Escape to the Movies: Act of Valor

cookyy2k

Senior Member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
21
Dastardly said:
As the saying goes, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." People can cry about the horrors of war, and how awful all of it is, but it's easy for them to forget that the reason they're free to do so is because we've got men ready to bear that burden for us.
The people you NEVER hear about do far more than any soldier to let "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night". Intelligence and scientific services are never heard about and conducted in complete secrecy with no one doing any of these jobs even admitting to what they do. Without either of these no army, navy or airforce would be effective.
 

Ashley Blalock

New member
Sep 25, 2011
287
0
0
Madcat75 said:
Why do people keep saying that just because the SEALS and Delta are American they are the "best in the world", they are not even close, the best in the world are the British SAS and SBS and the Israeli Sayeret.
It's a national pride thing, every nation wants to say their version of special forces is the best.

When you break down the equipment, training, tactics, and everything else that makes a group elite all the groups you mentioned are so close it's really hard to say any of them would be just the tiniest bit better than the others.

To be honest if I was being held by pirates, terrorist or any other assorted bad guys I'd be happy to see the SEALs, Delta, SAS, SBS, or the Sayeret show up to save my butt.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Dastardly said:
MovieBob said:
Act of Valor

MovieBob aims his attention at the epic Navy recruiting film Act of Valor.

Watch Video
Good, fair treatment of the material. I see this movie as an experiment. It's not meant to propagandize (ie, sway the opinions of the masses) as much as it's meant to appeal to already-fans of this kind of thing, and see if it takes.

And on another hand, I really have no problem with the military working to ensure a mostly-positive spin in Hollywood appearances. What they do is usually not very action-filled, and when it is, it's not "fun" or "pretty." It's flat-out ugly. They're going to get plenty of negative spin because what they do involves killing people. (In addition to the statisticallyextremely uncommon scandalous stuff we hear so much about lately.)

An army has to do awful things, and the public needs men able and willing to do those things. Often, we only hear/talk/care about what they do when it goes wrong. Really think about this:

1. We have a military so that we don't all have to deal with all of the awful things they have to do.
2. Because we don't have to deal with those awful things, we forget about them... or at least lose perspective on them.
3. We make unreasonable demands about how they do/don't do those awful things we originally tasked them to do.
4. They don't get it done, so it either doesn't get done or it falls back to us.
5. We decide to have a military, so that we don't have to deal... and so on.

Running PR for an organization like the military must be an absolute nightmare, because even on the best days, you're an organization whose job it is to kill lots of people(or at least stay prepared to do so). Seems to be that job would be impossible without a little "hero porn" and a bit of preemptive damage control.
I agree with most of what your saying, and indeed take it a bit furher as I am a militant and believe that the world is an ugly place and in the end when you strip past all the pretensions it all comes down to who is most willing and able to do the most damage. In a powerful country like the US we have been able to detach ourselves from that and pretend it's not the case, and it's increasingly been out downfall as morality and what people want to believe the world is like, trumps nessecity and keeping outselves on top so we can continue to enjoy the level of success and standard of living to which we are accustomed. With limited resources on the planet and the enviroment already suffering from current needs, never mind the increased stress put on it by developing nations that want more, the bottom line is not everyone cn live well, and people need to increasingly understand it's an "us or them" situation.

I've actually argued for a while that the US military should be given a lot more of a free hand and autonomy to do what is nessicary to keep the US on top, rather than the increasing trend of giving civilians and civilian leaders primacy in things they really don't understand or what to understand. That's how we've created messes like "The War On Terror" and garbage like "The Patriot Act" which was devised as a middle ground between peace time operations and actually declaring martial law and going on a full wartime footing which is arguably what we should have done, as half the problems we've created now came about from simply not properly using the tools, people, and laws we had.

That said from Bob's summary it does seem like it was trying to do things right though. Bad acting aside, a plotline like what your seeing is something people should be exposed to more often so they understand the logic behind a lot of the laws and security matters people want to take. Not to mention explaining why when certain people who know what they are talking about come accross like conspiricy nutjobs when you look at the sheer number of national affiliations that can be involved. A guy with lineneage and/or political pull in half a dozen countries and using all of those resources to go after the US is not all that uncommon, especially seeing as how those countries are oftentimes nothing like the US with many of them having GNPs lower than most states. Some guy pulling resources and under the table goverment support from six differant nations that generally don't cooperate overtly is no real differant than a big business doing the same across six differant states... and is perhaps easier because despite sovreignty the goverment in all those smaller nations can probably be bought far more easily as the same standards of investigating corruption don't exist.

