Review: 'Act Of Valor' combines real-life Navy SEALs and old-fashioned Z-movie nonsense
Disturbing military pageant is improbable but oddly detailed in its mayhem
One of the real-life Navy SEALs who star in 'Act Of Valor,'and snce I assume he owns that gun for real, he's a tremendous actor with a promising future on the bigscreen. Now please stop pointing that at me.
Are you a fan of Motion Captured?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
"Act of Valor" is a spectacular action epic that is built around a cast of people who could probably kill me. So… A+. See it twice.
Okay, I hope the real-life Navy SEALs who star in "Act Of Valor" just check that opening paragraph, because truth be told, I think "Act Of Valor" is the action movie equivalent of those Christian-market movies like "Fireproof" that come out, make a "surprising" amount of money, and then vanish again. Insufferably earnest, it is a stunt more than anything, one hell of a high-concept hook but not much of a movie.
If you're excited by the idea of watching active military personnel re-enact sweep and clear scenarios with live ammunition intercut with painfully stiff "character" sequences that are choked with stereotype, then this is the movie for you. It's pretty deadly, dramatically speaking. The two villains are like Bond villains someone recruited out of a Pinkberry in Sherman Oaks. They're pretty unconvincing, and their backstory of a shared childhood seems ridiculous considering one of them is like the Steve Jobs of suicide bombers and the other is a Central American big-deal drug smuggler who just wants to sail away on his big F. You-money yacht with his wife and kid.
By the time the film builds to a showdown in an illegal tunnel running from Mexicali to America, it is so preposterous that I was laughing. And you're really not supposed to be laughing. The action is staged with panache and a very specific sort of technical knowledge that means action beats don't really play out in a Hollywood way. There's an escape sequence that ends with gunfire from a boat that is like the Hand of God, and it's like a referee stepping in and calling the end of the game. It's almost preposterous as staged. That's what makes the movie so watchably bad. It is a weird film, start to finish, just in terms of storytelling. It leans on some really dull structural devices. The letter that one character is writing for the whole film, narrating the movie as he writes, is one long "I know where you're going with this" cliche, and it's tough going. These guys really aren't actors, and all the character work is awkward. Kurt Johnstad is one of the screenwriters of "300," but this doesn't work at all as a dramatic narrative.
The moments where the film comes to life are revealing and uncomfortable for me to watch because I'm not sure how I feel about sitting through a pageant about how we kill folks around the world, re-enacted by the folks who do the killing around the world. No disrespect to our troops, because I understand that they exist and there is a job they do and they are our people, out there in harm's way in many cases. But this is like that scene in "Gladiator" where they have the teams come out to re-enact one of their recent military victories. It feels inherently wrong to me to watch this recreation, and more-so because I don't buy the film's scenario at all. I don't believe anything about it. It's a Cannon movie from 1985, and not one of the good ones with Mickey Rourke or Charles Bronson but one of the supercrappy ones with Michael Dudikoff. Only you replace Dudikoff with a cast of people who, honestly, make Dudikoff look like the polished professional he is. That's "Act Of Valor."
I'm not even sure I think the movie has thought through its political message fully. It feels to me like Mike "Mouse" McCoy and Scott Waugh, the filmmakers, sort of half-cooked their idea and got it set up and started shooting and really didn't think through what they're even saying. The idea of mixing in these non-actors with actors like Roselyn Sanchez (who seems wildly underrated as a bigscreen presence) and a handful of other "that guys" means they aren't really selling it as a documentary, but they're still leaning on the idea of "real" as part of what you're paying to see.
Shane Hurlbut (the director of photography who was so famously screamed at by Christian Bale on those "Terminator: Salvation" tapes) shoots the action well, but there's a sort of TV movie vibe to it that comes from the sort of graceless overall storytelling that's going on. The score is a disaster of sorts, busy and insistent and constantly hard-selling what we're supposed to feel, even if the film never quite gets there on its own. The film doesn't give credits to the stars, so I'm not even sure what to call the characters, but that's all part of the notion that these guys are out there working, and giving out their names could be a security risk. Projecting their faces on 40 foot high screens all over the world isn't a problem, but putting them in the credits? Totally.
If you just want to look at this as a sort of catalog trip through the various methods we can use to (A) kill people around the world and (B) get around while doing so, then "Act Of Valor" is entertaining enough. I took a certain degree of virtual-reality pleasure from watching the way the platoon would attach each target. For kids who spend hours and hours and hours doing this stuff virtually in "Modern Warfare" and "Battlefield," I'm guessing this may strike a nerve. It might catch commercial fire, and I don't fault anyone who wants this experience. I'm just not sure I feel comfortable with it in the end. All kidding aside, when the end of the film arrives and they dedicate all of what we've seen to all of the SEALs who have died since 9/11, it felt to me like I had just seen "Hogan's Heroes: The Motion Picture," with a closing credits scroll of all the names that appeared on Schindler's real-life list. It's a jarring collision of ridiculous fiction and difficult reality, and it rubbed me wrong.
Your mileage may vary.
"Act Of Valor" opens in US theaters on Friday.
Related Events
-
movies
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandylewis90 |
9 days ago
|
2
|
|
| sandylewis90 |
28 days ago
|
1
|
|
| Discuss In Theaters and Coming Soon on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
News From Our Partners
-
Ilana Rapp: Actor Richard Harmon From Bates Motel and Continuum Talks about SpongeBob Squarepants and Yoga
'The Last Classic TV Comedy'?
'Biggest Loser' Host: 'I've Never Seen Jillian Eat A Cupcake'
-
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
Video Interviews with Katie Aselton & Lake Bell of Black Rock
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
The Telefile - TNT & TBS Upfront 2013: Reaping What Other Networks Sowed
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day One: Sofia Coppola offers the first misfire of the festival
Hear This: A song with a long title succinctly encapsulates ’90s power-pop
Watch This: Laura Palmer lives—however briefly—in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
-
'Pacific Rim' Trailer Surfaces: Watch Now!
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Reviews Are In!
Emma Watson In 'The Bling Ring': The Early Reviews Are In!
-
'Zombieland' TV Series: Amazon Passes on the Pilot
'How I Met Your Mother' Final Season Spoilers: Producers Explain Time-Turning Format Change
'The Hangover Part 3′ Red-Band NSFW Trailer: It's Time to End the Trilogy
-
'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II': The Oscar-Winning Movie is Getting a Sequel
'The Bling Ring' Cannes Premiere: Emma Watson Steals the Show (PHOTOS)
Why Brad Bird Turned Down 'Star Wars: Episode VII'; Talks 'Incredibles' Sequel
-
Listen to Selena Gomez's 'Come & Get It' Remixes
Katy Perry vs. Rita Ora vs. Beyonce vs. Kesha vs. Demi Lovato – Who Wore It Best?
