REVIEW: ACT OF VALOR

Yeesh, didn't have the highest hopes for it, but don't think I'll be checking it out in theaters.

Did they crib the bad guys' plot from Invasion USA?

All due respect to the SEALS, but I don't necessarily want to see them playing themselves in a fictional movie any more than I'd want to see real miners in a mining town film or real drug dealers in a crime film.

And yet another sterling review, Renn.

I was intrigued by this film simply for the novelty of having active duty SEALs in the movie, but after all the horrid reviews I've read, I'm going to pass. 

Also, I'm dying at how the SEALs are uncredited for their own safety/privacy, yet they thought it would be safe/private to be in a movie released ROUND THE WORLD.

So...I'll just play Call of Duty 4 then.

Naw, it's completely different, it's not like they cut a promo spot to an Eminem song...

...or anything.  Never mind.

Badass Digest published a positive review, if anyone is interested in reading the opposite reaction:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/02/24/movie-review-act-of-valor-is-honest-authentic-and-ass-kicking

It's pretty well-reasoned and makes the argument that the film is realistic, even almost cautionary, about being a SEAL.

I love how the terrorists team up with a drug cartel to get across the border. That's all kinds of special stupid. Look to the comments of that review to see Devin and I have a small scuffle over it. Now, I'm not going to call the man out for stupidity on his own website, but the idea that Los Zetas would sponsor a terrorist attack in the hopes that the United States turns more attention from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror is simply adorable.

Of course, if this were a normal movie, I wouldn't care as much. But since this is supposed to be "authentic?" Fuck them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

I love how the terrorists team up with a drug cartel to get across the border. That's all kinds of special stupid. Look to the comments of that review to see Devin and I have a small scuffle over it. Now, I'm not going to call the man out for stupidity on his own website, but the idea that Los Zetas would sponsor a terrorist attack in the hopes that the United States turns more attention from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror is simply adorable.

 

Of course, if this were a normal movie, I wouldn't care as much. But since this is supposed to be "authentic?" Fuck them.

You do know drug cartels run the Mexican side of the border right?  Like, operate with impunity.  Something like 50,000 people have died in the past five years.

ETA: haven't seen the movie and how it's portrayed.

Yes. What's your point? I wasn't saying they couldn't do it. They just wouldn't.

Crazy that any critic or film fan could take any enjoyment out of this. It's seriously sub-network TV action show shit even before you get into the outdated fear-mongering and stilted performances. Purely designed for the lowest-common-denominator fist-pumping patriot audience.

By the way, thanks Jacob.

So, a sweded version of the Charlie Sheen/Michael Biehn Navy SEALS with an abnormally high budget? Not shocked at all.

Yeah, excellent review as always Renn.  Agree 100%.

There's a terrific crime writer named Kent Anderson, served in special forces in Vietnam, and in one of his collections of writings he has a piece on this sort of film, although I think he was mostly writing a rebuttal to Tour of Duty at the time.  Basically he said, once the army starts providing air power to your film, the party's over.

What's so wrongheaded about Act of Valor is that there's no way it can function as the mass-release crowd-pleaser it wants to be.

The SEALs have to be hyper-accurate, never make mistakes, never fire a missed shot, never get wrong intel. And they're fighting enemies in huts, pueblos, swamps.

There's one scene where the "enemies" round the bend, right into that Army riverboat, and it fucking UNLOADS on them. I like how McWeeny's review described this as the HAND OF GOD, because it slices into every part of the bad guy's truck. Dudes never stood a chance. And I felt like the filmmakers wanted that to be a big rah-rah scene, but instead you're just thinking, "Holy shit, what a mismatch."

I really think that's the reason there hasn't been a great action film about the war on terror. Taking politics out of it, just from a pure drama standpoint, if you have a squad of guys with body armor, night vision, air surveillance, and state of the art weaponry fighting dirt farmers with just clothes on their backs and 30 year old rifles, it make it really hard to root for the latter. I think a great film about this can be done, but not in the typical war movie way. I know Peter Berg's trying to get the book "Lone Survivor" made, about a SEAL who gets his whole squad wiped out, and gets shot in both legs and is stranded behind enemy lines. If you can stack the odds like that, and make it part action movie, part survival tale, it could definitely work.