Most notably however, I find it interesting to see that someone decided to "go there" with Mexico and allied US nations like the Phillipines finally. The issue with terrorists getting into the US through the mexican border has been there since we started paying attention, after 9/11 it was one of the first things uncovered. The issue isn't just one with drug cartels being involved, though they are a big concern since they will work for money (especially if they are already allied with middle eastern poppy cartels or something) and have been caught with things like tunnels going right under the border. The whole issue of mexican workers getting into the US is another one, after all some Arab who can pass for Mexican and speak spanish can probably get in with the illegals with minimal effort, etc. Nations like the Phillipines that don't police their shipping very well yet have favored trade status with the US can also present an issue.

Basically, when people hear about all these "crazy" plans control the borders, everyone focuses on those "poor illegal labourers who just want more money" (which is an issue in of itself) not with the entire issue of border penetration and how terrorists can enter or fuel cells that way. Ditto for wanting to get more hardcore on our trade and shipping policies which might cost some smaller nations money by slowing them down, but also prevent them from entering into the US.

Bob's summary (as far as it went) isn't perfect, but I think the whole reason he found it painful and hard to follow is pretty much why more people need to see terrorism presented that way.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Odin_kru said:
he really did seem so frightened to make any negative comments about this movie.

It makes me wonder why he has so much "respect" for some people, but others can go screw themselves.
I personally have much more respect for the Navy SEALS than anyone who has every purchased a ticket to more than one transformers movie. I don't blame him.

Plus, just in general, it's kind of a huge social stigma to be seen criticizing the troops in the U.S.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Okay, just wanna jump in here for a minute: My "disclaimer" had nothing to do with "apologizing" to the Army or anyone else. I simply wanted to make sure my (very) specific criticisms were understood to be in the context I intended them.

This particular film presents a very unique situation for critical analysis, as many of the action sequences are made up in part by footage of the SEAL operators engaged in (and my exact terminology may be incorrect here) live-fire exercises - i.e. we are effectively watching them run "drills" for their actual techniques/operations during which they were both dodging and returning potentially-lethal gunfire. Thusly, I wanted it understood that when I talked about "performance" in a critical way I was talking specifically about stuff like acting, projection, etc. and NOT "field performance" in the exercises themselves which I'm in no way qualified to judge.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
I agree, this seems like it could have been turned into an incredible documentary rather than a straight up narrative.
 

Thunderpants

New member
Jul 19, 2009
16
0
0
Warforger said:
Cowabungaa said:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.
Honestly I'm not a native born American but I was raised here and I have a disgust for when the military tries to infiltrate popular culture as to get recruitment, like the American Army games. To me mourning soldiers deaths as worse than normal people's death sickens me, to me the military is just like taking drugs, you know there was a risk some drugs/branches are more dangerous than others and you know very well your health can be heavily damaged if not get killed if you decide to participate not to mention that you could potentially hurt many other people. However you do it for the benefits, for the military it's social, cultural and financial for drugs it tends to be physical pleasure, the only difference is that one is supported by the government and the other isn't. I feel an essential sense of irony then when American soldiers defend Opium fields in Afghanistan as to keep people supporting them.

Maybe they made the movie because people like the military or think the Navy SEALS are awesome. Just because it's about the military doesn't make it a recruitment ad. Even if it was, becoming a Navy SEAL is ridiculously difficult and the slightest bit of research would tell people not to join the Navy if they only want to be a SEAL.

The deaths of people in the Armed Forces are mourned because they knew they could die and still signed up. It is still something most people wouldn't do. Now your comparison of the military and taking drugs is just ridiculous. I enlisted in the Marines in August and leave for Boot in July. I did not join because I want people to think I'm a hero, to make myself feel like a badass, or the money. I joined because I want to be a part of something I feel is important in my life and perhaps learn something about myself.

Now about the opium fields and harming of others. It isn't the military's job to disrupt their way of life regardless if it's illegal to our government. It also wasn't our decision for the enemy to blend it's fighters with civilians. Don't blame our military, blame those who use them for cover.

