The Intense Warrior Ethos of Act of Valor
I finally got to see Act of Valor the other day. This, of course, is the Navy Seal action film that stars actual Navy Seals. It’s good! An exciting action yarn with a very intense feel to it. The acting, of course, isn’t first rate, but it’s not bad at all and doesn’t get in the way of the story. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not exactly Laurence Olivier either. Great acting is not what action films are about.
Now, of course, the film is patriotic and has a very intense warrior ethos — that’s part of the pleasure of it, and you have to get your John Wayne on to fully enjoy it. This is no problem for me because I’ve got my John Wayne stuck on with KrazyGlue but I imagine there are some people who have to be in the proper mood. Whatever. The point is, the movie does what it sets out to do, and fans of cool, all-American action movies (like me) will definitely enjoy it.
Okay, so after I watched the film I went on Rotten Tomatoes and checked out the reviews. Viewers gave the film 75% positive ratings. Professional critics gave it 25%.
What??? Three fourths of the people who watch this movie like it, but only one fourth of the critics say it’s any good? How does that make sense? I mean, what is the point of a movie critic anyway? He has a job, right? His job is to tell you whether you’ll like the film or not, no? He’s supposed to tell you whether to plunk down your money for it. Otherwise, who cares what his opinion is?
Sure, we all understand that a critic might see a film and have aesthetic or personal objections, but shouldn’t he also have an awareness of what you, his readers, the reason his job exists, might think? Couldn’t he say, “Look, this fails as a work of art in my opinion, but lovers of hard-hitting action will enjoy it?” Couldn’t he say, “Hey, I prefer romantic comedies where guys sheepishly apologize to their girlfriends but if you, on the other hand, have testicles, you might like this instead?” Couldn’t he say, “You know, I’m a wet noodle of a leftist anti-American, but real men who love their country might be edified to watch a story about the tough guys who protect their freedoms?” Because, of course, that was the big objection the Tomato critics had to Act of Valor. Any number of them called it “propaganda.” Right. A piece of anti-American, anti-military, dishonest and poorly written horse wallop like Valley of Elah won 72% praise from these knuckleheads, but a patriotic film is perforce propaganda.
A critic who hasn’t got the judgement or wisdom or simple frankness to tell you whether or not you’ll like a film regardless of his personal opinions should do something else for a living. Same goes for a journalist who can’t cover a story without tainting it with his personal politics. They are wasting skin that could be used to make an honest human being.
***
Cross-Posted from Klavan on the Culture
Related: See Roger L. Simon’s take:
First saw it at the theater (in spite of the $9.50 price tag, plus $20 worth of popcorn and a drink to share) and LOVED it. Touched me the same way The Patriot, Patton and numerous John Wayne war movies did. American fighting forces at their best.
One of the very very few (actually only one) I bought when it came out on dvd. Even paid full price. My normal movie buying consists of the $20 bin an then only as gifts.
This is one I will watch over and over with my grandkids as they get old enough to handle it.
That is awesome that you say that about “The Patriot”! Man that movie moves me emotionally, just the same as “Braveheart” did.
[Spoilers Ahead]
The scene after the British capture Gibson’s son, played by Heath Ledger, and he and his other son’s grab a bunch of rifles and ambush them in the woods. Well I’m man enough to say that I’ve never once been able to watch that scene, without shedding some tears. I think a huge part of it of course has to do with Mel Gibson. To me, there are very few actors that can emote the kind of raw emotion he does, I can just feel deep inside the pain he is showing, and how much he cares for this country in that film, it really is moving. Same feeling I get when watching him in “Braveheart”, the “Lethal Weapon” quadrilogy and “Conspiracy Theory”. I also get that exact same moving feeling when I watch Brad Pitt in “Legends of The Fall”. Everybody is superb in that film, Anthony Hopkins is moving also, heck even the soundtrack is outstanding! Highly recommend that movie!
And thanks Andrew for this “Act of Valor” review! I have been meaning to see it and hadn’t heard much about it from anyone, though I have no friends, so that is the norm, haha. But also you just reinforced my thoughts that I already had on film critics. I personally don’t think critics know a damn thing about good cinema, at least it seems that way for most of them to me. I stopped relying on what they had to say when I was about 18 years old, I’m 33 now. I just started to see that what they had to say always conflicted with my take on films I liked and disliked. Plus, in the end I would much rather sit through a bunch of bad movies that I went and saw on my own without listening to anyone else, and then be rewarded on many occasions by doing the same thing and finding truly amazing films! Plus, I’ve literally seen more movies in my life than most people I’ve ever known or met, and I generally can rely on that little voice inside to let me know beforehand whether a movie will be good from what I’ve seen so far preview wise. And anything that is patriotic and champions our wonderful country, well sign me up! Thanks Mr. Klavan!
