‘Black Hawk’ Gets Thumbs Down

There are two things you need to know about “Black Hawk Down”:

1. The book was better.

2. The movie should have been.

There is a good film hidden somewhere inside Ridley Scott’s “Black Hawk Down,” an adaptation of Mark Bowden’s non-fiction bestseller, but what eventually made it to the screen is convoluted, confused and too long. “Black Hawk Down” is a textbook example of good talent going to waste and creating a film that has several powerful moments, but ultimately falls short of what it could have and should have been.

“Black Hawk Down” tells the true story of American troops in Somalia involved in a mission that goes wrong (in case the title isn’t clear enough, a black hawk helicopter got shot down). What initially started as a mission to abduct two Somali lieutenants quickly turned into a messy gunfight in which American soldiers fought to escape from the block they were attempting to secure.

The film is basically one long battle scene with a half-hour of setup preceding it. Once the fighting begins, the film becomes just violent shoot-outs with minimal interruptions. This is unfortunate, because some of the film’s strongest moments, including a scene graphically showing the removal of a bullet from a wounded soldier’s leg, occur off the field. The battle scenes quickly grow tired, yet we’re forced to suffer through almost two hours of them. The movie does have a handful of well-executed sequences, and there are some truly beautiful shots, but it’s necessary to wade through a lot of film to find the good stuff.

Perhaps the film suffered as a result of a change in release date. It was originally scheduled to come out this March, but in an effort to capitalize on post-September 11th patriotism, (and, according to producer Jerry Bruckheimer, to qualify for Oscars) the film was pushed up a few months. Perhaps a little added time would have given director Ridley Scott (“Gladiator,” “Hannibal”) a chance to fine-tune the film and waddle it down to a strong two hours rather than a slow two-and-a-half. But, as it stands, the film being released in theaters tomorrow is deeply flawed.

While some editing could rectify certain problems, there are some areas of “Black Hawk Down” that are just inherently problematic. The dialogue, for example, is self-consciously pithy; it seems like half the film’s lines try to make some sweeping statement about war and why soldiers fight, but come out sounding forced and unrealistic. The characters themselves are underdeveloped at best. While most are introduced in some detail, once they enter into battle, they’re virtually indistinguishable from one another. Talented actors such as Josh Hartnett (“O”), Ewan McGregor (“Trainspotting”) and Tom Sizemore (“Saving Private Ryan”) are given little to work with and only occasionally does the film actually seem to remember that the characters are individuals.

“Black Hawk Down” is ultimately a frustrating film. It has an important story to tell but never manages to rise above being a violent and unoriginal war film. What really should have been a fascinating cinematic examination of how a botched military engagement avoided becoming a complete travesty doesn’t live up to its source material.

While this is at least a much more noble effort than producer Jerry Bruckheimer’s “Pearl Harbor,” “Black Hawk Down” is far from a masterpiece. Perhaps someday a new cut will materialize that will rectify some of the film’s problems; Ridley Scott has been known to re-edit many of his films after their release. Some more work could turn “Black Hawk Down” into at least a solid effort, but for the time being, “Black Hawk Down” is just a missed opportunity.