting talking which suggests whats going on and what the US military are hoping to do. This is giving away the whole story and you start thinking to yourself is it worth it. Some people, like me, are even seen trying to keep their self awake.
There was also alot of mixed opinions which led me to believe that if you weren't the right kind of person then you would find the film boring.
I went with some friends ( me not being a person with no friends), and i found that what i had heard was true. We all had mixed opinions about the film. Some of us thought it was a brillient film with the best action scenes around at the moment, and i was one of them. I thought it was a classic film, and NO you won't get better action scenes anywhere else. It had the lot, a bunch of skinys that went mad when they saw US military soldiers, and a large group of Americans that always think that they will win and save the day. But then again, i went over the story and what some of my other friends were saying was also true. There was no story, the events repeated themselves time and time again and when soldiers are on there on in no mans land they all seem to run out of ammo really quickly or never get hit. The film just didn't seem realistic enough for me.
Some would say it was a waste of money, but others would go and see it again. Are war films of today all the same or are the writers going to come up with some way of making a war film different other than one big missiles killing most of the opposition and men that are on their own, surrounded by enemys running out of ammo quickly then surviving because one of the officers of the other side intervenes and they end up being released a year later?
Maybe that could be a new discussion topic. NEW IDEAS FOR A MORE REALISTIC WAR MOVIE!
Black Hawk Down - a good movie or not?
Personlly, i can't really deside.