Count me in the 75% of theater goers that loved this movie. … but also note that I did not end up in the theater by chance or accident. I was there because I had a good idea that I was going to love a movie that celebrates America’s fighting men and basks in the Pure Action of the action movies of yore (pace, the 1980s). Equally, you would not have found me in a showing of Valley of Elah… because I had a pretty good idea that I would have hated this “piece of anti-American, anti-military, dishonest and poorly written horse wallop.”
But that is just the thing: I, like most other movie goers, SELECT myself into movies that I have a good chance of liking. OTOH, movie critics see more-or-less every wide release and thus have far less opportunity to select themselves into movie opportunities they are likely to enjoy. Thus the 75/25 split that Mr. Klavan notes is not necessarily suggestive of a reviewer bias–indeed, the fact that 75% of people that would CHOSE to go to an actioner like ‘Valor does not mean that 75% of ALL PEOPLE in this country would not have given it a rotten tomato, just like the professional critics.
I loved this movie and, honestly, I wish more people had had the chance to see it without being turned off by the crappy reviews because I THINK they would have liked it. But without their having seen it, I really cannot say for sure. So while I agree with Mr. Klavan that (1) the movie was awesome and (2) the negative reviews by the profs show them to be the sort of wastes of skin that could otherwise be used to make an honest human being, these two facts do not = the reviewers are not doing their job or beg the question of whether or not there is a point to them; that is, Mr. Klavan’s conclusions do not (necessarily) follow from his premises.
The trick to using the reviewers effectively is to learn how to interpret their drivel. Even though it’s often drivel, it is useful drivel. It has information content, if you read between the lines. I regularly enjoy movies that score as “rotten”, and have gotten pretty good at weeding out the lousy stuff that reviewers just LOVE. It’s an art form…
It’s disgusting really. I’ve stopped reading movie reviews ever since I took a film studies course in college (everyone should), but their are very few surprises. Two reviews of new movies and ALWAYS one other movie (preferably with an overt homosexual theme or extreme liberal propaganda) reviewed that is playing at one art theater somewhere and that no one will see. But their going to teach us a lesson! And show us what a good movie really is!!
I admit I’m picky about movies (there is very little worthwhile these days). But I agree that context matters, Act of Valor was great (shockingly like playing Call Of Duty!).
We saw this in the theater and enjoyed it immensely. We wanted to make sure it had a good opening weekend. And we saw so many dads with their teenage sons at our show – don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.
Navy seals make good actors,actors make stinky seals but critics cant do anything else!
I don’t know, I disagree a tad. As cheesy as the movie is in some parts, i did then and still do enjoy Charlie Sheen in the movie “Navy Seals”. I’m sure it’s not even as remotely accurate as “Act of Valor” must be, but darn it I still adore that movie! Michael Beihn was equally as good in it as well, and Bill Paxton was neat as the team’s sniper that went by the call sign “God”, though I always found that call sign to be a little uncomfortable. That is the problem I have with a lot of movies being a Christian. Some movies are just wonderful for the most part, but they can be tainted to me overall by having something heretical in them.
I think I put up with explicit stuff in movies, definitely more than I should. But when it comes to a movie just overtly bashing our creator or glorifying Satan, well it’s a quick turn off for me and the film, and the same thing with music. But it’s also scary to me because the more bad things I let slide in films I watch or music I listen to, the easier it becomes to being more acceptant of it in a future watch or listen. And I think that is how old Diablo likes to work his way into your life, one little concession at a time, just slinking by way while you’re not looking.
My impression was that Act of Valor was more of a documentary than a straight action movie. I thought it was terrific. Probably a pretty good recruiting tool also.
Those critic bozos need to wise up.
“Valley of Elah”…LOL.
Took my 15 year old son the weekend it opened. We both loved it, and I made sure he understood what the list if names at the end of the movie truly meant.
After having seen it (unfortunately), I read a review for the movie “A Thin Red Line”. The review opened with the reviewer saying that the end of the screening a guy in front of him stood up and said, “That’s the worst f@#$%ing movie I’ve ever seen”. The reviewer went on to praise the movie. My thought was that they should hire the guy in front to write reviews. He clearly knows a lot more about movies than that pretentious idiot reviewer.
Testicles Intact’s comment I think captures exactly the difference between reviewers and audiences.
I thought “Act of Valor” was a lot like “Final Countdown,” a 1970s flick starring Martin Sheen, Kirk Douglas, Katherine Ross, where the USS Nimitz goes back to December 6, 1941, and then comes back. Watching FC, you could learn a LOT about how a US Navy aircraft carrier worked, you got a sense of just how much technology was onboard, and, in a watered down way, how much the crew of the ship depends on each other.