Bobs review was fine. It wasn't phenomenal but I understand it. The acting is something that took a hit for the realistic action scenes. It's a good movie for those who like action and/or military.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Thunderpants said:
Warforger said:
Cowabungaa said:
I wonder what a non-American would think about the propaganda-level of this film.
Honestly I'm not a native born American but I was raised here and I have a disgust for when the military tries to infiltrate popular culture as to get recruitment, like the American Army games. To me mourning soldiers deaths as worse than normal people's death sickens me, to me the military is just like taking drugs, you know there was a risk some drugs/branches are more dangerous than others and you know very well your health can be heavily damaged if not get killed if you decide to participate not to mention that you could potentially hurt many other people. However you do it for the benefits, for the military it's social, cultural and financial for drugs it tends to be physical pleasure, the only difference is that one is supported by the government and the other isn't. I feel an essential sense of irony then when American soldiers defend Opium fields in Afghanistan as to keep people supporting them.

Maybe they made the movie because people like the military or think the Navy SEALS are awesome. Just because it's about the military doesn't make it a recruitment ad. Even if it was, becoming a Navy SEAL is ridiculously difficult and the slightest bit of research would tell people not to join the Navy is they only want to be a SEAL.

The deaths of people in the Armed Forces are mourned because they knew they could die and still signed up. It is still something most people wouldn't do. Now your comparison of the military and taking drugs is just ridiculous. I enlisted in the Marines in August and leave for Boot in July. I did not join because I want people to think I'm a hero, to make myself feel like a badass, or the money. I joined because I want to be a part of something I feel is important in my life and perhaps learn something about myself.

Now about the Opium fields and harming of others. It isn't the military's job to disrupt their way of life regardless if it's illegal to our government. It also wasn't our decision for the enemy to blend it's fighters with civilians. Don't blame our military, blame those who use them for cover.

Bobs review was fine. It was phenomenal but I understand it. The acting is something that took a hit for the realistic action scenes. It's a good movie for those who like action and/or military.
I agree with you. The sacrifices active duty members make in defense of their country make their deaths more depressing.

I actually kind of preferred the realistic action scenes. I'm a physics major so I spend most of normal action movies muttering "bullshit" under my breath.
 

Warforger

New member
Apr 24, 2010
641
0
0
Thunderpants said:
Maybe they made the movie because people like the military or think the Navy SEALS are awesome. Just because it's about the military doesn't make it a recruitment ad. Even if it was, becoming a Navy SEAL is ridiculously difficult and the slightest bit of research would tell people not to join the Navy is they only want to be a SEAL.
Most recruitment ads try to get less people to join because when you're in a recession the military gets a huge number of applicants. Great way to get one that pays for itself really, it's like t-shirts where it's advertisement you get paid for.

Thunderpants said:
The deaths of people in the Armed Forces are mourned because they knew they could die and still signed up. It is still something most people wouldn't do.
No, the military is getting too many applications to say most people wouldn't.

Thunderpants said:
Now your comparison of the military and taking drugs is just ridiculous. I enlisted in the Marines in August and leave for Boot in July. I did not join because I want people to think I'm a hero, to make myself feel like a badass, or the money. I joined because I want to be a part of something I feel is important in my life and perhaps learn something about myself.
So social? That doesn't sound like a great reason to join the military, drugs can do the same thing. My point though was that they both have the same risks, while one is treated like it was their responsibility and it was their fault they couldn't hold up the other is acting like they didn't ask to go into a dangerous situation. To begin with, the "important" thing is only important because people say it is, I never really saw any direct impact the military had on anyone.


Thunderpants said:
Now about the Opium fields and harming of others. It isn't the military's job to disrupt their way of life regardless if it's illegal to our government.
Except that's what the military is doing by say going to Afghanistan. The problem however is that this is the military turning back on the morales it swore to protect, we've overthrown governments who helped smuggle drugs in the Latin America so it doesn't seem to out of the box. Not to mention, this merely worsens the herione problem in places like Russia.


Thunderpants said:
It also wasn't our decision for the enemy to blend it's fighters with civilians. Don't blame our military, blame those who use them for cover.
What? Did you ever see the notorious wikileaks video? There the military fires on civilians because of some blurry colorless image i.e. bad intel, and some people would say that it was fine because they, through the horrible camera, looked like they were hostiles? Soldiers are mourned far more than civilians are, but soldiers ask to go to put themselves in those situations, civilians don't and are forced to pull through it, when they get killed the insurgents have no organization to investigate their attacks and the actual heavily funded foreign military does not investigate it too often either opting out to instead cover it up valuing it's own soldiers over civilians.
 

alandavidson

New member
Jun 21, 2010
961
0
0
Okay, as someone who was in the military, the amount of ignorance on this thread is incredible. Why does MovieBob feel the need to say that he respects the SEALS? Because they deserve respect. Go on YouTube and just look at their training. I doubt any of you know what it feels like to be cold, wet, tired, and away from your family for months at a time. Does the military fuck up? Yes. But not as often as we are led to believe. Do things like the events portrayed in Act of Valor happen? All the damn time. There are hundreds of near-misses.