Chris Brown Launches New 'Channel' Website, Gets More Personal Than Ever
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
Plus we look back at a more spirited encounter with the comic actorThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The Channing Tatum/Mila Kunis science-fiction action movie is shooting nowThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Hollywood's busiest alien spends a little more time with StarfleetThursday, May 16, 2013
-
David Twohy's latest looks lean and meanWednesday, May 15, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupthe flower tao
February 23, 2012 at 7:56AM EST Reply to CommentDrew, you're one of the loud and clear humanists of film criticism, if I may say so (see for instance your excellent 'I can't take another pointless rape scene'-essay just recently) and that’s truly something to cherish. But reading this review I got the impression that you're holding back somehow. Did it really 'just' rub you the wrong way?
Other than our usual genre fare, ACT OF VALOR seems to sell an idea of how you there in the theatre could be a brave soul like that too – how about signing up and serving your amazing country by hunting down those infidels?! That's not just problematic anymore, that's advertisement for violence and straight out propaganda. Like the turkish VALLEY OF THE WOLVES films.
Yet, every war is a shattering tragedy with victims on every side. That’s why one can’t stress enough how wonderful movies like THIN RED LINE really are – because Malick sees not just a war there, but a cosmic tragedy of a childlike race. There's no glory in killing ANYONE. Not even evil Iraqi soldiers, who - outrageously enough - could each and everyone have a story of their own. Like, you know... Sayid on LOST, one of the most nuanced and thought-provocing TV/movie-characters.
I just don’t see how this could be any less abhorrent than genre crap like GHOST RIDER 2, which you tore apart for N/T abusing the art of moviemaking as an excuse to throw out cheap and pointless ‘cool’ (which it totally does!). How is something like ACT OF VALOR not abusing the art of moviemaking – to clearly worse ends?
How would you even begin to explain a movie like ACT OF VALOR to your children? It was SO great to read something like ‘they hadn’t heard the word ‘nigger’ up until MOCKINGBIRD’. I’d find it equally amazing to see children grow up without the concept of ‘yeah, killing, you know, it’s just a matter of finding a good enough justification’.
God, I hope I don’t come across as a selfrighteous dick with all of this. This is NOT supposed to be a criticism of your criticism. After all, you DID state your discomfort. I’m really just kind of wond’ring aloud. :)
chaosyoshimage Actually, I think this movie was made for just that. From what I've heard every year or so the Navy makes a movie like this for the troops, but this time around they thought it was so good they released it commercially. I kind of find it off-putting as well, but I'm not a fan of more realistic war-based video games either.
February 24, 2012 at 4:35AM ESTthe flower tao I'm with you on that. I dropped out this genre after playing the first MODERN WARFARE. Reading about the MW2 airport sequence did the rest. No offensive intendend to anyone who loves military shooters. But it's not my cup of tea anymore.
February 24, 2012 at 11:22AM ESTthe flower tao Offense, not offensive. Sorry for double posting.
February 24, 2012 at 11:24AM ESTRob blah blah blah blah blah PROPAGANDA blah blah blah blah blah
February 26, 2012 at 3:18AM ESTatomo
February 23, 2012 at 8:42AM EST Reply to CommentI've got a feeling this film will start a really interesting conversation about how we glorify violence in film and where those boundaries are.
osiskars i say , Hunger games glorify violence... hey children if you want to survive just kill the other kids...
April 11, 2012 at 9:28PM ESTDefRef
February 23, 2012 at 10:54AM EST Reply to CommentI saw a screening of Act of Valor in early December and found it to be an odd mix of superawesomeincredible action and painfully stilted melodrama. Using real SEALs made the action feel hella more authentic than pampered Hollyweird stars who've had a few days of "boot camp" training with Dale Dye would deliver, but the plot parts suffered from tired tropes (e.g. if you can't immediately spot which one has the call sign of "Dead Meat", you've never seen a movie) delivered by earnest warriors with the looks and acting skills of Peyton Manning. I tried to imagine how it would've played with all real actors or more of a pseudo-documentary "found footage" execution and couldn't decide which would've been better. (It's like how Clerks probably wouldn't have worked as well with real actors as Mallrats showed.)
However, the movie is the latest political football for hyper-liberal commentators to get their hate on for the military, war in general, and "BUSHITLER! WAR FOR OIL! LIES!!!" The Huffington Post has been wringing their dainty hands over the idea that our soldiers be portrayed as anything but the raping killers (as seen in Redacted), duped victims of corporatist war (e.g. Lions For Lambs), damaged thrill jockeys (Hurt Locker), and/or ticking time bombs threatening civilians back home (In the Valley of Elah) they imagine soldiers as being, not that they actually would deign to know any real soldiers. War is bad, mmmkay, and anyone in the military is either a fascist skinhead warmonger or a poor exploited minority. Right. (It's ironic that the same people who are hating on this movie are cheering Obama for "getting bin Laden" and on the night of the State of the Union a month ago, SEALs were rescuing an American held hostage by Somali pirates in a manner similar to a rescue dramatized in this very movie.)
On the other hand, conservative pundits are wildly overpraising Act of Valor as the greatest thing since film stocks moved from nitrate to acetate bases. It's easy to understand why: When the only positive depictions of the military to counter the narrative detailed in the previous paragraph seems to show up when we're fighting robots or aliens. (Not that Battle: Los Angeles was roundly bashed for being too pro-soldier, cuz we all know they're crazed Nazi timebombs rapist murderers.) Act of Valor isn't as great as the Right says and as terrible as the Left wants to smear it.
Drew's review is revealing in how allergic he is to values that exist outside of the Hollyweird bubble of liberal secular humanism. For someone so close to the movie BUSINESS as he is, he seems deeply offended that there are Christian (gasp!) and pro-military (to the fainting couch!) filmmakers who aren't militantly dedicated to offending the Flyover rubes who watch NASCAR and drink domestic beer and are actually making a buck doing so. I'm sure it's due to his deeply-held beliefs and not just because he lives and works in an industry where political affiliations are literally make or break for one's livelihood. However, reviews like this one with its, "Can you believe there are morons who fall for this stuff?", tone indicates that he can't even imagine anyone who doesn't align with his personal views being here and reading and if there are, they should have their incorrect thinking slapped around.
I've never understood why Hollyweird has chosen insult their customers and hand each other trophies for movies the unwashed rabble have no interest in seeing when there are piles of money for the taking if only they could mask their utter contempt for the paying customers. The self-anointed enlightened liberal elites can't stop vomiting over the success of movies like The Blind Side - let's not even mention a certain movie that Mel Gibson made which sits at #17 of the all-time domestic chart - but I can give you 309 million reasons they're fooling themselves. The denizens of Hollyweird doesn't need to actually become conservative or practice any of those archaic Judeo-Christian values in their own lives; they just need to stop screaming, "WE HATE YOU PEOPLE AND ALL YOUR STUPID BELIEFS!!!", with their movies. Stop insulting the customers and they'll give you money. Just fake it and take it. Is that too hard?