Like FC, Act of Valor was hurt by relatively poor writing, w/ the SEAL team members saying a lot of cliched things to their spouses, and sometimes to each other. (And when the wife slides down the door as her husband leaves, it’s something a better written script would have avoided.) BUT, it also DID capture both how SEALs operate and how they feel about each other. AND, you actually felt something for the SEAL team members, and sensed that they do what they do, not for money, not for glory, not to kill people, but b/c of their deep sense of duty, coupled with their camaraderie.
“Thin Red Line,” by contrast, had enormous star power, but you NEVER connected w/ them. You never have a sense of why these people are there, at either a historical or a personal level, and you never really empathize/sympathize w/ any of them (an interesting problem, too, between “The Pacific” versus “Band of Brothers”). And the writing was, in some ways, WORSE, as you wind up w/ the uncaring senior officer, the soldier (Marine) who just wants to be a poet, etc., etc. Just about every film school box got checked on that one!
The only thing is that really is how people speak and act. Real soldiers and their wives don’t have script writers. I think that the movie was left “unpolished” deliberately. The writers wanted us to see how these people really work and live. Note especially that there were no one-man heroics (except for the Lt), no solo operations. This was a team effort. Note that, in an event unseen previously in films, the CIA and the Special Forces were actually working together!
You see it in one of my favorite movies. Tears of the Sun. That movie also received negative reviews from the critics, and if you put those reviews side by side with Act of Valor you’ll see a lot of similarity in sentiment. Tears of the Sun was unabashedly pro-American military, and the critics hate that. Heck, just look up Miracle. Many of the same critics criticize is it as if it were a fictionalized event.
“Tears of The Sun” was most definitely an amazing movie! Bruce Willis is definitely in that small category of amazing action stars, and it’s really depressing to me that we don’t see that those kind of action stars anymore. Though that film was tough to watch for some boobie scenes if you know what I mean.
But back to the decline of truly heroic, unapologetic action superstars, well it’s just a bummer knowing that all of these great guys are getting older, and they won’t be making as many kick butt films as they did in their heyday. Luckily you still have Stallone making new Rambo films, though I own the latest one but haven’t watched it yet, but I hope it’s not a let down and really hope it’s not some left wing commentary movie. But I find it also fortunate that you have Stallone acting, directing, and bringing together pretty much all of the greats in “The Expendables”, “The Expendables 2″, and most likely a third one as well, at least that is what Stallone says. With how much feminism has destroyed the male persona today, and continues to try and turn us into women. Well seeing something as testosterone filled as “The Expendables” is what so many men are craving, and this is easily proven by ticket sales.
Instead of unapologetically awesome action flicks and most importantly action hero’s today. You get Hollywood and feminism trying to give us “action stars” who know how to cry the whole movie, and have some deep political and psychological reason for why they are having to shoot the poor little bad guy or terrorist. Whereas before you had greats like Arnold throwing a gigantic steam pipe through some creep, and saying the awesomely corny, but none the less incredible line of “He hod toooo lettoff sum steam”. And in the feminism induced “action” flick it would be some 15 pound guy going
“Sadly…I tried to reason with this unfortunate victim who was driven to evil by society, and mainly America, and men, and I tried to find his inner child and reason with it, and let it know I cared for his plight and raw deal in life. But in the end I had to toss this icky pipe into the poor man, and as he died I caressed his cheek and cried and told him how much I cared for him and how sorry I was that I was so selfish to end his life, and stutter his civil rights as a terrorist, and his right to rape my wife just before he tried to kill me. I also let him know that I would donate to a charity in his honor, that sponsors and tries to rehabilitate terrorists the world over. Atheists bless that poor victim that tried to invade my personal bubble and couldn’t be talked out of it.”
Maybe we can find an immorality serum for all the 80′s and 90′s action hero’s?
My name for “Thin Red Line” was “Catcher in the Thin Red Separate Peace of the Flies.” Sadly, a pretentious slow-motion train-wreck of a movie. Discordantly overlaid themes that could be valid in more honest contexts, to make an overdetermined, morality-fable movie. Didn’t come off at all. Colossally annoying.
I had such hopes for “A Thin Red Line”. Five minutes in I knew nobody involved on the movie had spent a day in uniform.
What can you expect from the professional critics? They say that they don’t like propaganda, yet they gave Michael Moore’s Sicko 93% approval on the Tomatometer.
Ever sit through Kiss the Girls? Oscar contending politically correct movie with 2 stars who must have been mumbling under their breath!
First you have to answer the question: What kind of psyche lives off of criticizing the work of others instead of producing work of his own?