On to the movie: If it weren't for great action sequences and SEALS being damn good at what they do, it would be a rental. The acting is pretty rough, there are a ton of rolling shutter issues with the 5D (the camera it was filmed on)and the effects blending didn't work that well at times, especially in harsh light. I hated the cheesy slo-mo effects, the editing was sloppy, and the whole film needed to be tightened up. Despite all that, I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

Good review Bob, it was spot on.
 

Darth_Dude

New member
Jul 11, 2008
1,302
0
0
Hmmmm, I haven't seen this movie, just the trailer and the review. The whole premise seems like a big propaganda fest.

I can't even look at the US Military without thinking of Abu Ghraib, the Haditha massacre or the finger trophy killing scandal. Obivously, not every member of the US military is a cold-blooded murderer, but it just pisses me off when the ones that are, are not punished meaningfully, or in some cases, at all for their crimes.

Also, Bob's excessive pandering to the Military is well...excessive.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Why must everyone give Bob shit for his little disclaimer at the beginning? He respects individuals that sacrifice their lives to protect us (Americans) and all he wants is to make sure nobody is going to take his review the wrong way, seeing as bad mouthing the military can really anger people and get you into a lot shit.. Just because the rest of you angsty teens want him to shit all over the military doesn't mean he has to.
 

alandavidson

New member
Jun 21, 2010
961
0
0
MovieBob said:
Okay, just wanna jump in here for a minute: My "disclaimer" had nothing to do with "apologizing" to the Army or anyone else. I simply wanted to make sure my (very) specific criticisms were understood to be in the context I intended them.

This particular film presents a very unique situation for critical analysis, as many of the action sequences are made up in part by footage of the SEAL operators engaged in (and my exact terminology may be incorrect here) live-fire exercises - i.e. we are effectively watching them run "drills" for their actual techniques/operations during which they were both dodging and returning potentially-lethal gunfire. Thusly, I wanted it understood that when I talked about "performance" in a critical way I was talking specifically about stuff like acting, projection, etc. and NOT "field performance" in the exercises themselves which I'm in no way qualified to judge.
I'll repeat that I said in a previous comment:

As former military, the concept of this film is pretty awesome to me. But, I now work in the film industry primarily as an actor/director and...

What you said said about the movie not being great is completely true. The acting sucked, the slow-mo was cheesy, and it was full of tropes that shouldn't have been there. From a more technical perspective, it had huge issues with rolling shutter, effects blending, and their focus puller should have been used for target practice. I can also go on about odd some of their lens choices were, but that's an entirely different discussion and waaaay off topic. Despite all of that, I enjoyed the hell out of it. And I agree, it would have been a better documentary.

It was a good review. Nicely premised with your real thoughts and emotions about the armed forces, and it hit the big issues about the film on the head. Once again, good review.
 

Thunderpants

New member
Jul 19, 2009
16
0
0
Warforger said:
Thunderpants said:
Maybe they made the movie because people like the military or think the Navy SEALS are awesome. Just because it's about the military doesn't make it a recruitment ad. Even if it was, becoming a Navy SEAL is ridiculously difficult and the slightest bit of research would tell people not to join the Navy is they only want to be a SEAL.
Most recruitment ads try to get less people to join because when you're in a recession the military gets a huge number of applicants. Great way to get one that pays for itself really, it's like t-shirts where it's advertisement you get paid for.

Thunderpants said:
The deaths of people in the Armed Forces are mourned because they knew they could die and still signed up. It is still something most people wouldn't do.
No, the military is getting too many applications to say most people wouldn't.

Thunderpants said:
Now your comparison of the military and taking drugs is just ridiculous. I enlisted in the Marines in August and leave for Boot in July. I did not join because I want people to think I'm a hero, to make myself feel like a badass, or the money. I joined because I want to be a part of something I feel is important in my life and perhaps learn something about myself.
So social? That doesn't sound like a great reason to join the military, drugs can do the same thing. My point though was that they both have the same risks, while one is treated like it was their responsibility and it was their fault they couldn't hold up the other is acting like they didn't ask to go into a dangerous situation. To begin with, the "important" thing is only important because people say it is, I never really saw any direct impact the military had on anyone.


Thunderpants said:
Now about the Opium fields and harming of others. It isn't the military's job to disrupt their way of life regardless if it's illegal to our government.
Except that's what the military is doing by say going to Afghanistan. The problem however is that this is the military turning back on the morales it swore to protect, we've overthrown governments who helped smuggle drugs in the Latin America so it doesn't seem to out of the box. Not to mention, this merely worsens the herione problem in places like Russia.