The commercial success or failure of the film is going to be spun by each side. If it flops, liberals will crow that it's because it was a terrible movie and if it succeeds, they'll dismiss it as being red meat for Red State bubbas who are terrible people. Conservatives will say....aw, who cares what THOSE PEOPLE think, right?
The polarization is even effecting evaluation of the most impressive and least political part of the movie, its look. Shot mostly on HDSLRs (Canon 5D MkII and 7D), it looks SLICK - Michael Bay slick. The HDSLR has been the indie filmmakers best friend since the Canon XL1, but it's typically been used for shakycam mumblecore stuff, not Big Action Movies and if I hadn't been tipped by the intro my screening had that HDSLRs were used, I would've been even more stunned by learning that. However, when noted photographer and HDSLR prophet Vince Laforet blogged about how remarkable a technical achievement achievement the film was, his comments section was overrun with comments like this: "Hey.. great another macho film… Yep show it to kids in the school, so they can serve as front line meat again. It seems we’ve had enough of that Vincent. There’s nothing glorifying about these guys." Lovely.
drew I'm not offended by it because it is thinly-veiled propaganda. I am uncomfortable because I don't think the movie has enough of a point of view in either direction. I think it is poorly thought-out and, for the most part, apolitical. The movie's strongest values have to do with the brotherhood of men who face these sorts of very particular challenges together.
February 23, 2012 at 11:59AM ESTMake no mistake: my C- rating is because I think it is painfully labored storytelling, rife with cliche, not because my "liberal Hollywood bubble" has been challenged. I think it's funny you are so sure you have me pegged politically, because based on what you wrote, I don't think you've got me anywhere near as figured out as you believe.
Rev. Slappy "I'm sure it's due to his deeply-held beliefs and not just because he lives and works in an industry where political affiliations are literally make or break for one's livelihood."
February 23, 2012 at 12:55PM ESTYeah, Clint Eastwood's lifelong Republicanism has really damaged his career.
Lenny Drew, are you a republicant????, for your answer to Defref one might think you are....
February 23, 2012 at 2:05PM ESTmmcb105 Its kind of funny that you're denigrating Hollyweird (sic) during a time when they have really started embracing the Christian conservative set as a lucrative source of revenue.
February 23, 2012 at 2:23PM ESTmmcb105 Lenny - I know this may be hard to believe, but most people do not fit neatly into the Republican or Democrat categories.
February 23, 2012 at 2:24PM ESTLenny Well, that is hard to believe, if you are not republican or democrat, that means that you are from Mars??? ;)
February 23, 2012 at 2:51PM ESTdrew Lenny, my political beliefs don't line up with either party, and that's why I laugh when people try to label me "liberal" or "conservative." I can honestly say I don't respect either party in our country, and I don't see a third alternative that works, which makes it very frustrating to try to discuss anything regarding politics.
February 23, 2012 at 3:18PM ESTCinemaPsycho Eastwood said in a recent interview with Vanity Fair that he hasn't been a Republican since the 50's. The neocons just choose to believe he is "one of them" because it serves their purposes. Would a die-hard neocon have really made Million Dollar Baby, Invictus or even Gran Turino? Strongly doubt it.
February 24, 2012 at 3:10AM ESTosiskars @DEFREF
April 11, 2012 at 9:38PM ESTReally nice comment, I like your thoughts. And I have to agree mostly with them.. Maybe not the part were you attack Drew personally ,but in whole you said some really smart stuff . Kuddos!
alynch
February 23, 2012 at 2:04PM EST Reply to Comment"No disrespect to our troops, because I understand that they exist and there is a job they do and they are our people, out there in harm's way in many cases."
Drew, you gotta realize how hollow that qualifier reads when multiple times in the review, you reduce what the troops do down to "killing folks around the world." You're intentionally describing them with negative connotations. It's like saying "Police shoot and imprison minorities for a living." Maybe you're only saying that in reference to how they're portrayed in the film, but it doesn't read that way.
Lenny But this people actually kill folks around the world, and thats a fact....
February 23, 2012 at 2:06PM ESTAlex
February 23, 2012 at 2:46PM EST Reply to CommentDrew I'm a fan of your work but can't say I disagree with you painting in broad strokes with that killing people around the world comment. Doesn't seem fair at all to the men and women that are trying to keep the world safe.
drew Reviewing this sort of movie is akin to walking in a mine field. No matter what you do or say, it's going to feel wrong to someone. The movie's politics or lack thereof are disturbing precisely because of the level of destructive force the guys represent, and how casually it is applied repeatedly throughout the movie.
February 23, 2012 at 3:15PM ESTAlex
February 23, 2012 at 2:48PM EST Reply to CommentSorry, I meant an't say I AGREE, not disagree. Not enough coffee today I suppose.
Rico After reading all the comments all i can say is without these guys doing there job alot of innocent people would die and our National Security would be jeopardized. Yes its an ugly reality but its reality. The world is full of evil individuals who would jump at the very first chance to harm you or your families and anyone else they can. We have our counter terrorist who take care those situations. And its not just Devgru(Seal Team 6) its a combined effort through multiple trained elite professionals both military and government. Bottom line its about time people see and get an idea of what really goes on in the world. We live in a fantasy world where everythings perfect and going to be ok, yet it only is because of these elite operatives. You can walk around freely and do what you want without worrying about getting blown up etc because of these guys. If you cant handle reality your weak minded. And as far as kids watching this, its at the parents disclosure.
February 23, 2012 at 3:14PM ESTdrew "And as far as kids watching this," I'm pretty sure no one mentioned kids in the review or in the comments so far. It's hard enough to discuss this film without you dragging straw men arguments in.
February 23, 2012 at 3:16PM ESTthe flower tao Yeah, Rico, a lot of people WOULD die? You mean like the over 900.000 (spell it out loud) people in Iraq since the invasion that got gunned down, blown up, beaten or raped to death or just accidently happened to get into harm's way? You could at least have the decency to acknowledge the unimaginable suffering caused by an invasion that was justified by NOTHING more than global powerplay. Do you really think people in the US would get blown up on a daily basis if the Bush administration hadn't invaded Iraq? I mean, seriously... what planet do you live on?
February 23, 2012 at 3:37PM ESTI know lots of people believe that kind of ideological nonsense. Yet, every single time I see it spelled out like that, it sends shivers down my spine. And to be absolutely clear about that - it's not about liberal or conservative (you Americans seriously need to get out of your political corners). And I'm not saying that any US soldier is a criminal either, that would of course be absurd. I guess most of them are decent people trying to do the right thing. And then get sucked into a vortex of violence that would turn every man of every nationality of belief into feral beasts. How could anyone possibly WANT THAT?!