As Australian sports fans have taught me wherever we completely dominate, there's a surprising amount of people who don't care for any sort of contest.  They just want to see Us ruin Them.  The fact that the opposition are completely overmatched sometimes just makes it more enjoyable.

Has anyone got any background on the supposedly true stories this film is based on?  My first reaction reading the synopsis is "Bullshit".  If it has some basis though, someone has surely been proud of it somewhere.

I don't think it's a true story, but it is BASED ON REAL ACTS OF VALOR.

Speaking of the possibility of a 'good  'war on terror' film....I think it is getting to the point that the days of films like "The Green Berets" or other jingoistic films are ending.

The violence and horror of war(s) is more visible and present than it has ever been...(perhaps not enough?)...and IMO, the consequences of war needs to be shown to all those "pickup truck patriots" who are willfully blind to the brutality that exists in 'war'.

Perhaps a good counterpoint to this film would be "Lions for Lambs". It isn't an action film by any means, although there is some (realistic?) 'combat' shown.

It could make for some good after-film discussion.

Overall though, LforL is somewhat disappointing film especially given the people involved in making it....and the people that really need to see it, won't.

As someone at least semi-knowledgeable in these things I was half-excited for a movie with realistic weapons and tactics. But fuck the noise this turned out to be.

So the using "real live ammunition" claim - is that at all truthful?  I can see them using live rounds when shooting their guns, but the claim that the soldiers are being hit with live rounds sounds like complete bullshit to me.  Even with the infinite padding and knowledge of weapons, I can't see any insurance company writing a policy for the film with the stars being hit by live rounds.

The problem is, with the possible exception of "The Hurt Locker", every one of these war on terror movies is in a situation where political ideology has gotten in the way of storytelling. There are definite parallels with Vietnam films in that aspect. But where is the surreal, "Apocalypse Now" version of the Iraq war movie? Where's the hardcore reality "Platoon" version? Where's the midnight black, sick sense of humor "Full Metal Jacket" version? The blue collar homefront "Deer Hunter" version?  There have been attempts at these, but they've always come across as adequate, at best. There's hasn't been anything close to greatness. Maybe we won't see that until the war "ends" and we can get some distance from it.

Is the action any good? I mean really, that's all I care about with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Is the action any good? I mean really, that's all I care about with this.

Indeed, especially since these guys are helming one of Schwarzenegger's next films.

Had a good time at this one. The SEALs by in large can't act but neither can anyone in that Tyler Perry movie and nobody seems to pay any mind. And those folks all claim to be actors. That's far more egregious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

What's so wrongheaded about Act of Valor is that there's no way it can function as the mass-release crowd-pleaser it wants to be.

The SEALs have to be hyper-accurate, never make mistakes, never fire a missed shot, never get wrong intel. And they're fighting enemies in huts, pueblos, swamps.

There's one scene where the "enemies" round the bend, right into that Army riverboat, and it fucking UNLOADS on them. I like how McWeeny's review described this as the HAND OF GOD, because it slices into every part of the bad guy's truck. Dudes never stood a chance. And I felt like the filmmakers wanted that to be a big rah-rah scene, but instead you're just thinking, "Holy shit, what a mismatch."

I thought that aspect was pretty cool, because it really starts to show what kind of advantage a $500 billion+ defense budget gives you.  If we, as a nation, are going to be involved in these kind of operations, I have no problem with equiping our guys with the best stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

As Australian sports fans have taught me wherever we completely dominate, there's a surprising amount of people who don't care for any sort of contest.  They just want to see Us ruin Them.  The fact that the opposition are completely overmatched sometimes just makes it more enjoyable.

 

Has anyone got any background on the supposedly true stories this film is based on?  My first reaction reading the synopsis is "Bullshit".  If it has some basis though, someone has surely been proud of it somewhere.

It's not based on a true story.  As has been pointed out, the notion that drug cartels would hook up with terrorists is laughable because they'd never want that kind of heat.  However, what's fairly accurate is the tactics and equipment the Seals use, and how they function as a team.   They've probably been in similar firefights as well.  These guys are involved with counter-terrorism (and counter-narcotics) operations around the world, and they will often go against forces with a far great advantage in numbers. 

