Black Hawk Down (15) 144mins _ 4 out of 5
Most American war films are hard to stomach mainly for their whooping jingoism and re-writing of history.
With fervent nationalism Stateside, Black Hawk Down has been doing great trade at the US box office. But surprisingly it is actually a well-crafted movie depicting the human horrors of war, and an objective film from Ridley Scott, returning to form after directing the appalling Hannibal.
The story is a true one from 1993, of elite US army men trapped in Mogadishu by the complacency of their leaders, at the mercy of heavily-armed mercenaries. The arrogance of their commanders leaves the soldiers as cannon-fodder in enemy territory.
No detail is spared for the squeamish in the violence that follows, wherein the humanity of the fighters is brought forward as they struggle under the threat of instant death. It's not just the blood-soaked visuals but the shuddering sound that terrifies you into this claustrophobic nightmare.
Josh Hartnett plays Sergeant Matt Eversmann, the leader of a Delta Force group whose mission is to capture a genocidal warlord. But the Americans are instantly in trouble when one of the team is injured as the team lands. And it is this one mishap that presages the deaths of 19 men.
Watching his decision to swoop come crashing around his men is Major General William Garrison (Sam Shepard), who watches on a TV screen as his crack charges are decimated. And despite the visual pyrotechnics it is his performance as the flawed leader that provides the central plank of the film.
Black Hawk Down is an ordeal to watch and it seems strange to recommend such a harrowing experience.
However, this is a surprisingly articulate take on the consequences of war.
* Out now
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article