Then it becomes clear why you should ignore critics and listen to your friends opinions., which you already know to take with a large grain of salt, by pesonal experience with them.
Those who can get up and do, those who can’t sit back and review.
The critics hated it precisely because it was an unabashed pro-American film.
Hollywood has yet to figure out that pro-American war flicks always make money at the box office, so they keep giving us films like “Green Zone” and “Valley of Elah”, that bomb at the theaters.
It seems you missed it too Andrew.
Terrorists Dealing Drugs
We could strike a blow against those terrorists, except those who understand the jihadi threat the best stand in the way. You know – our “conservative” friends. How Ironic.
So, your point seems to be that if we could only get rid of all of those dirty little Christians, drugs would suddenly become legal and the WOT would end due to lack of funding.
Riigght… Like they wouldn’t find another source of income to focus on, such as human trafficking. Oh wait…Christians are opposed to human trafficking too! We just need to get rid of those pesky Christians and than all hurdles to legalizing drugs AND child sex trafficking AND everything else that can be sold on the black market and poof! the WOT will be over!!
Who knew the Christians, rather than the Jihadists, were responsible for the WOT. Thank goodness you have identified the source of the WOT and all of the world’s ills: The Christians. Is someone choking on a Chic Fil A?
So, M. Simon, your point seems to be that if we could only get rid of all of those dirty little Christians, drugs would suddenly become legal and the WOT would end due to lack of funding.
Riigght… Like they wouldn’t find another source of income to focus on, such as human trafficking. Oh wait…Christians are opposed to human trafficking too! We just need to get rid of those pesky Christians and than all hurdles to legalizing drugs AND child sex trafficking AND everything else that can be sold on the black market and -POOF- the WOT will be over!!
Who knew the Christians, rather than the Jihadists, were responsible for the WOT. Thank goodness you have identified the source of the WOT: The Christians. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Another paid shill for Big Rehab heard from.
Support for keeping a variety of drugs (meth, LSD, cocaine, heroin, not just marijuana) is actually pretty widely distributed. This is hardly a conservative monopoly. Especially in inner city blacks, there is strong support for keeping many of the illegal drugs in that state, because these are populations where the consequences of abuse are widespread.
You can make a strong argument that the resources spent on interdiction might be better spent on rehab–that prevention is destructive, while repair will be cheaper. But drop the pretense that drug prohibition is primarily a moral objection, or that is peculiarly conservative.
You misperceive what their job is. They are not critics. They are gatekeepers and moral arbiters. They see their job as protecting people from impure thoughts. They would never acknowledge that but it is nevertheless true.
There are lots of professions that are gatekeepers and moral arbiters. Journalists do not cover Chik Filet Day etc… because it does not fit their agenda. Colleges have whole departments set up to decide who gets in and who doesn’t instead of expanding or contracting to meet the demands of people who are purchasing their education services.
These people are completely useless and their only function is to see to it that the right (or left) sort of people succeed and the correct thoughts are maintained in the minds of the populace.
Bingo.
Major problems with the movie:
1- The SEAL sniper does not yell “Halt or I’ll shoot!” twice before firing.
2- The bad guy who tortures the female CIA agent is simply portrayed as a pschyopath. His poor relationship with his mother is not explored.
3- Not one bad guy is read his Miranda rights or offered the benefit of a JAG attorney.
4- Last but not least, America wins. According to our Commander in Chief the correct view is “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”
“Halt or I’ll shoot!”
Heh. I’m surprised Lucas didn’t recut Star Wars so that Han Solo delivered that line before he shot Greedo.
Whatever happened to “Three warning shots through the head, then shoot to kill”?
Very good points… I checked RT after being wowed by this movie in the theatre and about wanted to vomit. I am an Army special operations member with many deployments so had to suppress my tribal pride to watch a movie about Navy SEALs – but once I did I felt like it was the most “realistic” movie made in terms of capturing the emotional bonds between warriors. Since my name is hidden -ha- i’ll admit I teared up watching it, for the first time since the last Soldier’s memorial I attended. The acting is human, the tactical situations are a “best of” reel but not unrealistic, the emotion and intensity is dead-on, and the movie is just plain fun! Highly recommended if anyone has been waiting to see it because they think it is low-grade schlock (from reviewers)….
HOOAH!
My unit likely gave you a ride.
Since I lack the physical capability and mental toughness to be SpecOps, I have to console myself with fixing the birds that take you folks there and bring you home again. Like you, I’d have preferred seeing Army Rangers or Green Berets, but I’ll take what I can get. 
