Eric
03-08-2012, 06:45 PM
http://noncompliance.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=17&pictureid=188
I wanted to like this movie so bad. I really did. I'm a huge fan of military films, even gimmicky ones that "use real Navy SEALS" and "actual live fire environments", but at the end of the day there are two observations that I came away from "Act of Valor":
1. There is a reason that actors get paid to be actors. They can literally transform themselves into a different character, deliver dialogue that "feels" right, and immerse you into the movie. You don't say "Oh hey look, Christian Bale is doing a great job as Dicky Eklund" during the movie, you say it after the movie. You are entertained by his talent but you aren't dissecting his acting as you watch it, you are watching his character.
2. Real Navy SEALS and real professional stuntmen can appear to do exactly the same thing to 95% of the audience. Yes, there are special things that happened in this movie that anyone who has been exposed in the special operations community would probably appreciate that they were done correctly and accurately, but most of us missed it. If the professional stuntmen screwed up a sequence, move, maneuver, etc., or didn't do something as perfectly as a Navy SEAL would, how many people would actually notice? Only those 5% who could pick it out...and honestly, those people are probably so used to dissecting action/military films already that it's a joke to them.
My point is, both of these things are what turned this movie from something special to something bad. It's two very distinct movies, built into one. It's some incredibly sweet action sequences, incredible men doing incredible things, but the other half is a bad movie.
In fact, it almost feels like amateur moviemaking. And this made me sad. The acting (because they're not actors) is horrendous. And yes, I'm aware that these guys could destroy me, but hey, they're not actors. They're warriors. They're not supposed to be actors. The problem is that it actually distracted me from the movie. When I'm pulled out of the movie to realize "Wow these guys are horrible actors", the movie is failing. It's hard to jump back in and ignore it because it's SO noticeable.
The story isn't bad, it's a bit basic, but as a whole everything this movie was supposed to do just didn't come across as something special. Yes, I'm glad I supported it, and I hope they start doing movies like this where they have real Rangers/SEALS/SpecOps folks working alongside actors, but this one was tough.
Imagine if "Blackhawk Down" was incredibly accurate from a military angle, but the acting was terrible, and that's this movie. Did you notice the unrealistic little things that "Blackhawk Down" missed from a military perspective? Nope...most people didn't, and (more importantly) most people don't care about those things.
Still, go see it...just go for the action, not the rest of it.
2/5
I wanted to like this movie so bad. I really did. I'm a huge fan of military films, even gimmicky ones that "use real Navy SEALS" and "actual live fire environments", but at the end of the day there are two observations that I came away from "Act of Valor":
1. There is a reason that actors get paid to be actors. They can literally transform themselves into a different character, deliver dialogue that "feels" right, and immerse you into the movie. You don't say "Oh hey look, Christian Bale is doing a great job as Dicky Eklund" during the movie, you say it after the movie. You are entertained by his talent but you aren't dissecting his acting as you watch it, you are watching his character.
2. Real Navy SEALS and real professional stuntmen can appear to do exactly the same thing to 95% of the audience. Yes, there are special things that happened in this movie that anyone who has been exposed in the special operations community would probably appreciate that they were done correctly and accurately, but most of us missed it. If the professional stuntmen screwed up a sequence, move, maneuver, etc., or didn't do something as perfectly as a Navy SEAL would, how many people would actually notice? Only those 5% who could pick it out...and honestly, those people are probably so used to dissecting action/military films already that it's a joke to them.
My point is, both of these things are what turned this movie from something special to something bad. It's two very distinct movies, built into one. It's some incredibly sweet action sequences, incredible men doing incredible things, but the other half is a bad movie.
In fact, it almost feels like amateur moviemaking. And this made me sad. The acting (because they're not actors) is horrendous. And yes, I'm aware that these guys could destroy me, but hey, they're not actors. They're warriors. They're not supposed to be actors. The problem is that it actually distracted me from the movie. When I'm pulled out of the movie to realize "Wow these guys are horrible actors", the movie is failing. It's hard to jump back in and ignore it because it's SO noticeable.
The story isn't bad, it's a bit basic, but as a whole everything this movie was supposed to do just didn't come across as something special. Yes, I'm glad I supported it, and I hope they start doing movies like this where they have real Rangers/SEALS/SpecOps folks working alongside actors, but this one was tough.
Imagine if "Blackhawk Down" was incredibly accurate from a military angle, but the acting was terrible, and that's this movie. Did you notice the unrealistic little things that "Blackhawk Down" missed from a military perspective? Nope...most people didn't, and (more importantly) most people don't care about those things.
Still, go see it...just go for the action, not the rest of it.
2/5