Rico The comment regarding the "kids" is saying some individuals may choose not to let their children view this reality. Never said it was in the comments. Thats my point of view. I think bottom line is you made a offensive statement pretty much saying that Special Operatives are bad people because they kill evil individuals with evil intentions around the world!!!!!! Consider them protectors of the world. You should evaluate your words before you say them Drew. I know for a fact these guys who are operatives or were would be offended as am I.
February 23, 2012 at 3:39PM ESTrico @tao
February 23, 2012 at 3:47PM ESTYour on a whole different subject were talking about National Security and the sure possibility of attacks on US soil without any type of elite groups preventing this. The Iraq invasion is a different discussion. If you were not in the Military then you know nothing about Military Operations or why they were conducted.
august.burns.red Reply to comment...That's like saying if you aren't an automotive engineer, you don't know anything about cars. Terrible argument, Rico
February 23, 2012 at 3:58PM ESTRico Im simply standing up for my brothers. There are reasons why we conduct operations. This guy "tao" obviously does not know why so he should keep his loud thoughts to himself. Stay on subject as well. I am very blunt with my opinions and if my comment fits you, truth hurts!!!
February 23, 2012 at 4:16PM ESTthe flower tao @Rico: This guy tao is confused, is trying to understand and is truly sorry if he offended you. But he won’t keep his thoughts to himself. After all, freedom of speech is part of Western ideals, isn’t it? So you’re saying Iraq is another discussion. Meaning? Was it necessary to keep the US safe or wasn’t it, according to your belief? I’d like to make a difference between the full blown invasion of a whole country – and the pursuit of a certain group of illdoers. I do think it's necessary to have a well trained police/army force able to protect it's people. And I’m even with you on things like hunting down Bin Laden. After all, that’s the son of a bitch who directed international terrorism (which still is first and foremost the bane of the middle east) en route to the US. And there are of course evil AGENDAS.
February 23, 2012 at 4:33PM ESTEverywhere around the world, that is – be it in radical muslim or US government circles. Every nation has blood on their hands, there are no exceptions. It’s a terrible thing to kill people for whatever reason. Even if it seems to be necessary. Like when my very own country Germany tried to go all Sauron at Europe for two times in a row.
But that’s a whole other thing than to be proud of all the killing and posing as ‘the good guys’. I hope you still realize that they’re millions and millions of decent muslims out there that condemned the attacks on US soil as much as the West did. Some 2500 years ago, a mythical being called Lao Tse supposedly wrote and tought that the ‘good’ warlord mourns the killing and tries to calm down the storm of violence after strict necessity has been dealt with - instead of stirring up new hatred by triumphant gestures and delusions of grandeur. It’s amazing that mankind has learned so little in 2500 years.
mmcb105 Rico - I don't think the review ever explores whether these operatives are bad people or not. The point that I think Drew is making is that glorifying these admittedly ugly actions in a fist-pumping action movie seem to be in bad taste.
February 23, 2012 at 4:40PM ESTdrew Rico, my comments and my review are about the movie, which is an odd form of propsploitation, a movie that leans on people's feelings about our real-life troops (who I am not judging at all) while telling a fictional story that simply does not work as a plausible narrative, and that cheapens the reality by mixing it in the way the film does.
February 23, 2012 at 4:56PM ESTMy feelings are complicated. It makes me uneasy because it is a bad film, and that honors no one, your friends included. That's got nothing to do with a judgment of them as people or professionals.
the flower tao @Rico: Some more thoughts (I guess I can't edit my posts because I'm posting as guest)... you're absolutely right about me knowing jackshit about why certain special operations are conducted. And as written above, I see the difference between invading a country and conducting spec ops. Why I brought up Iraq in the first place was because the justification seems to be the same: hunting down evildoers. Maybe I was too fast to do that, it's just that sooo many people seem to be oblivious to the horrors caused by military enterprises. I get that one can't solve all the world's problems via Hippy-pacifism. I don't think though that I'm being naive just because I don't see virtues in violence of any kind. Hope you can accept that.
February 23, 2012 at 5:14PM ESTaugust.burns.red Qualifying your statement with 'truth hurts' is a pisspoor attempt to support the validity of the statement. There is absolutely no requirement of being in the military to understand military operations. Stop while you're ahead, which would be before your first post.
February 23, 2012 at 5:17PM ESTDrew, I understand your stance but feel your breath is wasted on ingrates like Rico
Rico @august "Ingrate" ?! You are very mature nice choice of words. You are obviously weak minded and pathetic. @Drew, no hard feelings i guess. @tao i understand where your coming from but the world and especially war is not that simple. Everyone wishes and prays for peace but it will never happen. War and Spec Ops will always be. I respect your view.
February 23, 2012 at 6:55PM ESTthe flower tao Yeah, peace on a more global scale might just be pure utopia. But yet, like you said, everyone prays for a peaceful life. It's nothing that can be achieved in a lifetime, maybe not even for millennia to come. But look where wo got in the long run. We went from hunters/gatherers beating each other with clubs to a civilization that (all the many dark aspects aside) is able to keep huge countries like the US or most European states at relative peace for at least a considerable amount of time. There's the slight chance that we as a species will explore the possibility of peace on a grander scale even more. Maybe this will never happen. Maybe it will. People all over the world should just watch more STAR TREK. ;) So... that's about it. Have a nice day, Rico.
February 23, 2012 at 8:26PM ESTRico You too bud.....
February 23, 2012 at 8:41PM ESTaugust.burns.red lol if I'm weakminded, I'm absolutely terrified to see how you would be described. Your emotional, fallacious arguments show that you are clearly not as aware as you believe yourself to be. Enjoy your sheltered, ignorant views of life. Cheers!
February 23, 2012 at 9:28PM ESTRico @august Anyone who calls some one ingrate for their views is a fkn idiot person in general. Take your " cheers " and stay in your country!!!! Your obviously a ignorant civilian who doesnt know shit so stfu and do not worry about a real soldiers opinion because your that fkn stupid. Hoorah to that!!!! Gtfo moron. Oh and btw just because read info doesnt make it true. Naive idiot. Bet you never seen War. Thats why you have no respect for soldiers. Seriously stay in country with that cheers shit.