It was awesome. Loved every moment of the film – I even enjoyed the obviously non-professional acting because it added a taste of reality to the film. As you said, it truly gave you a feel for why folks in our armed forces fight (SpecOps or not, anyone wants to hurt my troops, they’re going to have to go through me first), and the bonds between them.
I’ll be buying the DVD of this one for sure.
Orion
Leftists only have empathy for predetermined groups. Testicle bearers who are not in denial of that fact are most certainly not one of those groups.
Through my son I know a few operators, including him. Based on that perspective I didn’t see weak acting. I saw operators being operators. Totally consistent with the reality I know.
the only issue being that “a good acting performance” and “realism” are not necessarily synonymous. That’s probably what got the reviewers – they’re looking for acting, not realism.
Like they even know what realism would look like?
Like Lizzie, I saw it in the theater; I wanted to make sure it had a good opening weekend. I really enjoyed it, but…
Acting is difficult and few can do it well without talent and years of work. The Seals did their best, but they were often woooden. The story seemed to serve the action, and really, is should be the other way around.
As a tribute to our fighting men, it was great; as a “movie,” not so much.
I’m never surprised anymore when I hear so-called reporters ask conservatives if they’re out of touch. We’re all supposed to assume this narrative, while cheerfully paying good money to see Hollywood movies depicting the U.S. as they see it, as if we’re a bunch of metrosexual dweebs who simply can’t get along with the rest of the world.
Forget it! They’re the ones who are pathetically out of touch. They wouldn’t know or care about the ones providing the security for them to live their lives in a leftist, touchy-feely cocoon. The minute a movie depicts the realities of these actual everyday heroes, they immediately pan it. They just can’t relate to sacrifice and valor. They can’t relate because they have no guts whatsoever to do what it takes to put body armor on and face down real threats, real bad guys. They’re fine with superhero movies that seem to conflate the threats, but don’t want to actually have to appreciate the real guys out there who do the real thing, I think, because deep down, they don’t have the guts to do it themselves and are jealous of the real men who do.
Definitely! See, I’m SURE they would’ve LOVED the movie if (as was pointed out earlier) the folks being shot were read their rights and provided legal counsel instead…Also, one of the SEAL’s should’ve been gay, and in a tearful scene, several of the other SEALs should’ve come out of the closet as everyone grew closer and became self-actualized! Perhaps even sharing a gentle, tender kiss.
Oh, and lots fewer guns and explosions.
And, of course, it should’ve come about that the REAL money behind the bombers was either the Republican Party, the Oil Companies, or the Bush Family – or all 3.
Oh, and instead of SEALs, they should’ve been Occupy Wall Street Warriors – REAL American Heroes.
Orion
critics : empty scrotums
For 50 years, I’ve looked at the critic reviews to see what they have to say about any film I might like to see. If they like it, I generally skip it. If they hate it, then I know I’ll like it. Haven’t gone wrong much.
Critics write primarily for each other; and keep in mind what other critics will say when reading their review.
From imdb for Act of Valor
Box Office
Budget: $12,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $24,476,632 (USA) (26 February 2012) (3039 Screens)
Gross: $79,501,193 (Worldwide) (28 May 2012)
Then Hollywood can’t figure out why they are making mostly money losing movies. Hint: 3D won’t fix your problem.
Speaking of which, the film would have been awesome in 3D Imax, as impressive as it was in plain vanilla 2D.
I might suggest that the answer to your conundrum is that you misunderstand the critic’s job. It’s not to satisfy his readers, it’s to satisfy his editor.
Or course, this is WHY most traditional media is going down the drain and the best reference for a movie today is simply to ask friends on Google+ and Facebook about their thoughts.
RT’s critics are generally print media critics. Enough said.
The acting, of course, isn’t first rate
True – because they weren’t precisely acting. More like working their way through several training scenarios. Of which, I think, provides it with a far more real feel than some hack like Tom Cruise “pretending” to be a SEAL.
As to the critics reviews. In their wildest imaginations, not a one of them could hack even Basic Training, let alone BUD/S training. Basicly, when they diss a great film such as this, it’s really envy, because they know they couldn’t hack it with the real men. Think a little, tiny, poofy Dog yapping at a Great Dane. The little Dog yaps, but the Dane, in his patience, let’s it, because he knows if he had to, one quick chomp, and it’s good night Irene.
On critics and their role:
Back when my hair was dark and I had a lot more of it, there was a movie critic at the Detroit News named Susan Stark (IIRC). I avidly read her reviews, because experience had taught me that if she liked a film it was about 95% probable that I would be bored by it and, conversely, if she panned a film it was about 97% probable that I would enjoy it. (The difference in probabilities is due to my being able to enjoy even an art film with subtitles if it is well-acted, well-directed and has a discernible plot.) This effect extended to the degree of like/dislike, so Ms. Stark and I actually agreed about mediocre films, although we approached them from different directions.