The tactics and operational shit all seems perfectly realistic, but the actual filmmaking capturing it rarely does it any favors. The laymen viewer is certainly not going to get anything extra out of this in terms of authenticity. You could pair Channing Tatum with a military advisor for a month, have Soderbergh film it and it's going to seem more real.

I don't understand why anyone would give a shit about the live fire? How does it matter? Had they made a great movie than it would be a cool footnote about how they created some authenticity, but it is not in and of itself a positive attribute of the movie.

Awesome review.  I'll probably check it out on video just for the novelty of it.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

 

I don't understand why anyone would give a shit about the live fire? How does it matter? Had they made a great movie than it would be a cool footnote about how they created some authenticity, but it is not in and of itself a positive attribute of the movie.

I think it's just the gimmick of the thing.  I had a similar reaction to Shortbus and the "actual sex" thing in it.  Nifty trivia, but if the actual movie isn't good it doesn't matter, so judge the movie first and the gimmick second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

I don't understand why anyone would give a shit about the live fire? How does it matter? Had they made a great movie than it would be a cool footnote about how they created some authenticity, but it is not in and of itself a positive attribute of the movie.

Indeed. Live fire is actually not that impressive anyway.

Can I be honest in admitting that I'm not really a fan of most modern day war movies? Or at least anything covering something later than Vietnam? There's just something about them, even high quality ones like Black Hawk Down that just set off so many of my sensitive leftie bells.

Is that wrong? Because it sometimes really bugs me.

BHD is fun to watch, but if they filmed the book as Bowden wrote it, no way would it have gotten support from the armed forces. 

Yeah that's one of the problems I have with a lot of these films. The fact that the armed forces is so heavily involved with so many of these films pushes any critique of policy off to the side.

And I'll just admit that I find the fetishization of a lot of Special Forces groups sitting uneasy with me. Like I understand what they DO, I just find myself feeling a little apprehensive about out and out worship.

  At least the Southsiders are patriotic but those on the Mexican side are not.  They would do it for the right price.

  If you think the live-fire is unimpressive then you've never done it.  Once it has mattered to you, you'll never go back.

I'm sure live fire is great and good for authenticity, but what the fuck does authenticity matter when you still have lights, sets and directors yelling 'cut!'. It's not like they filmed the battle scenes through hidden cameras a la Tropic Thunder and just let the team work through a compound as they would normally do (which come to think of it, would've been tits). No, it's still scripted and edited and sound mixed that the fact that these are real servicemen means shit because they can't act worth a damn.

Though I did like the commander and his interrogation of Christo. I'm sure as an interrogator, one needs to have the ability to assume many faces and tell lies like an actor, and the guy playing Christo was actually fun to watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

I'm sure live fire is great and good for authenticity, but what the fuck does authenticity matter when you still have lights, sets and directors yelling 'cut!'. It's not like they filmed the battle scenes through hidden cameras a la Tropic Thunder and just let the team work through a compound as they would normally do (which come to think of it, would've been tits). No, it's still scripted and edited and sound mixed that the fact that these are real servicemen means shit because they can't act worth a damn.

 

That was kind of what I expected, too. 

So Act of Valor is something like this. But they play it straight without any humour.

Ah yes, if only Dennis Rodman had been in the movie as a SEAL.  That might have gotten me to see it.

This live fire thing sounds like one of the stupidest marketing ploys I've ever seen connected with a film. I mean, you've got your real-life SEALs in there, and I can see the appeal of that (Even though it gives me the - disturbing - mental image of a cloned squad of Randy Couture in The Expendables). But saying they may have used live rounds is utterly meaningless. I bet they used real army HATS, too!

Now that the real SEALs movie has topped the box office, I'm wondering how long it takes Hollywood to make a slasher movie featuring REAL active duty serial killers using REAL knives instead of retractable props. Stabbing REAL murder victims who have been made to appear alive through clever puppetry.

I haven't seen this due to it's mixed to poor reviews, but it seems like everyone I know things it's a "badass" movie and will tear you down if you happen to disagree with them. Now I fully support the US Military but I don't see how so many people can be blinded by such a mediocre film.