Reviw of the Reviews

Although the movie "Black Hawk Down" won two Academy Awards there are different opinions about this movie.
In this Review, I want to review two Reviews, one positive and one negative.

 Here is a link to the trailer of 'Black Hawk Down'

The Review Shock Troops by Stephen Hunter for the Washington Post was the first review I read. It basically talks about the truth in the story of the movie. The first five paragraphs of the review are about the event, on which the movie is based on; the mission of Army Rangers and Delt Squads to support the United Nations Food Supply efforts and to to secure the people against the warlord Aidid.
The Washington Post Review is very organized and seperated in three main parts; the first third talks about the actual event, which happended in Mogadishu in 1993; the second third is about the movie itself; and the third part talks about the actors and their roles as a soldier in the movie.
 The author Stephen Hunter talks about, how realistic the movie is;" 'Black Hawk Down' is the next worst thing to being there. That's how real it feels."
I agree with Stephen Hunters feelings about the film. The camerawork and the film editing makes you feel the thrilling and fearful event like you would be there too.

However, the Variety review Review: 'Black Hawk Down'  by Todd McCarthy begins with background facts, which were not named in the movie itself. Besides, he mentions, that Black Hawk Down is like every other typical US-American movie.
The Variety review is only seperated into two main parts and not as well organized, as the review of the Washington Post. The first half talks for example about what was missing in the movie and the typical war movies. The second half mainly summarises the movie.
There are genre preferences in the Variety review, in which the Author names typical war movies, to show that they all have the same plot.
In the Washington Post review there are no preferences.
Todd McCarthy says, that some informations are not given in the movie; "Expository titles lay out the essential background in a dry"
In my opinion, McCarthy is right, because there are a few things, which are not named in the movie but happened in the real event in Mogadishu.

      If I would have to write my own review I would focus (if it is a movie, which is based on a true story) about the background of this movie. Generally, the story of a movie is important. If the story is not good, then even the best actor can not compensate it.
Besides, I would focus basically on the camera work and film editing, which I liked very much in Black Hawk Down. 
Another important aspect would be, if the actors played their roles well and appropriate to the whole story.
If the movie is animated or parts or has which were filmed on the Greenscreen, then the graphics of those parts are important to me.