That said, I agree with the sentiment that critics write mostly for each other, sort of like university professors of, say, philosophy. And of course there’s the moldy old adage: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach become critics.”
BTW, I saw Act of Valor and enjoyed it immensely. It helps to live in a place like San Diego that is military-friendly and home to lots of Sailors and Marines. (And yes, to the base where SEALs trained in the movie.)
I learned long ago to pretty much ignore what film critics say. I almost always like movies they hate.
Yep, RebeccaH.
In fact, critical reviews has become… (is there a word for this?)… they have become an “opposite indicator” for me.
As soon as I hear a movie is being ripped by the critics, I kinda perk up a bit, and pay attention, to find out why they hate it so much.
Conversely, as soon as I hear a movie is winning awards, (unless it’s an impossible-to-miss Saving-Private-Ryan type movie) I will intentionally ignore the movie until a few years have passed… to see how it stands up over time.
Weird, huh?
I suspects the critics would have liked it even less if the bad guys were Islamist terrorists rather than drug lords. Their PC multi-culti alerts would have kept going off.
Good thing Andrew never read any of the reviews, then he would have had to come up with counter-arguments to carry his point. Instead, he can get his warrior rocks off bashing them.
Which is not to say I disagree with him, but this is lazy and ignorant criticism. He can do better.
such as….???
This is lazy and ignorant criticism since you cite no examples to back up your claim.
I was one of those 75% who wrote an enthusiastic review of the piece the day after it opened. I was committed, as others were, to making sure it had a good opening weekend to shove in the detractors smug faces.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/737451/reviews/?movie=771245096
As I comment on in the review, had this movie had the typical cast of characters, leftist style, the critics would have needed a towel. I am a huge war movie enthusiast, and I must have had The Thin Red Line versus Saving Private Ryan battle a dozen times with liberals. Always, they’ll gush embarrassingly about how good TTRL is and moan about the jingoism of SPR. It’s pure politics, but they refuse to see it. They only decry violence when the movie doesn’t march to the liberal cadence, but when it does; all the violence contributes to its reality.
Reminds me of another movie that the ‘critics’ didn’t like; Bonnie and Clyde.” Its become one of the highest grossing films and was done on a small budget. It was Americana and shoot ‘em up but based on fact of a gangster and his moll, the People loved it, the critic’s hated it. The movies out of Hollywood are for the most part marxist propaganda showing this country in a bad light and most of the producers and directors couldn’t pass a security check just like most of the Obama’s inner circle.
Andrew, you’ve forgotten that 75% of movie reviewers are part of the Liberal media machine. It’s in their best interest to pan a movie that supports traditional American values since they find those values to be…”old fashioned” and everyone knows those values have no place in the modern world…
One of my kids flies a Black Hawk (Army) when he’s not XOing it. A SIL is currently in AF basic training and is heading towards very intense training to qualify for PJ.
The kind of ‘community’ formed by our warriors does not fit what the left deems as good (or useful much, except to take out people like bin Laden for political cred). Yet it is stronger and more long lasting than the artificial one the elites like to “organize.”
Ironic much?
It’s not a new thing, of course. My pick for best film of 2010 was “Machine Gun Preacher” (29% critic/63% viewer). This year’s “Blue Like Jazz” got a 43%/87%. Those are both Christian-themed films so, of course, critics are going to hate them.
I saw Peter Ingemi use the word “Christophobia” yesterday and I think that’s probably accurate. And that’s a shame because the story of Man’s struggle to define his relationship with God is great drama.
I always try to convey the sense of a movie, the feel, so that my readers (all six of them!) can get a sense of whether THEY will like it. I say whether I liked it and aspects of the craft that were well done, but I’m up front about my tastes: Dislike of certain kinds of films, and a complete inability to appreciate certain famous directors, and a stronger-than-average fondness for black comedy.
I figure that way people who hate my taste can do the exact opposite of my recommendations….
Any critic who thinks his politics have a place in a movie review isn’t worth reading.
Great review, Klavan. You should do it for a living
I’m going to get the DVD.
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.” Winston Churchill.
Don’t expect the limp-wristed movie critics to understand this.
God Bless our brave military.
Propaganda probably doesn’t mean what you think it does;
http://propaganda.mrdonn.org/techniques.html
snipped
” Is everything we see and hear propaganda? No, it is not. The word propaganda refers to any technique that attempts to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of a group in order to benefit the sponsor. The techniques of propaganda are used every day, in the military, in the media, in advertising, in politics, and in all sorts of human relationships.”
I was raised to think of propaganda as lies and half-truths, designed to trick me.
