quote:

---

Snippet from a conversation between a friend and I:
Jeron: black hawk down: best film of 2001. zimmer's score works incredibly well... can't imagine anything different being used. simply awesome... pure awesomeness.

Jeron: and trust me, i think it'll make the score more enjoyable for you

Friend: Wow.
Friend: Awesome.
Friend: Cannot wait.
Friend: Better than LotR? (film)?

Jeron: well, emotionally i came out more satisfied... i was really shaken up and touched by BHD... pretty shell shocked. shed a few tears. lived a nightmare through ridley scott's eyes.

Friend: See LotR never drew me in emotionally.
Friend: I'm hoping BHD will.

---

This isn't meant to provoke debate as to what film is better. I simply mention LOTR to help give some perspective, on a personal level. I enjoyed Fellowship incredibly... and have been rallying that (and still do) as one of the best films of 2001. And I sincerely held the firm belief that it was the film of the year. But Black Hawk Down has changed that, and I hope my thoughts will inspire you to see the film, enjoy it, and be moved by it. At the same time, enjoy Zimmer's score. On first listen, if heard without having experienced the film, it's going to most likely not agree with you. So, as any and every film score should be appropriately analyzed, listen to it in the film... let the images and story fuse themselves to what Zimmer has put together. I think you'll find it to be an immersing experience and quite moving.

Jeron

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
I want to see and hear this darn thing already. I guess I'll get the soundtrack first

---

Actually, I would strongly discourage that. This is the type of soundtrack that (on its own), doesn't really work too well.... It's got it's moments, but it's just mediocre.

However, in the context of the film, it works incredibly well. Therefore, see the film FIRST, and then if you want the album, go get it.

Just my 2 cents.

Anyone have a suggestion as to where I should get my hands on BHD (or just soundtracks in general)? I checked out the local Best Buy and it just so happened that my store was late in shipment (again), not to mention to the highway robbery they tried pulling on me with their $15.99 price tag. I looked at Circuit City, and I am pretty sure that my Target(s) and Wal-Mart(s) don't carry it, and online stores are also charging outrageous prices, and it looks like Amazon's the only way to go, although add the shipping and it comes out almost the same.

I think online is your best bet.

The censors passed the film with an R rating which Columbia, in its anger, has vowed to fight.

Any comments on Eric Bana's performance?

Rochelle

quote:

---

Originally posted by cine-sin:
The censors passed the film with an R rating which Columbia, in its anger, has vowed to fight.

---

Why on earth would Columbia fight the R rating (especially now, when it's been out for weeks in LA?)??? I mean, this is a WAR movie. You can't show the action and expect a PG-13 to get the same effect.

This film rides the line, and I'm sure it would have gotten an NC-17, had Ridley not made a few cuts. (It's basically a super-hard R rated film.)

quote:

---

Any comments on Eric Bana's performance?

---

Thought he did a very good job - but I can't say that any of the actors in that movie are "award material". Still, I'm curious to see how he handles THE HULK.

Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
Why on earth would Columbia fight the R rating (especially now, when it's been out for weeks in LA?)??? I mean, this is a WAR movie. You can't show the action and expect a PG-13 to get the same effect.

---

Columbia are fighting the R-rating so that more people under the age of 18 might be able to see the film. At least - that's the question I think you are asking. Dan - I'm confused by what you are saying? What is the rating in US compared to Australia.

Rochelle

quote:

---

Originally posted by cine-sin:
Dan - I'm confused by what you are saying? What is the rating in US compared to Australia.

---

Well, the film is out in theaters here in the USA already. It is rated R: "No one under 17 admitted without a parent or guardian". Columbia isn't fighting this rating, since they got it over a month ago. And it's silly to expect that this film would EVER have gotten a PG-13 rating.

Eric Bana's character was what I would like to call the "Commando" type. Seeing how he and William Fichtner both represent the Delta Force, they are more of the take-charge type of characters. Bana and Josh Hartnett are the only two characters who actually spew little bits of morality (and I do mean little, especially when Bana does it in such a cynical manner) into this mess that the U.S. government got them in.

I think its important to note that several Aussie films that received m ratings were assigned R ratings in the US (eg Bootmen, Priscilla Queen of the Desert)

Additionally, Hannibal was give an R-rating in the US but an MA here in Australia.

With this logic - one might expect a US R-rating to be reduced over here and that's what has caused the controversy.

Dan - its late and I suspect that my above blurbs were fra from eloquent.

Let me know, if they're not.

