SAVE $15.96 - Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray] $12.99
![SAVE $15.96 - Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray] $12.99](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51o1MCFX8XL._SL160_SS150_.jpg "SAVE $15.96 - Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray] $12.99")
Price: $28.95 Now: $12.99 You save: $15.96
Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down conveys the raw, chaotic urgency of ground-force battle in a worst-case scenario. With exacting detail, the film re-creates the American siege of the Somalian city of Mogadishu in October 1993, when a 45-minute mission turned into a 16-hour ordeal of bloody urban warfare. Helicopter-borne U.S. Rangers were assigned to capture key lieutenants of Somali warlord Muhammad Farrah Aidid, but when two Black Hawk choppers were felled by rocket-propelled grenades, the U.S. soldiers were forced to fend for themselves in the battle-torn streets of Mogadishu, attacked from all sides by armed Aidid supporters. Based on author Mark Bowden's bestselling account of the battle, Scott's riveting, action-packed film follows a sharp ensemble cast in some of the most authentic battle sequences ever filmed. The loss of 18 soldiers turned American opinion against further involvement in Somalia, but Black Hawk Down makes it clear that the men involved were undeniably heroic. --Jeff Shannon
Shop Now »»
Permalink: dealnay.com/14469
Last updated: October 17, 2009, 4:35 am
Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray] Cusomter reviews:
Average Rating: 4.0 Total Reviews: 1040
(drkhimxz, 2009-10-05) No actor stands out here; any variation in character or performance is masked by the uniforms, the nature of the action and its consequences on the men. Pretty much what infantry combat is all about, differences merged in a uniform terror, heroism, instinct for self preservation, incredible feats of bravery, and all submerged in the din and smoke of combat. One of the reasons for inequality of rewards for effort is that it is almost impossible to know who is doing what with whose help. The flavor comes through in the film. Impressive is the fact that it conveys, knowingly, I assume, the confusion, the lack of accurate information, the unpredictability, the disjuncture between the orders of the highest level and the needs for behavior at the lowest levels where death, maiming and psychic distress are the natural outcomes of infantry combat. If one steps back to look at the larger perspective within which this mission took place, you may form your own opinion about the event, the film, to a remarkable extent does not. Whatever ones broader view of the place this sort of action plays in the life of nations, one should remember that no period of human history has been free of such social behavior while the century just past may have set the record for sheer brutality and certainly did set the record for the number who fell as combatants in war, magnified partly because in modern warfare there is no longer a distinction between military and civilian when it comes to being killed and injured, only a distinction, increasingly blurred, between those who are killed and also kill, and those who are killed but do not kill others directly.
(Curt Remmel, 2009-10-03) Every review of this movie that has given it any less than an 8 has been filled with one of two things--a) exaggerating the sometimes poor quality, or b) talking about how great this could have been if it had instead given more thought to the politics involved. To both I must say a grain of salt and a pattern of objectivism is needed to appreciate just how good this movie is. I saw it expecting a decent action film, because Ridley is a great action director, but came out feeling utterly overwhelmed because this movie is the epitome of recounting a battle in its horrifying, realistic sense. The dialogue is somewhat poor. At the end of the film in Hartnett (I think it was him)'s last monologue, especially, people have complained of the lame simplicity and gung-ho-ishness. But, I must say, having read the book for English (and everyone shoud both see this and read the book, for historical/appreciatory purposes involving the soldiers who make such valiant sacrifices) that the dialogue, while admittedly simplistic in intent and uncomfortably gung-ho; is true to the dialogue and feelings expressed by the soldiers who Bowden interviewed. Therefore, cut the bias, and recognize the realism present throughout the movie, even in dialogue. On the matter of the lack of political motivation the most obvious argument, of course, is that there is no time in the movie, and that is a good reason. Even better, and far more obvious, is that this movie is not at all about those events, as made clear in the sweet dialogue in which a Delta forcer tells Hartnett he'll be able to think about that plenty when he gets back from the battle. Even still, some symbolic stuff has been woven, things that did not happen in the battle, that works in the movie to express some of these motivations fairly well. Also, even further, the book did not occupy itself with these motivations much, either, and fittingly so. For, this movie is about the battle, and does a damn good job of presenting it, but that is so obvious I need not talk of it. On the biggest qualm people have had with this movie--lack of character development--I, too, felt a certain amount of lack in this. While I have yet to see Saving Private Ryan, I understand how getting to know the characters even further in this film might have served to its advantage. To that problem, the answer lies in a couple of sources. On the matter of editing, this film does a great job, I think, of focusing on the battle at just a long enought time for the events in it (this is after reading the book, mind you, so mock me if you want for that bias). They are especially hard to express because of the totally chaotic nature of the battle, but the movie did as well as the book (which was perfect) within its own timeframe. Which comes to the answer, which is, that having more character development would either a) make the movie too long or b) have to take away some of the events from the battle. A few of the important parts of the battle are not included in the movie, even, so removing any more would take away from the battle even farther. Also, the other thing, is that by not including as much the soldiers become more of a unit helping eachother, sometimes as individuals, creating even further the feeling of responsibility to this unit. IMHO. Now that I am done rambling about people having biases, all I have left is to say that this movie is perfectly directed and cinemated (not a word) and acted for what it is--a recounting of modern warfare. It is as intense and realistic as movies can go for that objective. The biggest problem is in the sometimes weak dialogue, and it is not only easily forgiven, but somewhat fitting for the people who speak the words. Everyone should see it for that reason (unless you have a weak stomach) and also for the historical fact of the matter.
(S. Ford, 2009-09-29) I was suprised at the digital quality of this movie considering it was made about 6 years ago. If you enjoyed this movie before, you will love this in Blu ray.
(Marvin Gozum, 2009-09-14) There are a plethora of reviews of the movie, but my review is mostly a comparison of the BD vs DVD version. The DVD version was quite good, but the BD version is great. Its audio does not have the imaging of HBO's Band of Brothers, but its still a good use of a wider sound stage with sound quality FAR above DVD. The BD transfer still has the grain and high contrast that was how the movie was shot. However, the details are far sharper and clearer, so many of the background elements have more detail given the higher quality of BD. The greater details make snafus much clearer: in the final scene of Durant's downed chopper, the same assaulting Somali rebels are seen attacking and are killed twice in 2 separate attacks; in the end where Hartnett is reviewing fallen comrades in the morgue, one of the bodies starts moving his eyeballs; in many scenes direct lines of site are made with weapons pointing at targets and despite a hail of gunfire, nothing is hit nor bullets impact the area. Considering the marksmanship caliber of these troops, it was distracting. By contrast, in Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers, a view through weapons was succeeded soon by the effect of fire hitting the area viewed. Disk extras are identical to the DVD version but there is a commentary track with some living veterans of the event. The veterans suggest events on almost every other scene is less true, but they do say that the spirit and most key events are true. For example, the Durant rescue is close to true, but the depiction of what the Somali's do to the rescuers bodies are not. The General was never hands on the radio during the entire battle, and the actions on ground depicted by Hartnett's character was actually done by another officer. These veterans testimony are in stark contrast to the book author and screen writer, who suggest most of the movie depictions are factual.
(S. A. ROBBINS, 2009-09-09) This movie highlights two important things, the courage of our soldiers and the incompetence of some of our political leaders. The movie shows why our soldiers should never be put in harm's way under anyone other than our own military command. We must never again be subservient to the UN as we were here and in Kosovo. Clinton, never having served in the military had no clue as to what was required, what might be involved or the fatal result of allowing a non-caring UN command to control our soldiers.