February 23, 2012 at 10:13PM ESTaugust.burns.red I call you an ingrate because you seem to lack the mental capacity necessary to understand that people aren't knocking the troops here. Drew has explained his opinion quite clearly, yet you still fail to understand it. Where do you think I'm from lol? You have no idea of my military experience, as I have merely pointed out your weak arguments and awfully-constructed points. It's idiotic to speak about and draw conclusions about that which hasn't even been discussed. Your emotional reaction makes it clear that you either lack the ability to respond intellectually and logically, or you choose not to. Your intellectual prowess as displayed thus far is quite disappointing. Classic internet tough guy syndrome. Might wanna copy and past your rants into Word in the future to take care of those pesky fragments of sentences and choppy grammatical errors. You're clearly wrong about my respect for soldiers, but hey, why not just assume I don't because I don't agree with your uninformed opinion. I don't care if you are a soldier or not, your terribly constructed arguments are not convincing no matter who you are. Call me more names, its entertaining watching you fail do hard and coming up with a legitimate argument. Cannon fodder at it's finest!
February 24, 2012 at 12:10AM ESTRico Saw the movie....it was good and it shows how things are done. The movie also shows how we rely on spec ops to prevent terror. Enough said. And as for august stfu already i dnt tlk to ignorant civilians. Conversation ends on my fkn note not yours.
February 25, 2012 at 12:10PM ESTaugust.burns.red Hahaha your intelligence quotient must be through the roof. Is that your best comeback? You're clearly the ignorant one, saying I'm a civ when I've served for 4 years. How about you grow a sense of intelligence and awareness before your blindness gets you killed. Talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old coming from a sheltered home. No sense of greater things in the world than their small, incomplete perspective
March 1, 2012 at 12:50PM ESTpistolinhand It's always good to have some lemmings on the front line though, August! Someone has to be the meatshield!
March 1, 2012 at 12:52PM ESTAshe
February 23, 2012 at 7:28PM EST Reply to CommentDrew,
Your assertion that reviewing this movie is a bit like navigating a mine field is erroneous, it is actually more akin to being hoisted by your own petard. If the film displays a clunky narrative and poor characterization, fine...criticize it for what it is. But the problem here is that film critics cannot help to assert their own ideological skewers into the beast, which does their credibility no favors when it comes to a films such as this one.
I would counter that It is the film which is truly navigating the minefield here. If its politics were unabashedly pro-American, the leftist, postmodernist film critics (which make up most of you) would decry it as a jingoistic piece of Riefenstahlian propaganda, which a few of you more or less already have. However, if it were to embrace the moral subjectivity and anti-war, anti-military sentiment running through Hollywood over the last decade plus, it would be largely rejected by audiences just as those films have been. This is certainly analogous to John Wayne's "The Green Berets", a highly successful film unfairly maligned by the liberal film critics of the late 1960s.
Instead the filmmakers chose to be apolitical, which brings about the majority of your ideological criticism. It is very telling that you are forced to defend your review of the film against your ostensible politics, which imbue your review at nearly every level. Perhaps if you had simply concentrated on the filmmaking, rather than what disturbed your delicate liberal sensibilities, your review would be the better for it. Its no coincidence that the first comment about this review was trumping up your humanism; even those who support your position are under no illusions that this review was not ideologically-skewed.
Regarding any assumptions about your political views, one need only to read your reviews from back in your AICN days, or even here at HitFix to get a good grip on your political ideologies. I'm sure if someone had the time, they could pull all of your reviews and illustrate this for you. You are clearly a liberal, no matter your political affiliation. Even the intellectually problematic ideology that is your atheism/secular humanism is typically a sign of liberalism. The "you don't know my politics and I don't support either party" umbrage is a facile bit of incredulity.
Finally, a film that leans on people's feeling about real-life troops while telling a fictional story is really no different from the majority of dramatic crutches Hollywood leans on with nearly everything they produce, no matter the level of success regarding the implementation of those tropes. Ultimately, I think we should leave it up to those doing the fighting to decide whether or not this film honors them. We should simply choose as an audience to enjoy the film or not based on its merits and not its refreshing lack of politics; the latter of which I'm sure many audience members will find to be a welcome change of pace.
the flower tao I do perceive Drew's writing as motivated by humanist ideals, but - to be fair - in case of this particular review, I was projecting my own stance onto someone else's work. You know, this discussion here really IS a minefield.
February 23, 2012 at 8:49PM ESTI'd love to hear why exactly something called ACT OF VALOR could possibly be apolitical - wouldn't you say that even the title alone is a clear and loud statement? Don't worry though - I'm asking just out of curiosity. Not in the mood for stepping into the minefield myself anymore. ;)
drew Okay, well, to be blunt, if all I'm judging it technical merit and storytelling skill, the film is trash. It's bargain basement direct to video bad. The film's uneasy, half-cooked game of soldiers and bad guys is the only thing that's even remotely interesting about it, and it makes me uncomfortable. Deeply.
February 23, 2012 at 9:21PM ESTAnd if you want to call me names instead of explaining why you think the film does work and what's good about it, then fine.
But I think "lack of politics" is not something you can accuse a movie of when it features rah-rah footage of the wholesale slaughter of generic "bad guys" while also trying to evoke real emotion by listing the names of actual dead soldiers. It's unnervingly tin-eared.
Ashe Reply to comment...
February 24, 2012 at 2:01AM ESTAshe @DREW
February 24, 2012 at 2:12AM ESTSo your assessment is that based on technical merit and storytelling skill, the film is trash. Perfect.
The thrust of your review could have easily been left at that, which is the salient bit of my post. That movie critics decide to ideologically and politically skew their reviews and then claim that they are in a no-win situation is intellectually dishonest, This is the same sort of syndrome Roger Ebert so often finds himself afflicted with these days.
If you review the above thread, you'll clearly read that you yourself described the content of the film as largely apolitical:
"I'm not offended by it because it is thinly-veiled propaganda. I am uncomfortable because I don't think the movie has enough of a point of view in either direction. I think it is poorly thought-out and, for the most part, apolitical."
You're certainly not the only person to have expressed such sentiment, but now you seem to be somewhat contradicting yourself. Additionally, supporting and honoring those in the military is not in and of itself a definitive political statement, and this is clearly one of the primary goals of the film.
Finally, I don't know if you misread my post or are simply being overly sensitive here, but I never called you a name or attached a pejorative label to you whatsoever. I merely assessed what I clearly observed to be your ideological and sociopolitical goggles at play in your review, and then observed your attempt at juking and weaving around it in response to the comments. However, if you can provide examples of this supposed name calling, I'll be happy to acquiesce.
Ashe @THE FLOWER TAO
February 24, 2012 at 2:18AM ESTIt may have been projection on your part, but this does not necessarily mean that your impressions were at all inaccurate.
Ashe @THE FLOWER TAO
February 24, 2012 at 2:33AM ESTI feel ya. No minefields, this is simply a matter of definition. The Merriam-Webster definition of "valor" is as follows:
: strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery
Roughly speaking, the title simply equates to an act of encountering danger with firmness or personal bravery. No matter your politics, or lack thereof, one would be hard pressed to claim that the real life counterparts to the actions presented in the film do not qualify.
