04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

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?