--- title: "Black Hawk Down: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/black-hawk-down/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/black-hawk-down" critics_score: 74 critics_reviews: 7 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Black Hawk Down (2001): what the critics said Critics' score 74 from 7 reviews: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 0 negative. Most critics respond favourably to Black Hawk Down, with praise concentrated on Ridley Scott’s direction and the punishing immediacy of the combat sequences. The reviews repeatedly credit the film’s visual control, technical realism and attention to battlefield logistics with conveying the confusion and brutality of warfare. Several also find that its focus on soldiers under pressure conveys camaraderie and suffering without relying on sentimentality or straightforward triumphalism. The disagreement concerns what that immersion leaves out, and whether the American viewpoint becomes jingoism. Total Film sees troops out of their depth and some acknowledgement of Somali suffering; Radio Times sees chest-beating melodrama with the effect of a recruitment film. Reservations recur even in favourable reviews: thin characterisation, scant political context and inadequate attention to Somali perspectives. The spread runs from strong admiration to mixed responses, with technical skill more widely accepted than the film’s treatment of the conflict. ## Empire — Mark Dinning Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 18 January 2002. The critic praises the film as an ambitious and frenetic war movie that exposes the tragedy of war through relentless, chaotic intensity rather than jingoism or sentimentality. Scott's direction delivers a gritty, realistic depiction that turns genre conventions on their head. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/black-hawk-review/) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 18 January 2002. The critic describes it as a grubby, gritty and gruelling war film that avoids jingoism, showing US troops out of their depth while attempting some balance on Somali suffering. It is lauded as a technical tour de force that immerses viewers in the battle without gratuitous violence. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/black-hawk-down-review/) ## Evening Standard — Gavin Martin Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The review highlights the film's unflinching portrayal of war's horrors and its focus on soldierly heroism and camaraderie amid chaos. It notes the timely relevance post-9/11 while commending the technical realism and cautionary tone without being purely triumphalist. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/full-military-honours-6331493.html) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 3/4. 21 December 2001. Ridley Scott’s film is a relentless, mind-numbing war procedural that honors the 18-hour mission with gripping battlefield sequences and an effective Hans Zimmer score, though its history is remiss and it offers no emotional face to the Somali side. It is punishing and less entertaining than a usual Bruckheimer dud. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/black-hawk-down/) ## Radio Times — Andrew Collins Rating 3/5. The film is a noisy, gung-ho war movie that disguises a strategic American mess as chest-beating melodrama despite its basis in real events. Scott's technical skill makes the battle scenes immersive, but it lacks identifiable characters, insight into the conflict, and amounts to little more than a recruitment film in a post-9/11 context. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-ldct1a/black-hawk-down/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 18 January 2002. The film turns the 1993 Somalia events into a long, cacophonous action spectacle focused on American soldiers getting out alive, with no real backstory or political context. Scott delivers a pure, ascetic war movie with strong visuals and relentless combat sequences, but it lacks excitement and comes across as macho posturing. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/jan/18/culture.reviews) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan 28 December 2001. The critic calls the film a triumph of pure filmmaking, a pitiless and unrelenting war movie that convincingly puts viewers inside the 15-hour battle. He singles out the fluid skill, realism, and vivid adaptation of the source book for creating an exhilarating if tough experience. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-dec-28-et-turan28-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert 18 January 2002. The critic praises the film's accurate and comprehensible depiction of the chaotic battle and its focus on the soldiers' experiences rather than heroics or speeches. He singles out the visual strategy and clear storytelling for making the logistics and events understandable. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/black-hawk-down-2002) ## Screen Daily 21 December 2001. The film offers a visually awesome, gritty and ultra-realistic portrait of men in combat but highlights the limits of visceral cinema with its thin premise and excessive running time focused on gruelling warfare. It succeeds as an epic combat chronicle but fails to develop individual characters or provide vital political context beyond title cards. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/black-hawk-down/407864.article) ## Sight and Sound — Philip Strick The film is a technically skilled but biased reconstruction of the Battle of Mogadishu that emphasizes American soldiers as victims of mismanagement while offering little insight into Somali motivations. It delivers visceral battle sequences with spectacular photography but relies on clichés and ends with only slight redemption via a closing title. [Read the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/1842/) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias 18 December 2001. The film is a viscerally punishing, you-are-there account of modern warfare that focuses intensely on the blow-by-blow logistics of the battle from the American military's point of view. It sidesteps charges of exploitation through its scale and verisimilitude while capturing the close-up brutality of combat, though it leaves moral and political questions off-screen. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/black-hawk-down-1798192841) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell 28 December 2001. The critic notes the film's visual aplomb and how its jingoism feels part of the atmosphere, praising Ridley Scott's talent for establishing mood through pictorial means. He singles out the dazzling color work but criticizes the lack of emotional grounding and proper character development. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/28/movies/film-review-mission-of-mercy-goes-bad-in-africa.html) ## Time Out — TCh 25 May 2012. Scott's film reconstructs the chaotic 15-hour firefight in harrowing detail from the source book, creating an accomplished and credible technical achievement that conveys the confusion and cock-up of the misadventure. It honours the troops but provides grossly inadequate Somali perspectives and zero backstory. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/black-hawk-down) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 18 January 2002. The critic praises Ridley Scott for surpassing himself with the exceptional visual quality of the relentless action sequences. However, the film falters due to indistinguishable characters amid the chaos and questions the value of US intervention in someone else's civil war. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/black-hawk-down-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/black-hawk-down.md