Again, many have described the film as being largely apolitical, or if we must split hairs -- I suppose I could have been more specific in my previous post -- as apolitical as a film of this nature can get.
Drew even leveraged this as a criticism of the film, though now he seems to be swinging the other way. Of course he did describe his feelings as "complicated", so perhaps these emotive complications are the source of the apparent contradiction.
Vern I never understand people who criticize a review for having a political slant or a subjective viewpoint. Of course it does. It's not an instruction manual or a Consumer Reports review of a new dishwasher, it's an essay about a piece of art. If Drew's review didn't come from his perspective, his passions, his beliefs, his experiences, then it would be a shitty review.
February 24, 2012 at 3:26AM ESTHe talked about the tone of the movie, the quality of the writing, acting, action, production values, what he felt were ridiculous characters and scenarios, offered many descriptions and comparisons to make us understand what he was talking about. Why do you feel there's something wrong with him also mentioning his personal discomfort with what he feels is a sub-Cannon action movie tying itself to real soldiers who have died? You would prefer a critic who feels that and doesn't mention it because it would be too personal?
Fuck that. That's a shitty critic you're asking for there. That's a blurb in TV Guide, not a review.
If you feel the politics you perceive in the review are stupid then debate them on their merits, not on their existence. Most movies can be interpreted to have a perspective of some kind, because they are (often) made by humans. And that's part of what's interesting about them and why they're worth writing and arguing about.
mmcb105 Well stated, Vern.
February 24, 2012 at 10:21AM ESTthe flower tao @VERN: Well put. Nordling's VALOR-review over at AICN is a great read, exactly because he makes his political perspective part of the equation and is totally open and transparent about that.
February 24, 2012 at 11:53AM EST@ASHE: I agree that going to war / into a spec ops requires valor as defined above. I see you were answering my question about the title alone. But what about context?
One could easily argue that - following your definition - 9/11 was an act of valor too. Those terrorists too encountered their demise with SOME twisted sort of firmness, didn't they? Don't get me wrong, I condemn those acts in every possible way. No relativism here.
Just trying to illustrate why context matters and why I feel that certain titles/phrasings are almost impossible to read in a neutral way. See, I’m already prancing around at the edge of the minefield again. Damn you, topic of discussion! ;)
By the way, this reminds me of Bay's depiction of the Decepticons in the beginning of TRANSF3. Strictly speaking and by definition, they're just interstellar robots. Yet, within context, they were portrayed like arab dudes. Yeah, I'm preaching the FilmCritHULK gospel here. His 'context matters' punchline really stuck with me. Anyway, I'm drifting off.
Ashe @VERN
February 24, 2012 at 1:46PM ESTThat soapbox is going to break if you stand on it too much longer. The point that your apparent lack of reading comprehension is not allowing you to understand is that if critics are going to insert their politics so prominently into their reviews, they should stop whining about the position it places them in, and stop resorting to hand waving when someone calls them on it.
If more or less leaving your personal ideology or politics out of a film review somehow relegates it to TV Guide blurb status, I would counter that the reviewer in question must not be much of a writer or a film critic. You are taking a dump on basic logic and creating a false dilemma here.
Just because someone abhors the politics in say, the Bourne movies (I use this example because I hold this view), they could still easily write a substantive and dynamic review of these films while hardly mentioning politics whatsoever. The exception to this would be if a movie is politically focused or charged, and most admit that "Act of Valor" doesn't really fit this description. Once again, Drew himself described the movie as largely "apolitical".
No one is disputing that Drew talked about the writing, directing, etc. but he easily spent just as much time on how the film offended his delicate sensibilities. Out of the 7 paragraphs making up this review, all but two of them prominently bring up Drew's political filter. A film critic allowing their personal ideology to affect their review is certainly their prerogative, but simultaneously painting themselves as the ones being put upon in the process is disingenuous at best.
As for Drew's politics, debating them wouldn't be all that hard, but this is a site about film, no? This is why I focused on how Drew's politics clearly affected his assessment of the film as a whole, if not the specific elements that make up the whole, as well as addressing his flaccid defenses in the comments thread.
Most audiences realize these days that given the sociopolitical make up of the average film critic, almost anything that shows America or U.S. armed forces in any sort of flattering light will inevitably be accused of flag-waving and jingoism; with critics seeing Muslims where there are none, and discussing how shots of the American flag in a movie about giant robots makes them sick to their stomach, or how movies about aliens attacking Los Angeles are Military-industrial complex propaganda pieces. This is but one of the many reasons why critical reviews have almost become meaningless to modern audiences.
Ashe @THE FLOWER TAO
February 24, 2012 at 2:07PM ESTOf course. There is no doubt that seen from a jihadist point of view, something like 9/11 could be construed as an act of valor. In truth, I was anticipating this response from you.
Objectively speaking, there could certainly be some argument as to the nature of how the hijackers confronted this supposed danger (by that I mean on the macro level, not the micro level, i.e. threat of death), and whether this an act of bravery as opposed to a cowardly one. But subjectively speaking, from their point of view, 9/11 could be considered as such. If Al Qaeda ever make a slam-bang action movie about 9/11 called "Act of Valor", I certainly wouldn't be debating the title.
Certainly context matters to an audience, which makes one realize that "Act of Valor" may not play so well in Iran. However this is an American film made for American audiences, and that should really be taken at face value. Where we get into a grey area is when our own sociopolitical or ideological projection takes over for the actual content or intent of the film. For example, your Transformers 3 comment is completely ill-conceived to me. I know why you are making the comparison, but I don't think its a fair one in the least.
As I so often teach my students, to the complete shock of my colleagues who spend their days riding the coattails of greater thinkers, sometimes there is no deeper meaning behind it, Shakespeare simply thought it was funny.
the flower tao Yeah, the 9/11 example was quite obvious. Sorry to be that predictable. ;D
February 24, 2012 at 3:49PM EST“Where we get into a grey area is when our own sociopolitical or ideological projection takes over for the actual content or intent of the film.”
If a filmmaker’s intent is quite clear, it can guide readings. But it can’t force them. If you’re familiar with Uwe Boll, you’ll know what I mean – he does have good and honest intentions with films like SEED, TUNNEL RATS, STOIC or AUSCHWITZ. But in the end, almost all of his films seem to say the exact opposite to what he thinks they’re saying. Like… a supposed psychological study about prison violence turning into gross voyeurist torture porn right before your eyes.
“For example, your Transformers 3 comment is completely ill-conceived to me.”
I'm absolutely fine with you having a different stance on TRANSF3. But that's the whole point: To you, those Decepticon scenes said something else than to me. Their meaning isn't engraved in Bay's images, it comes forth precisely the moment an audience starts to read those images from a certain point of view.