Thunderpants said:
It also wasn't our decision for the enemy to blend it's fighters with civilians. Don't blame our military, blame those who use them for cover.
What? Did you ever see the notorious wikileaks video? There the military fires on civilians because of some blurry colorless image i.e. bad intel, and some people would say that it was fine because they, through the horrible camera, looked like they were hostiles? Soldiers are mourned far more than civilians are, but soldiers ask to go to put themselves in those situations, civilians don't and are forced to pull through it, when they get killed the insurgents have no organization to investigate their attacks and the actual heavily funded foreign military does not investigate it too often either opting out to instead cover it up valuing it's own soldiers over civilians.
1. You are right. A lot of people are trying to get into the military now. It's very easy to get disqualified or discharged from the military due to downsizing and the number of applicants.

2. Most people wouldn't do infantry or front line jobs. Which is where most deaths occur.

3. Joining the military and doing drugs are still completely different. When you join the military you ask to get into a dangerous situation, not only for yourself but for your country, friends, or even family. Which is why society respects and mourns them. When you do drugs you don't benefit anyone except yourself and your drug dealer, and if you die it is because you wanted to get high. Not for your country, not for your family, not for your friends, but for your own self pleasure.

The Armed Forces sacrifice a lot for the chance to be shot at. Yes they get paid and receive benefits but I can get those benefits with a civilian job with a far less chance of dying. This is why society mourns members of the military more than the average civilian.

The military has a great impact on a lot of people in it. Everyone that I've talked too after boot camp had greater discipline, posture, and outlook on life. People I've talked too after deployments are even more grateful for what they have because they are alive.

It is obvious to realize the military is not for everyone though. Some people can't handle some of the things they might see, which causes certain disorders. Which is another reason why those in the military are viewed differently than civilians. They volunteer to see horrors that others will never have too.

4. The Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Seaman are trying to dismantle an organization that threatens and abuses civilians. They force civilians to do things they don't want to do. What the government wants to do in the middle - east is different from what those fighting it want to do.

5. That entire situation could've been avoided if the insurgents didn't use civilians as cover. Yes it is horrible that innocent people die and I hope to never kill a civilian myself but it isn't always in the individuals control. They have to make quick decisions or one of their friends could die. It is honestly impossible for us to realize what it is like for those out there until you are there yourself.

I understand why you could disagree with the war and the government. You are more than welcome to that opinion, but don't try to discredit those who volunteer to be in a shitty situation so you don't have too. Yes, some people in the military are assholes but they still sacrifice a lot and should be respected on some level.
 

Mechanix

New member
Dec 12, 2009
587
0
0
I saw it tonight as well. Your review was pretty much spot on Bob, the action scenes were top notch, and I probably will never see anything quite like them in a movie ever again.

The story was rather dull though, and the dialogue was pretty bland. A couple of scenes of the Seals conversing with each other were cool, but overall, they felt out of place and made me wish we could get back to the cool special missions.

Also, whoever played the wife of that soldier was absolutely atrocious at acting. The Seals were better actors than her!
 

Wriggle Wyrm

New member
Jun 15, 2011
47
0
0
DugMachine said:
Why must everyone give Bob shit for his little disclaimer at the beginning? He respects individuals that sacrifice their lives to protect us (Americans) and all he wants is to make sure nobody is going to take his review the wrong way, seeing as bad mouthing the military can really anger people and get you into a lot shit.. Just because the rest of you angsty teens want him to shit all over the military doesn't mean he has to.
The problem isn?t that there was a disclaimer. With the current political climate, it?s pretty much what we?ve come to expect when reviewing a movie like this. The problem is that the disclaimer took up half the running time of the review.

Yes, I know that being critical of the military is bound to get someone pissed at you. The thing is that doesn?t matter because Bob?s job is first and foremost as a film critic. If he spends most of his time softballing and pussyfooting around what is essentially propaganda film, guess what, people will give him shit for it.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Im still waiting for another Black Hawk Down. Im not gonna get one here, I guess.
 

Mr Somewhere

New member
Mar 9, 2011
455
0
0
I think this review was far too apologetic. I'd hardly call these people heroes. But then I'm not American and I simply don't get the culture, it's probably a lack of perspective. Regardless I had no interest in this film, it still looks like a military wankfest.

Pity Bob hasn't given his thoughts on the new hammer flick. I've seen it already, it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts.