Black Hawk Down (3 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #20

This is a 2001 film directed by Ridley Scott about a mission by the US army in Somalia in 1993. It's based on true events, though simplified in parts for the big screen. The Somalian rebel leader Aidid was deliberately starving the population in order to become more powerful. The Americans had tried in vain to capture or kill him. On 3rd October 1993 an operation was launched to capture two of the most senior men in his group.

Was the operation successful or not? That depends how you look at it. The two Somalians were captured, so the mission was technically a success. On the other hand, 19 American soldiers were killed and 73 were wounded, the highest number of casualties in a single day since the Vietnam War.

The slogan on the poster is "Leave no man behind". It's something that the American armed forces are proud of. But is it a good military strategy? Based on the evidence of this film I'd say No. The problems begin when an American private falls out of a helicopter. A team is sent to rescue him, which leads to a Black Hawk helicopter being shot down. More troops are sent to rescue the soldiers from the helicopter crash, but many of them are cut off from their comrades and need to be rescued.

What I'm trying to say is that if the private had been left to die, the day's casualties would have been one dead and zero wounded. "Leave no man behind" is a proud slogan to chant among servicemen, but does it make sense? Was it worth sacrificing 19 lives to save one man? If I'd been the man lying on the ground I'd have yelled at my comrades to leave me to die.

As my regular readers know by now, I've been on holiday for the last four weeks. I'm in England with my daughter Fiona and her family, and I'm staying until 12th December. It's my first visit since the pandemic, so I wanted to make it a longer visit. This has an effect on my viewing habits. Fiona doesn't have a DVD player and relies on Netflix for entertainment. This is frustrating to me, but I'll talk about her and her family in this post.

Fiona watches Netflix every day. She doesn't watch films, she watches reality shows and true crime series. I have to admit, if that's what someone wants to watch, Netflix is sufficient. Good luck to her.

My grandson Samuel (two years old) also watches Netflix every day, closely supervised by his parents. He watches "Masha and the Bear" and "Cocomelon". Sometimes I put on other children's series for the sake of variety. He enjoys these for a while, but then he says "Bear, Bear", so I put "Masha and the Bear" on again. Okay, Netflix is all a small child needs.

But what about my son-in-law, Mehdi? With the exception of "The Walking Dead", he only watches films. He watches a film every day, more at the weekend. He likes mostly action and horror movies. I've been observing his habits closely. Every day he clicks through Netflix's new movies and recommendations. Sometimes he immediately spots a film that he'd like. Sometimes nothing attracts his attention, so he either re-watches a film he's already seen or he picks a film that he might like. He's at Netflix's mercy. He can only watch what's being thrown at him.

A few days ago I watched "Forest of Love" with Mehdi. He loved it, and he said he wanted to watch more films made by Sion Sono. Oops! There aren't any more of his films on Netflix. In my opinion, Mehdi has the inclinations to be a real film fan. Not everyone watches seven or more films a week. He's suffering from having to rely on Netflix, but he doesn't realise that he's suffering, because he's never owned a DVD player. He doesn't know what he's missing.

I'm not saying Netflix is bad. It's good for my daughter. It's good for my grandson. But it's bad for anyone who's a serious film fan, except as an additional extra to a DVD or Blu-ray player.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de