Black Hawk Down vs. Lone Survivor - Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion

[–] Scurmudgeon 10 years ago

As a drama, I never found Black Hawk Down all that compelling but it seems to be very popular with military members which leads me to believe it's a more accurate war film. Personally, I would give Lone Survivor the edge because the action was easier to follow and I felt like I really got to know the characters.

reply

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 10 years ago

Both films very closely follow actual events. As such, both films could be called "accurate". I think they are both great films.

"Gold buys a mans silence for a time. A bolt to the heart buys it forever"

reply

[–] Wakanohana 9 years ago

I've seen Black Hawk Down many times. I liked Lone Survivor but I'm not sure I could watch it again and again.

reply

[–] moviemaniac12 10 years ago

Black Hawk Down is junk. Bad acting, poor scriprwriting, overly used inappropriate slo motion.
Lone Survivor is the opposite: amazing actibg, script, effects.
Its like comparing Gigli to The Godfather - no comparison

reply

[–] TheEarman 10 years ago

Both are films meant to honor the dead that tell the story. . . . . but not the whole story. Hate to be that guy, but read the books. Bowden's 'Blackhawk Down' and Luttrell's self-described de-brief 'Lone Survivor'. Both are phenomenal reads.

I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy!

reply

[–] moviemaniac12 10 years ago

books may be amazing but just talking about movies - black hawk down is an awful awful movie. whereas lone survivor is the kind of movie you can see many times and still enjoy

reply

[–] jayehawk 10 years ago

Perhaps it depends on your criteria. I have read Mark Bowden's book and have watched several documentaries and the movie Black Hawk Down appears to be fairly accurate. While I have not read Lone Survivor myself, I understand there have been quite a few liberties and dramatic license taken with this film that make it less accurate.
Personally, I liked it, but if you wanted this movie to be the true story it might be a let down to discover it isn't.

reply

[–] LewGD 10 years ago

Perhaps it depends on your criteria

Everything is explained with this sentence. When someone like moviemaniac12 praises Batman/Superman movies it indicates on childish criteria, meaning he must be very young, even minor. In the case of an adult having such childish criteria, any dialog with intellectually so indifferent moviegoer would be futile. There is an old proverb, an absolute fact - "If youth had the wisdom, and old had the strength, everything would have been much better" -

However, it remains interesting to hear from any young Tabula Rasa a more elaborated explanation, why Black Hawk Down is "junk" and Lone Survivor "is the opposite: amazing". My criterion with real life movies is authenticity, almost documentary style. Fictional stories, not to mention action movies are free with all sort of Hollywood-artistic expressions, although such movies, when further from reality are less attractive to my criteria.

Hence, from my point of view Black Hawk Down is probably the most authentic war movie, meaning one of the best. Lone Survivor is excellent, but seriously devaluated with fictional end. Its real drama is so powerful that any "synthetic forgery" was absolutely unnecessary.

Marcus Luttrell personal appearing in some scenes mislead me that they will stick to original story, something that he publically stated, but Hollywood couldn't go out of its skin. On the other hand, Hollywood moguls aren't stupid, they understand masses criteria and leaving eventual "high criteria mob" happy, often remains an imperative. Synthetic cavalry arrival at the end casually reinstated some cliché's from archaic westerns.

reply

[–] gangsta_toes 10 years ago

I read Black Hawk down and the film is almost a perfect reinactment of the book and supposedly how the events went down. I don't know what's up with Moviemaniac but Black Hawk down is an awesome movie IMO. I think it's way better than Lone Survivor and is actually one of my favorite war films. I found nothing wrong with the script, acting, or even the few slo motion scenes.

reply

[–] Flinstone 10 years ago

BHD movie made EVERY SOMALI armed. In real battle, most somalis were unarmed and were used as human shields by armed somalis. US forces tried to avoid collateral damage but soon was forced to move down crowds.

Also real convoy wasn´t speeding like in the movie but moved so slow that men could walk from humwee to humwee.

IMO BHD was the best war movie. Until I red the book. After the book, movie came too "clean".

´´This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time´´

reply

[–] Zero_Wolf 10 years ago

I think I preferred Black Hawk Down.

It's just a crazy chaotic cluster f--k that just keeps getting worse, but you can't look away. And that tense climax of the shamble to the stadium at the end.

That whole movie is gripping.

______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

reply

[–] bbales22 10 years ago

Both are great! I dont know how one can say BHD was bad. Great movie and like others said closer to the book. LS was great and I enjoy Berg's movies but I felt he should of stayed closer to the book in some scenes. I dont like Taylor as Murph or even Whalberg as Marcus. I was blown away by LS the book but the movie let me down a bit. Prob unfair to the movie because I was so pumped up from the book. BHD to me is the better movie. But hey, cant go wrong with either! Thanks & God Bless our soldiers

reply

[–] moviemaniac12 10 years ago

Black hawk down: not one scene is well acted. its disingaging. also dialogue is fake with actors spewing lectures about good vs bad rather than talking like normal soldiers. lighting also out of place... its like they are lighting 'Top Gun'. too many amateur things thats why its a forgotten movie.

reply

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

You forgot to miss spamming on the 'Act of Valor' board.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] GrimeyRickGrimes 10 years ago

BHD all day everyday!!!!! I just thought it was more interesting.

reply

[–] mav100000 10 years ago

Both are excellent, neither are overly accurate. I recently met Mike Goodale (Ranger actually involved in the Mogadishu incident) who told me that the big thing is that the movie got their story out. It wasn't super accurate, but got the gist across. I think that applies to both movies pretty well.

Personally, it depends on my mood, but maybe BHD just beats out LS just because of the size and scope.

Also, interestingly enough, when I asked for comment on "how he felt about the film," Goodale told me that it was pretty good but that the biggest thing it missed was the volume of fire. He said there was never time to make coffee, and the movie never truly captured the amount of incoming rounds the Americans had to deal with.

Cheers mate!

reply

[–] CaramelSquares 10 years ago

Both based on true stories but I see it like this... Lone Survivor has a high re-watchability rating for me. Black Hawk Down I also own but have viewed it only once. The scene where they're dragging the corpse through the streets pisses me off too much, totally barbaric.

Terrible things Lawrence. You've done terrible things.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dragonsouls 10 years ago

Both films do a good job at creating an atmosphere of isolation, and helplessness. However, I give the edge to Lone Survivor because the cameras never deviated from the American soldiers that were pinned down. All the action was shown from their perspective. I liked that.

reply

[–] Noir-82 10 years ago

Black Hawk Down, no contest for me. Though I thoroughly enjoyed LS still.

reply

[–] Thom-Yorke 10 years ago

I enjoyed both, but I prefer Black Hawk Down.

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? That's his first mistake. That and the talking snake.

reply