Rochelle

Zimmer's score was fair. Some of the rythmic music for the convoy on the way was pretty good, most of it was fair to so-so.

The movie probably won't connect with most audiences, but for me a veteran and liking the camardarie, esprit de corps and brotherhood of the military, I enjoyed it.

If you noticed in the film some of them were arguing early on between Rangers, Delta Force and the Capt. At the end all pulling together. I always like that in any kind of film. I also noticed how Sizemore as the Colonel was walking around mostly ignoring bullets directing his men.

Yes, this film is too intense for younger people and some ladies. But, take out just a few scenes and its bearable for most audiences(except young children). Most of it did not bother me, because of the context.

The main complaint I've been hearing with people is that, because of the "lack of character development", they can't get into it, and it becomes a pointless exercise...

Maybe it's just me, but I was profoundly moved by this film. The first 30 minutes or so doesn't get "deep" into the characters, per se, but there are several short references that simply get across the fact that these are human beings, and we can releate.

I was filled with tension as they went into the operation, knowing that it would go haywire and lives would be lost.

The action is gruesome and real, but rarely overdone as is usual with Bruckheimer flicks. There are a few moments that whispered "Bruckheimer", but for the most part this looked and felt like a Ridley Scott film. Overall, it was just a moving experience for me.

I must say that the last 15 minutes of the film I had a slight problem with, but it was hardly enough to overshadow the rest of the greatness the film posessed.

I found Zimmer's score to be great MOST the time, though it stuck out oddly at times; oh well, can't win 'em all...

Unfortunately, I just so happened to catch Brotherhood of the Wolf afterwards -- what a god awful film. Sure, it looks NEAT, but it's so boring and laughable most the time I just sat there bewildered as I looked at the screen. As I looked around, most the audience felt the same way. De Luca's score was mediocre as well. Pass on this one, TRUST ME! (though reviews seem to be mixed, maybe I'm missing the point?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Unfortunately, I just so happened to catch [b]Brotherhood of the Wolf afterwards -- what a god awful film.[/B]

---

Thank god I'm not the only one who thought the same thing!!

Dan

This is not to say that I didn't enjoy the film. I liked it very much, and I recommend it to everyone just for the marvelous action sequences. But when it was all over, I had nothing to talk about except the technical genius of the film. I can't really explain it, but I just didn't feel moved by it.

Zimmer's score was distracting in the first half hour; after that, I found it little more than serviceable.

Kirk

This was not your typical Bruckheimer tribute to senseless violence--these events (although I'm sure doused with some creative license) actually happened.

Rather, I found it occasionally veering towards offensiveness; there seems at times to be an almost gloating quality over the violence (incidentally, why the British censors passed this at 15 is a mystery; less violent movies have been forced to cut for 18). I'm not denying the technical skill with which it's been together; the visual look of the film is impressive, but there's a lot wrong here. Someone mentioned the stereotypical dialogue; the problem with this is that if all the characters are stereotypes AND they're not particularly distinguishable from each other (and in the UK, some of the actors like Eric Bana aren't well known, and especially not when all caked in grime and blood) AND the camera isn't staying on them long enough to get a sense of who's actually shouting at who, it gets wearing. It's aggressively noisy (yes, I appreciate that war IS noisy and aggressive, but this is cinema, not reality), and much of the dialogue is indecipherable. I'd also suggest it's overlong; I checked my watch twice, and I haven't done that in a long time.

What's it telling us? War is hell? Well, d'uh! I don't need two hours of slaughter and spectacular explosions to tell me that. That 19 men and two helicopters were lost in Mogadishu for nothing? The book (if I was interested in reading it, which I freely admit I'm not) could have told me that. (Incidentally, over 1,000 Somalis died as well, plus the 300,000 Somalis mentioned in the opening captions - where's the big American blockbuster movie about them?)

As for the score - what I noticed of it was, I suppose, adequate; some bits were like The Thin Red Line (which I loved, both film and score), others a little like Gladiator. (I don't know the score for The Pledge). But from what I heard, this isn't a score I'm remotely concerned about picking up on CD, even used.

this posting appeared on FSM yesterday; slightly modified

I really like your take on the film. On a technical level, I appreciated and enjoyed it. Something about it just did not click with me though, and I'm still figuring out exactly what that is.

The score worked pretty well in the film, but the CD is nothing special. The one track Gerrard appears on is haunting. I read they recorded 5+ hours of music for the film and then edited it together into a score. I'd be interested to hear some alternate takes and such, but like the hours of music for Thin Red Line, I doubt we'll ever hear it.