Act of Valor

Saw Act of Valor last night, and I really enjoyed it! Sometimes when film studios try for "realism," they really miss the mark; not the case with this one. The guns sounded like they were supposed to, they held their weapons like they are supposed to and they actually reloaded their magazines.

The action was excellent, story was good and showed a human side to what it's like serving in the military. Considering a lot of people in the film weren't actors, they did a good job.

Loved it, and this movie could serve as a recruiting film for how awesome the Navy is. It not only shows the tough side of military life, but it shows the amazing things that you can do in the service as well; cool technology, training and actually making a difference in the country.

Hooyah!

A SEAL team travels to globe to battle terrorists. Many of the lead actors are real life active-duty Navy SEALs. The problem about the use of real active-duty Navy SEALs is the limited acting skills. The action is more realistic. It's not all the regular Hollywood blow them up fare. The acting isn't really acting. They are just too uncharismatic. The story is just a series of action to uncover a terrorist plot. In the end, it probably doesn't matter. What does a plot have to do with a picture like this anyways. The action is good, but the acting is not so good.

If you are tired of Hollywood action movies that are poorly coordinated and where the directors just guess at everything, like I am, you are really going to like this movie.

Personally, I have actively served in the military and the thing that really bothers me is the non- realism of military roles that I see in movies. Directors and crew blatantly cut corners, hire no nothing actors and extras to portray military roles. Actual direction to the actors and extras that I have heard straight from their lips: "just to pretend because the audience doesn't know any better and doesn't care." Well WRONG, we do care...

There are of course directors that DO care for realism such as Ridley Scott & Oliver Stone. Directors that care hire people like Dale Dye or equivalent to produce such realism. It is a very hard thing to do when the "sides" or script simply say "insert tech talk" or "insert military maneuver" and your movie doesn't even have the technical adviser.

For someone who has been there and done that it is excruciating to see actors do everything wrong, shoulder rifles wrong and hear stupid and unrealistic dialog. Since my service ended I have been working in film and TV myself to somewhat try and make a difference in this manner.

This movie may not have Oscar winning acting, but it gave me a true chilling effect of realism. Some say they were not real active duty. Well I can't vouch for that but what I can tell you is that everything they did and said were extremely accurate and I have little problem in doubting that statement.

See/view the film as you want, some will see it as propaganda... Well, anyone showing pride in something is going to show everything at it's best and only the people who have never been there will confuse pride with propaganda. Freedom It is the right to be able to question and doubt everything, but it is the soldier that actually fights to provide this very freedom that everyone else takes advantage of. Sure others will see this film as a recruitment tool. Sure, and again when pride is shown in a cool way of course the young may choose a career in the military. The same being said with movies with doctors, firemen or policemen.

See this movie as a statement to reality in a technical way, pay attention to how things are spoken, how weapons are suppose to be used, held, fired and reloaded on the fly. When you use real military there is an automatic understanding of positioning. I understand that Hollywood need to be in there to actually film things and understand the need to make changes to do so but I could not find very much wrong with what I did see.

To mention live rounds... this is unheard of in film just because of the danger level and would never be accepted in civilian North America. That is why the movie was shot where it was and on live fire ranges. I am impressed.

I very much liked it and the portrayal of the soldier. I felt pride, technically things, were accurate and as they should be. Good Job!

Act of Valor is what it is - a salute to the US special forces, an action burner that goes for realism in its approach (which works greatly in its favor) Some will see it just an action flick, others will see it as purely propaganda and recruiting - and it really isn't either of those things, or maybe its both? - it does however work, and it works pretty well.

The film is split into two parts - in both parts the SEALs (played by real SEALs) go on an operation - we get to see the insertion, action, extraction, the cost - I would have liked more planning and briefing - but I'll forgive it as there was also no obligatory bar scene. It is reminiscent of British and American war films - John Wayne would be proud - but it brings some modern sensibilities to the filming.

It's shot in a basic action format with some nods to documentary - though more would have been good - and the camera looks and feels quite similar to Arnie's action films - Predator and Commando - and it even borrows some tricks from thriller movies - over- shoulder, heavy breathing, etc; There's nothing new, but it is a good solid, easy to watch, approach.

It is not excessively violent - though the body count is high - it has one major thing going for it , which really surprised me, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen - even though the acting is fairly light, it all works as it feels authentic and looks right.

All in all, a surprisingly good watch.

As a debut producer/director team, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh's Act of Valor is somehow reminiscent, for lack of better comparison, of Ridley Scott's "Black Hawk Down". While that comparison works for the genre this movie is suited up for, the highlights here are some fantastic action choreography unlike your typical Hollywood flash-bang formula. The results of which are perhaps due to the Omnipotent force driving this story – the use of active-duty Navy SEALs, acting as active-duty Navy SEALs!

Inspired by true events, the premise is an action packed illustration of the cogs and wheels behind the fight for freedom; or in this case, anti-terrorism. After undercover CIA operatives go missing in Costa Rica, a rescue mission by Navy SEALs leads to the discovery that a Chechen defector turned Jihadi terrorist is plotting an attack on America with such magnitude, it could make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Lead by SOC Dave and LCDR Rorke, a team of seven Navy Seals are re-deployed to prevent Abu Shabal (Jason Cottle) and his undetectable weapons of devastation from reaching highly populated American cities.

Before addressing the reasons behind why this movie was received with mixed reactions, let me first dwell on what makes this movie different, and in my opinion, worth a watch. First and foremost is the obvious casting of real life Navy SEALs. It's one thing to watch seasoned action movie stars blow stuff up because you expect them to. Whereas, it is totally different when watching seasoned soldiers do what they have trained so hard to do. This is all too obvious from the way these protagonists talk, to the way they handle a weapon, and by their inherent swagger makes the "A-Team" look like Teletubbies. That said, our heroes are in their element when geared up for the mission at hand, be it stealthy eliminations or running and gunning or jumping off a high altitude aircraft. But like fish out of water, you can't really expect immersive acting when they are void of camouflage, burst frequency radios, or anything related to battle mode. Dialogue sounds cheesy and read, especially during sub-plots that try to reveal they are also ordinary men with dependent families. Mainstream critics have expressed that the story is packed with propaganda, rather unkindly suggesting Uncle Sam's invincibility and far reach. While I did feel the SEALs seemed rather invincible towards the end of the movie, I also felt a strong vibe of patriotism instead of the misconstrued propaganda. Perhaps that has something to do with the screenplay coming from Kurt Johnstad, the same person behind the very patriotic ethos in "300". If I have to nitpick, it would have to be the overdone first-person perspective of having the camera mounted onto the laser sights of assault rifles. One or two scenes would have been acceptable, but this gets so repetitive, it appears to be borrowed from a Tom Clancy page-turner or a PlayStation 3 "Call of Duty" game.

If "G. I. Jane" (also Ridley Scott) is about the level of intensity and determination put into becoming a Navy SEAL, then this movie succeeds in showing the world why average paid, low profiled individuals risk their lives so that freedom remains a birth right in America. Just before the end credits, McCoy and Waugh also show us the price paid since 9/11 by SEALs who have given up the American way of life, so that the rest of America does not have to. Essentially, Patriotism, not propaganda, is a philosophy other countries should rekindle to keep terrorists out. With that message radiating from the Prologue and epilogue, including acceptable elaboration in between, first time directors McCoy and Waugh have brought out a decent action movie with relevance to the genre as well as the ongoing 'war on terror'.