Navy Seals

First off, I'd like to correct the poster below me who said that God "Had a sniper rifle that fired tiny grenades." God was armed with a Barrett M-82A1 .50 caliber BMG. It is a current special forces rifle and is fully capable of (and often used for) putting a bullet all the way through a truck's engine, a foot of solid metal plate, or, as often shown in the movie, wimpy little concrete or cement block walls.

Anyway...

This movie is certainly not a feast for the brain, but neither is it intellectually devoid. The issue with the journalist in the movie is startlingly relevant in today's world, for example. I doubt it was intentional; it's likely that it was put in as a weak attempt at adding conflict and depth to a flat script. But hey, take what you can get, right?

The real strong point of this movie, for me, is the set design. This was shot back in the old days, when neat backdrops couldn't just be drawn in with computers over a bluescreen. The Beirut scene at the end of "Navy SEALs" has some of the best *real* urban combat sets I've ever seen, right up there with the Hue scene at the end of "Full Metal Jacket"... though not quite as good.

I don't know if the sets alone make this movie worth watching, but they do for me. It's generally mindless action, but that doesn't mean that it's without substance; just because "Navy SEALs" doesn't meet the standards of a "great" movie, with well-developed characters and all that junk, doesn't mean it's awful. "Navy SEALs" doesn't include much script depth because it really doesn't need to. That isn't the point. Do you think that real Navy SEALs would make well-rounded characters in the Hollywood sense? These soldiers *can't* have strife within the team, *can't* have little internal conflicts that, in most movies, would be considered interesting. That just isn't realistic.

Like the previous person's comments, this was like the "Top Gun" on the ground. He just forgot to also mention that it was also done in the Sea and in the Air. I feel that it was similar also to Chuck Norris' Delta Force; however, it was alot more realistic. Well, the actors in this film did a wonderful job of portraying the actions of the elite Navy SEAL teams. This movie should serve as a testament to the courage and valor displayed by all of the great Special Operations and Special Forces teams of the Armed Forces. The characters were really believable and the script was top-notch. Those who are from the Hampton Roads area of Virginia (like myself) will definitely notice many of the stateside locales. You could definitely watch this movie over and over again! It definitely provides a boost of adrenaline to all couch potatoes and action junkies, not to mention any of those who have either served in the military or were born in military households like myself!

As far as some action films go, "Navy Seals", the 1990 film directed by Lewis Teague, doesn't deserve most of the criticism that some contributors to this forum have expressed. While it doesn't add anything to the genre, it is a movie targeted to a certain audience, who will no doubt react to it.

On the other hand, watching it on cable the other night, it proved to be the entertainment it's meant to be and nothing more. Let's hope the real Navy Seals will be more selective in picking someone that is as misguided and egocentric as Lt. Hawkins, who disobeys his orders and causes the death of a man that shouldn't have died.

This film appears to be a vehicle for Charlie Sheen who was at the height of his intense period. Michael Biehn plays the man in command, Lt. Curran with flair. Joanne Whalley is seen only briefly. The rest of the cast, notably, S. Ephata Merkerson and Dennis Haysbert contributed to make the film better than it is.

All in all, this is a film for action fans with not a lot of expectations.

"Navy SEALS" is a fun escapist Hollywood testosterone rush packed with action and built around a thin story about a SEALS team which goes after some Stinger missels which have fallen into the hands of mid-East terrorists. The film features some great stunts, lots of pyrotechnics, and firefights galore as it shows SEALS in a variety of combat missions including high altitude and undersea insertion platforms. A critically panned flick but a great watch for military action junkies.

OK, I'll try to comment mostly on the music cause enough has been said about this movie. I think it's a very watchable action movie (despite some flaws). Yes, it's not too realistic, but such a movie would most probably be boring (check how it worked out in The Finest Hour). Yes, it's not too deep, but come on, which action movie is (e.g. what's so deep about characters in Die Hard? nobody complains about that and they shouldn't)? Please take into consideration some other action movie involving the SEALS e.g. The Rock - the unwatchable Michael Bay/Nicholas Cage exploding blockbuster escapade which somehow has over 7.0 rating.

The most positive thing about this movie are the great action scenes which look pretty realistic (the gunfights in Beirut, for example). Nice use of the camera (although it looks a bit 'TV' in some places) and very authentic looking scenery (with some nice details, e.g. like that destroyed Israeli M113 in the background).

But the amazing thing is (personally) one of the best music scores in an action movie ever (which unfortunately I can't seem to find anywhere). I mean, Sylvester Levy really did his job right. Every time they head for action, they are followed by excellent instrumental scores which give this film and the scenery much more depth (my favorite one plays when they are running for the shore). Unbelievably good.

So, must have seen it a couple of dozen times and still like to watch it for the above reasons. It's not a deep movie, just good war action and great music. I enjoy(ed) it. Maybe you will, too. Personally, I'd rate it as 6, objectively at 5, IMDb 7 at least (should have more since atrocities like The Rock get 7.3 average).