“As I so often teach my students, to the complete shock of my colleagues who spend their days riding the coattails of greater thinkers, sometimes there is no deeper meaning behind it, Shakespeare simply thought it was funny.“
Let me counter your Shakespeare quote by citing a great saying by Trinh T. Minh-ha. It’s quite simple but I feel there’s real value to it. Please excuse me for re-translating it, I only got the german translation on my bookshelf: “Meaning can neither be forced [upon readers/viewers], nor can it be denied.”
Ultimately, you get what you yourself bring into a cinematic experience. So, even if I wholeheartedly disagree, I can’t deny certain people their perception of VALOR as an apolitical hommage to virtuous bravery. I can argue against it but I can’t deny other readings. If someone wants to explain STARSHIP TROOPERS as fascist propaganda, then fine. I don’t agree with that AT ALL. It’s still a matter of readings.
Now, I guess that sounds like straight out relativism. If everything’s just a matter of opinion, how can we come up with collective values instead of drowning in postmodern indifference? I’d say there’s a good answer to this, just in case you’d in fact read my thoughts as postmodern jabber jabber: It’s about plain plausibility. I do believe I could expand on my TRANSF3 reading in a way you’d find plausible. Meaning that you’d see an inner logic to my argument instead of finding it to be all arbitrary.
And of course, you’d still be free to disagree. Same thing the other way round: I believe you could make an argument about how VALOR is nothing like stupid US propaganda. I’d never deny that to you by lecturing you about how there’d be a truth to this movie you’d have missed. Other worldviews, other experiences, other readings. That’s not postmodern indifference to me, just a basic insight into how meaning works.
To sum this somewhat overblown post up: We shouldn’t get into fights about whose perspective is objective and whose is subjective. Not a single one of us has access to a higher truth. We’re all just trying to make sense of the world around us and to communicate our findings. I’m fine with that. In fact, I think that’s the key to humanism. But let me stress this: I THINK it is. Not: It IS. Now, I hope you see some plausibility in what I wrote.
Just one more thing: I see you’re a teacher. I sincerely hope you get that I’m not trying to lecture you but to debate with you. Since I’m not a native speaker, I have to look up words all the time. And sometimes, there a slight but important differences in meaning between English and German, like with pathetic (pathetic) and pathetisch (arousing, epic, huge). So, please be patient with me in case I somehow wrong or misunderstand you.
Thanks for reading & writing.
Ashe @THE FLOWER TAO
February 26, 2012 at 4:16AM ESTNo confusion here. As I spend way too much time lecturing and since I actually mentor the university's debate society, I can usually spot the difference between the two.
The two examples you give aren't as convincing as they might otherwise seem for a couple of reasons:
In Uwe Boll's case he simply lacks the talent to convey his message. His aspirations far exceed his abilities...of course, don't tell that to the good doctor. This example fails to take into account that poorly executed social commentary be it textual or subtextual is a far different beast than none at all.
Starship Troopers could be considered a similar case...but since its satirical nature is fairly obvious, is this truly a failure of Paul Verhoeven or an inability of those who label it fascist propaganda to properly understand satire? Either way, in this case the filmmaker has either failed to convey his intended meaning or the audience has misinterpreted it due to a lack of insight or their own ideological predilections.
Once again, misinterpretation of direct social commentary and/or subtext is much different than attempting to assign a deeper meaning to what is simply a straightforward story a la Transformers 3. Unfortunately for Freud, he probably never said this as it would have ranked as the most intelligent thing he ever said...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I wouldn't say that the points made in your post are entirely relativistic, but we are certainly headed down that rabbit hole. While we could get into the effects of postmodernism and relativism, that is a much longer post and will quickly enter into a philosophical interlocution for which this comment board is inappropriate. I will simply respond with an apropos Chesterton quote:
"The man of this school (postmodernism) goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.'
Finally, while I'm sure you could make an internally and logically consistent argument regarding Transformers 3, you would still have a problem defending your premises as valid when countered with potential defeaters for those premises. As I mentioned in my previous post, I understand precisely how you came about to the comparison you made, I just think it is a matter of jumping at shadows.
In closing, the one thing most of us can agree on (and the only cogent argument Vern made above) is that one of the great things about any art form (including entertainment-driven art) is that we as the audience bring our own perspective to it. Conversely though, we do these art forms a disservice when our perceptions overpower the art itself.
Thanks to you as well for the engaging exchange!
Robncaruso
February 23, 2012 at 8:22PM EST Reply to CommentHeading to a theater this weekend!
BigAl6ft6
February 23, 2012 at 9:08PM EST Reply to CommentSimple answer: I'm interested in this movie in a technical aspect, not out of any sort of patriotism (because I'm, uh, Canadian) but I wouldn't mind seeing the X-Y-Z of how actual military procedures are worked out and go down. And it does look slick. But not enough to see in theatres. Gonna go see "Goon" instead this week, mostly because it's about hockey (and we're getting it a month beforehand y'all down South).
drew I don't buy that this is how things really happen, though, because the situation they set up is so preposterous and "yellow peril" broad and silly.
February 23, 2012 at 9:18PM ESTShola Akinnuso
February 24, 2012 at 3:23PM EST Reply to CommentDrew, I am mostly concerned with how the film looked. The other big deal about this flick is that it was shot with the canon 5d mark 2 which is a 2500.00 dslr camera en vogue with indie filmmakers today who cannot shell out for the Red camera. While the movie has been extraordinarily post processed (probably spent a million on just making it look competitive), and that the acclaimed DP used the absolute most expensive lenses one could buy, does this movie look good enough whereby indie action directors can consider this technically sufficient without relying on the documentary or found footage format?
I am sure that the movie, narratively, was all that claimed. However, as a movie goer, was the look of it distracting enough that you don't foresee a future with more films looking this way? Just curious....
drew It's an interesting test of the system, and for the most part, it looks great. There are a few low-light interior scenes where I think it betrays its nature a bit, but overall, impressive.
February 26, 2012 at 2:05AM ESTKyle
February 26, 2012 at 1:11AM EST Reply to CommentThe criticism is typical. Hollywood and those who share their left-leaning ideology; pays lip service to the brave people who serve this country. In reality however they detest the military, and also don't fancy America too well.
What's really hilarious, and shows the phoniness of Hollywood; is if the film was all the same- save the message was about making the solders look bad, as well as the country. The critics would sit back and talk about how "brilliant" the film was.
The creators of the film, originally were going to go with actors; though decided they wanted the film to also be a tribute to the people who serve this country, and do things we don't hear about or see- things other people see, and are greatly thankful for when they show up; and yeah its also great action.
The film is also for people who have become sick of the way Hollywood portrays the military, and this country- and know first hand that the men and women who serve; aren't a bunch of cold blooded killers of innocent people. Its also for people who respect the people who choose to risk their lives not just defending each other, and fighting for this country- but for others in other countries. Those who share the same kind of anti-American, and military ideology- will never understand it.