Not so. ANY attempt to change someone’s mind is propaganda. If I were to walk up to someone about to jump off a bridge and say; “Buddy, it’s 100 feet straight down, the water is only 8 inches deep and the bottom is as hard as concrete.” I have just performed a bit of propaganda on the jumper. Hopefully a successful bit of propaganda.
As far as critics, they do it for the money. That means keeping the boss happy, not you.
Critics want ART. Customers want entertainment. Rarely do the two merge. Since art is in the eye of the beholder, the critics cannot possibly get it right.
That is one of the reasons Hollywood is struggling nowadays. Overhead is so high that any movie has a very high hurdle just to break even. That is why We get exposed to old tired comic books put to film. Batman number 46,782 is pretty lame. All the Batmans have been pretty feeble. The medium is changing and the tired old men of Hollywood are just not keeping up. Want to see the 2012 remake of “Frankenstein”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVw7eJ0vGfM
125 million hits since January. Young people aren’t interested in sitting through 1.5 hours of actors trying to act. Old people aren’t quick enough to figure it out in 5 minutes or so. Think so? Try this one;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDboaDrHGbA
I had to have my 17 year old neighbor explain it to me. Clever dudes make clips like this. Hollywood doesn’t have that sort of talent. They bloviate instead.
Charlie don’t surf.
Ooops meant to post this here, not as response to 30.
I was one of those 75% who wrote an enthusiastic review of the piece the day after it opened. I was committed, as others were, to making sure it had a good opening weekend to shove in the detractors smug faces.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/737451/reviews/?movie=771245096
As I comment on in the review, had this movie had the typical cast of characters, leftist style, the critics would have needed a towel. I am a huge war movie enthusiast, and I must have had The Thin Red Line versus Saving Private Ryan battle a dozen times with liberals. Always, they’ll gush embarrassingly about how good TTRL is and moan about the jingoism of SPR. It’s pure politics, but they refuse to see it. They only decry violence when the movie doesn’t march to the liberal cadence, but when it does; all the violence is good and contributes to its reality.
It’s pure politics, but they refuse to see it.
That’s it, alright.
Possibly the most significant trait I’ve ever noticed about Democrats is that they politicize everything (the farther to the Left, the worse they are). Nothing can ever be viewed by them without first passing through some form of political filter, to be tested for orthodoxy and then commented on.
They simply don’t know how to stop, and certainly can’t shut up about their beliefs, their politics, their position on everything. They could politicize a discussion about crochet and macrame.
Not all that surprising. After all most critics are card carrying members of the main stream media and it’s not hard for the casual observer to see where their sympathies lie. Worse, it bleeds over from simple critique into news coverage. Michael Moore, Roman Polanski, a host of others are lauded as the darlings of the industry while someone like Mel Gibson has every bit of his personal dirty laundry trotted out with poorly disguised glee by the vultures and carrion pickers.
After reading this article and comments I went and checked to confirm what I already suspected. Both The Patriot and We Were Soldiers have a similar disconnect between critic and popular ratings. Not as obvious, but still a significant disparity.
The only reason why only 75% instead of 100% of the viewers liked the movie is because some of the guys took their main squeezes with them.
I saw the attitude at Hopkins and later and later. These guys simply grew up in very closed non-diverse communities, and think everyone not living there is part of the KKK. My freshman roommate’s family thought I was for simply geography.
There day is about done: there world is closed and growing more extreme: soon true absurdity will be their lot. Dada on the Hudson; Dada on the Bay.
Anyone who thinks John Wayne epitomizes the warrior ethos knows nothing about either. Among people who REALLY served (unlike Klavan, who wouldn’t know about the warrior ethos but loves playing the tough guy), John Wayne is a joke and a form of rebuke to wannabe … well, John Waynes.
“Carry your rifle the right way! Who do you think you are, John Wayne?!”
Any movie these clowns dont like is one I will rent.
Buzz, what’s your problem with John Wayne? I don’t care what joke you and your “friends” make to “wannabes…well, John Waynes.” John was an actor who played in war movies. Audie Murphy played in war movies and was made fun of by the empty headed in Hollywood. I remember it. Audie Murphy was the highest decorated soldier in WWII and John Wayne never even made it into the war.
Orphaned at 16, Murphy enlisted at the age of 18, having been turned down by the Marines and Paratroopers because he was too small. Wayne was 34 years old, father of 4. He was also pretty beat up from one bad accident and numerous smaller ones from doing his own stunts in what seemed to be a zillion “B” movies (anyone remember the “Three Mesquiteers?” I do from TV movies on Saturday). The head of Republic pictures (He was their only star by then) wrote to the draft board and asked them not to draft him because he could do more good right there. He tried to get in several times even trying to get John Ford to take him into the fledgling O.S.S.
