 Black Hawk Down - 01/26/02I'm a huge fan of Ridley Scott's work. He's created two of the greatest science fiction films ever made (Alien, Blade Runner), worked on some of the most incredible commercials ever made (Apple) and, along with his brother, have begun producing independent films. All in all, a very respectable and talented director.In 2000, when Thomas Harris's novel Hannibal came out, I was very worried about it coming out as a movie. I hated the book. I figured that Harris had gotten so sick of the Hannibal phenomena. He's contracted to write another one... I just don't see how he'll be able to do it. When Scott had been signed on to direct Hannibal, needless to say, I was still worried. Prior to Hannibal, Scott had directed Gladiator which, while a great movie, was a period piece, and an action piece... I'm always fascinated how directors can shift genres. How Joel Schumacher can go from directing The Client to Batman III, and the such. We're talking about the sequel to a movie that won best picture, best actor, best actress, best script, best director... plus, came from a best selling novel. The movie version of Hannibal was given the greenlight waayyyy before it even came out in the book stores. This was a hit or miss project, and I just didn't think that Scott should take on such a gamble. But, in my eyes, the gamble payed off. I thought Hannibal was a brilliantly made movie, and for someone who hated the book, that's saying something. His other films are pretty incredible, to say the least. Legend, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, 1492, White Squall and G.I. Jane (which I've already forgiven him for, working with Demi Moore (shudder)). Black Hawk Down combines the precision of Scott and his abilities as a director, and Jerry Bruckheimer, who, with his late partner, produced some of the 1980's and 1990's biggest blockbusters. Here's a list:
Black Hawk Down Along with three films coming out in the next year or so:
Bad Boys 2 Now, yes, there are a few bombs in there... but his track record speaks for itself. So, we have one of Hollywood's most successful producers, and one of Hollywood's most sought after directors. We have a best selling novel from Mark Bowden, and a screenplay by Ken Nolan (first script) and veteran Steven Zaillian. First, let's start with the writing. Mark Bowden. I have yet to read the novel, but it's a testament to an operation that went awry. It's a historical biography. I'm sure it's not the first novel written about the troubles the US had in Somalia, and it won't be the last... but this novel specified the trouble that US troops had on a specific mission, detailing the fatal operation for 19 American troops. So, we have the basis of a historical military operation... and it's not to far in the past that most people (especially the movie going audience) wouldn't remember the trouble there. I think I can stop right there for a moment and say this with the utmost sincerity. There was absolutely no reason for this film to have been made. None. Seven to eight years ago, in a military operation, US soldiers were killed trying to do their jobs. Now, there are a multitude of viewpoints that one could discuss, but I'm not even going to get into a political discussion. Even though these men were doing their jobs. Even though they could be considered heroes for fighting for their country and for the lives of people halfway across the globe... I don't think it's right that they should be portrayed in a motion picture. In a documentary, for certain. But in a motion picture, in an industry thats main goal is to entertain and to make money... I don't think this is the type of film that was necessary to be produced. I'm all for educating in film, all for it... but this is kind of like when a movie is made that has to do with rape. I don't think rape is something people should make money on. It's not something I think should be in movies, and I don't think that people need to sit through 2.5 hours of US soldiers being killed, especially now. Do it in ten years. Do it when there is a whole new generation of people who could learn from it... but not now, not while we're in the middle of a terror war. This project could have sat on the shelf for a year or more, lost none of its zeal, and would have been received, in my opinion, better. But, they were worried about the oscar race, which is what executive producers do. They worry about money and bullshit awards. Steven Zaillian worked with Scott on Hannibal, back in 2001. He's also worked on The Falcon and the Snowman, Awakenings, Schindler's List, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Clear and Present Danger, Mission: Impossible and A Civil Action. He's worked on some high profile movies, and it's obvious that Scott is comfortable working with him... but having not read the book, I can only give you my opinion in that vein. The writing is ok. I think this is the type of story that writes itself. Adaptations of non-fiction are strictly a fact finding operation. Zaillian had to work fairly closely with Bowden, for a more detailed analysis of the characters and their plight. It also makes me wonder if some of the survivors were there to help with some of the action, and for continuity. There are a lot of name actors in this film. A lot of them play bit roles in other films, but are very recognizable. The bigger names are Josh Harnett, Ewan McGregor and Tom Sizemore. They were all ok... but this film is a conglomerate of every war movie I've seen. Sizemore reprized his role from Saving Private Ryan, which was, to me, a waste, because he can be a very good actor. The other two were fine, but nothing to write home about. Eric Bana (who will be starring in The Hulk, coming out in 2003), Willian Fichtner, Kim Coates, Richard Tyson, Gabriel Casseus, Jason Isaacs and Jeremy Piven round out this group of actors who have done some good work, prior to this film. Each of them is recognizable, which adds a familiarity to the movie... which is neither good nor bad... the acting of the group is well done enough, but again, you get the sense you've seen it all before. Now, don't get me wrong. Even though we have seen it all before... this was based on a true story. There are moments of truth, in war, that are constant. Feelings, moments of clarity, death... these things happen in every war, so when I say that 'you get the sense you've seen it all before'... it's the truth, but it's not a bad thing. Again, it's familiar. One thing that upset me a great deal was that Scott did not stay with his previous cinematographer, John Mathieson<, whose work on Gladiator and Hannibal I thought to be incredible. Slavomir Idziak shot this film, which included some incredible work. The helicopter shots were some of the best I've ever seen, along with some of the handheld footage and the overall look of the film... specifically the lighting. He's worked extensively in Europe, including Blue, the first of the Krzysztof Kieslowski trilogy. Idziak was responsible for helping write that film, as well. His other work includes John Sayles' Men with Guns, Gattaca and Proof of Life, among others. It's pretty obvious why Scott would choose someone with such a background, but I was still disappointed in not seeing Mathieson's work. I thought that there was a frightening similarity to Stanley Kubrick and Douglas Milsome's work in Full Metal Jacket which, I thought, was a far superior war film, even though it was not based on true events. I do not think this is an Oscar worthy movie. I think it was mediocre as a whole. Movies based on true life events, such as these, end up directing themselves, in my eyes. You could not say the same for, say, Goodfellas, as there is an atmosphere there that added to the film tremendously. This movie had atmosphere, but it's all too familiar in the wake of the attack on America. I think it was a poor choice to release this film, just for the sake of Oscar contention. I think it was not a project suitable for Scott, who probably had noble intentions of bringing it to the screen, pre-9/11... but I still think it was too early to make. I think Hollywood needs to start making better decisions in their productions, taking into account that true stories based on the lost lives of American soldiers does not make entertainment. It's almost as if you're a bad person for not going to see this movie, and further educating yourself on the military operations of our armed forces... especially the ones that proved fatal. I don't think you can say the same thing about Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, etc. These movies came out much later than the wars they depict, and in some ways (especially the Spielberg films), they are educational. There were, and will be, generations born after these wars who have no idea about them, or at least the harsh realities of them. It's just an opinion. I thought it was a good movie, but I do not think it was a good effort on either Scott or Bruckheimer.
|