The film will do well, and racist, anti-military, anti-American, Hollywood will not understand why.
drew Yap yap yap.
February 26, 2012 at 2:08AM ESTWhat a crock. It's a bad movie pumped up with some production value in the action scenes, and it's not because it portrays the military as heroes. That's a disgusting charge to level against someone, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing it.
I think your comments reveal your own preposterous bias, and it's obvious that no matter what the film was, you walked in ready to use it to advance your own agenda, and your don't really care what the review said. You just want to grind your axe and call your names. Well, congratulations, scumbag. Mission accomplished.
Ashe @DREW
February 26, 2012 at 4:35AM ESTSpotted your post to Kyle and was reminded of your last post to me. It's two days later and I'm still politely waiting for you to point out the "names" that I supposedly called you.
Additionally, many of Kyle's criticisms of Hollywood's product and its treatment over the last decade or so of the United States and the United States military are quite valid, not to mention the behavior certain outspoken members of the Hollywood "elite"; he just goes about making the argument in a slipshod manner. While "Act of Valor" may still be a bad movie even without the entertainment industry's built in bias, much of Kyle's point is still more than relevant and is related to the subject at hand.
Finally, it was with no shortage of ironic laughter that I noticed you finish your post to Kyle by directly calling him a name. Good show.
Rob
February 26, 2012 at 3:14AM EST Reply to CommentTHANK YOU!
Finally, an honest criticism that didn't involve calling the movie some sort of propagandistic recruitment film. Thank you, Moriarty. I could about kiss you right now.
Note to Nordling at AICN, this is how the professionals write a review.
Rico 25 mil already on a film that isnt good....and gets C- , enough said.
February 26, 2012 at 5:13PM ESTdrew No, Rico... not "enough said."
February 27, 2012 at 2:33AM ESTBox office and quality of film are not remotely related. Never have been. Never will be. It is not any sort of argument or proof to simply point at a box-office number as if that validates an opinion.
If you want to discuss it as a film, great. If you just like it because it supports your ideology, great. But "25 million... enough said" is the dumbest thing posted in this entire comments section.
Ashe @DREW
February 27, 2012 at 2:43PM ESTThought I'd check back and noticed that you were still responding here. I'm still waiting for you to point out some of the names that I supposedly called you. This is an accusation I take very seriously, as I work hard to avoid such things.
I'm hesitant to take your silence as any kind of admission, but I suspect that there is nothing for you to point out. Even so, posting a response in which you attempt to disregard someone's points by accusing them of name calling and then not supporting or retracting said accusation could be construed as an attempt to avoid actual substantive engagement, or as simple dishonesty.
You are very keen to lecture others on arguments and proofs, but are seemingly reluctant to show proof of your assertion that I resorted to pejorative labels in my initial response to you and was not simply stating the obvious. As I mentioned before, I'll certainly apologize if you can illustrate the former.
Ashe @RICO
February 27, 2012 at 3:26PM ESTIt was great to see moviegoers flock to "Act of Valor" simply because it was a nice change of pace from the Hollywood norm. Outside of the action sequences the movie certainly has its issues, but it was a crowd pleasing experiment nonetheless.
Box office and quality of film are certainly not joined at the hip, and many poorly crafted films have been box office successes. That being said, the cineast mindset that quality of film and box office are not (to use Drew's words) "remotely connected" is patently false.
How well a film engages its audience (for any intentional reason) is certainly an aspect of its overall quality, both in terms of capturing an audience's attention and in potentially holding it. Film is an art form but the reality is that it is also part of the entertainment business, and ultimately it is the audience who drives that market despite Hollywood's repeated attempts at the self-aggrandizing circle jerk. The easiest way to measure audience response? Ticket sales.
Now this is certainly not a static metric, as there are other variables to take into account: subject appeal, demographic appeal, marketing budget, response to marketing campaign, etc. However, when leveraged against market research data, historical performance of similar films, low-budget vs. big-budget expectations, and release strategy, reasonable expectations can be set. When a film meets those expectations or even exceeds them, it's often because it is successfully connecting with its target audience.
When teaching writing, be it academic or otherwise, one of the first lessons is on how to effectively and accurately know your audience, and specifically how to engage that specific audience. When a writer is successful at this, it IS a measure of the overall quality of their work, even if the rest of the writing may not be up to par. In this aspect, fIlm is really no different.
Big Illy Style
February 27, 2012 at 5:52PM EST Reply to CommentDrew,
Nice that you tried to judge the film without going into a diatribe, but you're fooling yourself if you think your review doesn't obviously reveal your so-called political views/philosophy, ideology, whatever. Obviously, you did not care for the "rah-rah" portrayal of "people who go around the world killing individuals." You tried to be what you think was polite about it, but it came across as merely condescending. But, conservatives and military folks (like myself, Air Force, Operation Iraqi Freedom Sep 08-Mar 09) are used to it. Good job on making an effort, but don't fool yourself into thinking any of us were fooled: you don't support the foreign policy agenda initiated by Bush, continued by Obama, and furthered by the military. And that is a big reason why you didn't like the movie. You are unfortunately disingenuous to hide behind the disclaimer that you "support neither party" and don't fit within them. That makes it sound like you're between GOP and Dem, or middle of the road moderate between the generally accepted positions of the right and left. Reading between the lines of your teeth-gritted review, it's clear that you are to the LEFT of the Democratic party, not in the middle.
Again, nobody's fooled, Drew. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and despite what I believe was a professional effort to avoid bias in your review, the readers here--right and left--saw through it plain as day.
JIM
March 6, 2012 at 9:51PM EST Reply to CommentYOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT..THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER, U TREASONOUS FOOL
osiskars
April 11, 2012 at 9:20PM EST Reply to CommentNo matter what was the storyline, it was still much better executed than Hunger games :P , which came out silly and totally confusing..
lovemycountry
July 18, 2012 at 9:12PM EST Reply to CommentRight on Rico...as far as this drew idiot you obviously don't give a shit that you live in a FREE country or what had to be done for you to enjoy those freedoms. You OBVIOUSLY have never served in the armed forces nor have you OBVIOUSLY ever lost family ( or friends) fighting for our great country. As far as the narration what a story a guy gave his life so his brothers and you you dumbass could sleep peacefully without the fear off a terrorist attack, or better yet look at all the men and women who have given their lives so you can sit your pompus ass behind a computer and degrade them. It just goes to show how ignorant you are.... please do our great country a huge favor and shut your mouth i seriously doubt you are anywhere near an expert on ANYTHING. Your opinion here just goes to prove "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one"........ at least now i know what website to block... did you have fun July 4th....i bet you did just remember you couldn't have done that were it not for men and women identical to and even those that played in this movie you so idiotically criticized.....