I’ve always been a fan of both these men and love action movies and that goes way back to my childhood. Loved westerns and war movies. Also own the DVDs of the Rambo movies, some Willis movies, Mad Max and The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan even though I have to close my eyes in a couple of the scenes. A man’s leg flying through the air does something to my stomach. I can’t watch chick flicks for the same reason I have to close my eyes at The Patriot.
I feel the same way about Roger Ebert. I stopped watching his tv segment before his sidekick kicked off and wouldn’t read his column if you paid me. Slow fade. The End.
Huh? Who said anything about Audie Murphy?
And you prove my point precisly by citing the fact that John Wayne was an ACTOR and not a true warrior. That’s no knock on him, it’s just a statement of fact.
But clowns like Klavan mistake John Wayne’s quite fake war movies with the real thing. But Klavan wouldn’t know–never had the gumption to serve himself.
Military elite performance for real or as in the movie is astonishing and inspiring. Its magnetism has led to clutter up thinking on rifles and their use.
A gifted British officer, trying to introduce rifle use in the Army during the American Revolution, got terribly confused and thought military elite performance had something to do with it. (No rifles in Britain or in settled areas in the Colonies, just in the near and remote Colonial exurbs.) No rifles in New Jersey. Because his head was turned by the fixation on military elites, he set back thought of rifles in the British Army for 25 years, even though the British High Command were severely alarmed by the non-military, personal rifles used by Colonial Rustics, who were all regarded as extremely dangerous and threatening. Well, they were, even though some were middle-aged and lacking in teeth.
The British introduction of the Baker Rifle was a bad, monkey-see imitation of the American rustic’s super rifle, getting the rifle wrong and with no idea of how the natives achieved Proficiency.
The rifle-shooting learning curve comes up quickly in the Equipment Familiarity part of the curve, and then the curve goes “flat.” It really levels off. All armies stop there with rifle training, as what is the point? The flattening is in fact the beginning of the long duration when a different set of skills are learned. After this Long Plod, all (ALL) go to reside somewhere in Proficiency. Getting there quickest is done by firing a large number of carefully-fired shots and inspecting each result. It is like learning the violin.
Armies think Proficiency is something spontaneous, or like having perfect pitch. Instead, an army finds either a quick learner or someone bringing skills in from civilian life. It is the number of careful shots fired. Slow learners fire more shots and they just take a little more time to get to Proficiency, but get there they do. Armies consider it something associated with having a military elite profile. Rubbish. I have seen a thin, short, very myopic middle-aged woman at a pistol range make one little hole with her M1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol. At an outdoor range, I have seen a genuine blue-haired old lady, with glasses to match, make a disturbingly large number of holes in the black at a thousand (1000) yards.
Keep all the military at the range at slow-fire and eventually the whole lot will plod to Proficiency and shoot about as well as the snipers. The track record of Proficient civilians put in the army and thrust into live-fire is 1.5 shots per hit/kill. This is the Hermann Phenomenon, first observed over 200 years ago. The record is stable through astounding equipment changes, because it is something one learns on the Long Plod to Proficiency.
The henchman to seeing ability to shoot coming only from military elites is the magnetic fixation on hardware. Hardware is important as learning should be done on a reasonably accurate rifle with adjustable sights. Audie Murphy learned on a single-shot .22. Sergeant York learned on a 19th Century caplock with fixed sights. Other than that, the key is the number of shots fired.
The Long Plod to Proficiency has been made by one army in the past, but no one noticed. It was an accident. They were training for short range rapid fire, and slow fire at all ranges was in the course of fire. The officer corps did not notice that the slow fire scores had slowly risen to Proficiency, which calls for big changes in infantry doings. After the war, the officer corps and the historians missed it.
So only 25% of gays liked the movie? Or is that the DNC?
My only complaint was that I thought the funeral ceremony could have been filmed more dramatically. The final picture in this series -
http://www.susankatzkeating.com/2010/10/warriors-farewell-part-3-seals-say.html
– shows it all. God bless our treasured Navy SEALs, special warfare units, and all our troops.
Hollywood loves to portray the military as being filled with rogue elements or evil overseers. Act of Valor is a rare film depicting the military as it really is: Filled with armed combatants who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way so YOU can proceed with your lives in peace.
“Hey, I prefer romantic comedies where guys sheepishly apologize to their girlfriends but if you, on the other hand, have testicles, you might like this instead?”
Andrew… I love you, man. Every freakin’ time I read your posts, I’m laughing out loud, and walkers-by stare at me.
Thx for your work, thx for your efforts in our cultural war. Blessings on you.