The worst thing you’ll see all week: Act of Valor

Act of Valor is an offensive movie. But not for the reason you think. As a guy who has dutifully answered his annual Calls of Duty, I can dig on Act of Valor’s fetishistic loving lingering shots of men and their hardware. A submarine slipping sleekly underwater, or those adroitly scudding riverboats, or a wordless nighttime jungle creep, or the calculated way heavily armed men communicate by gently squeezing each other on the shoulder. Some of the procedural stuff is fascinating up until it gives way to its inner Michael Bay and breaks out into satisfyingly R-rated firefights. I could do without the blatant pandering to the videogame sensibility of it all with pointless FPS POV shots. Like I said, I’ve already answered to my Calls of Duty.

After the jump, so what’s the big deal?

I don’t even mind that the human element in Act of Valor is absolutely horrid, especially when the movie plays at Thin Red Line. Good lord, that voiceover! The only time the dialogue and performances aren’t mind numbingly bad is during an interrogation scene in which the commander dude (obviously not an actor) appeals to the terrorist mastermind dude (obviously an actor). The actor in the scene, Alex Veadov, is doing his utmost to work with the non-actor. It’s a well written scene and it’s like watching an athlete patiently try to teach a child how to swing a bat.

When Act of Valor proclaims it’s not using actors, it isn’t kidding. The uncredited active duty servicemen who stand in for actors are as square jawed and flat as you’d expect, real-world warriors first and movie actors a distant distant second. Is that a glint of personality in that man’s eyes or was it just a trick of the lighting? Ah, it was just the lighting. This movie is nothing if not gorgeously shot and lit. What a showcase for your Blu Ray player!

But then comes what I call the Raid The Redemption question: how far can you get in an action movie without characters? The scene when someone throws himself on a grenade is unintentionally hilarious, partly because the movie has previously represented grenades as massively incendiary devices laying waste to entire buildings. Poof, goes this grenade, rather politely. This guy who has nobly sacrified himself pops about a foot off the ground, as if he was jumping on the bed on his tummy. Whichever guy it is. You have no idea. So, which guy just died? Act of Valor doesn’t really care about questions like that. It’s just a lot of white people shooting a lot of brown people.

But it all leads up to to an oddly offensive conclusion. Act of Valor winds down with a long turgid reverent sequence, the jingoistic equivalent of hobbits jumping on beds. And then comes a title card dedicating its turgid reverence to the “Special Forces warriors who have died since 9/11″. 9/11 had nothing to do with the military, much less the Special Forces. The movie might as well have dedicated itself to the Special Forces warriors who have died since Katrina, or since Alaska senator Ted Williams’ plane went down, or since Proposition 8 was passed, or since that guy from American Idol had kidney surgery. Hot milporn action is one thing. Offensively jingoistic pap is something else entirely and it’s a terrible way to wrap up otherwise passable hot milporn action.

Act of Valor is available now on VOD, DVD, and Blu Ray.

  • Alan

    Last sentence has a small typo.

  • tomchick

    Fixed! 

  • Ryan

    Love your site, though I’d prefer politics to be kept in the P&R section.  It strikes me as an unnecessary jab.  

  • Jim

     Two sentences before that has “Propostion” instead of “Proposition.”

  • http://twitter.com/gndwyn Urthman

    Pretty sure Tom’s not the one making a political jab here.  More like he took one in the jaw for the rest of us.

  • Ryan

    If you don’t see how that might be politically inflammatory then I encourage you to see things from someone on the other side.  There are probably actually a large portion of the population that do think of 9/11 as something different than a natural disaster or mechanical failure of a plane.

  • claybob

    Indeed a large portion of the population do respect and understand 9/11.  Tom fleshes out the rationale for his opinion for this film and I respect those opinions whether I agree or disagree.
    I think your criticism is from the heart, but I would suggest explaining yourself more fully and not taking the liberty of speaking for folks that may or may not share your opinion. The political emphasis is something you made. Also, you know what friends and family members of 9/11, natural disasters, and mechanical failures have in common? Seeing those they love and care about die, permanently disabled, injured, suffer huge financial loss, and/or be put through mental trauma all due to something they did not instigate. 9/11 was awful, but Katrina was o.k.? Is that really an argument you want to make to someone who lost a loved one and/or all their property and belongings?

  • tomchick

    Ryan, firstly, I do appreciate the sentiment.  However, I have to disagree with the basic idea that when we discuss things like movies and videogames, we should avoid the political and religious context, particularly when they’re relevant.  But more importantly, let me explain my reservations about the movie a bit more.

    I support the military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan, particularly how swiftly, dispassionately, and ruthlessly we moved against the Taliban as part of our reaction to al Qaeda’s attack.  It’s worth tying the sacrifices made by the men and women of the US military in Afghanistan to 9/11.  They are among the people around the world who gave their lives to shut down al Qaeda.

    But they are a smaller subset of the military forces who have died since 2001.  The larger losses were in Iraq, based on the numbers of troops deployed, not to mention how many contractors were left to take up the logistics slack in Iraq, many of whom were from various Special Forces.  Iraq was not about 9/11.  It was an opportunistic adventure mounted by the Bush Administration, piggybacked onto our legitimate reaction to 9/11, sold under false pretenses, ineptly executed by the executive branch of our government, and at great expense to our country in terms of money, political capital, credibility, and lives.  

    Act of Valor is about a terrorist cell attacking the US by smuggling in special ceramic suicide vests.  It’s a silly little story about the military responding to a direct terrorist attack on the US.  It then ties its silly little story to a larger context, much of which has nothing to do with responding to a terrorist attack on the US.  Most of the “Special Forces warriors who have died since 9/11″ didn’t die for the sort of simple cause portrayed in Act of Valor, which more closely resembles what we were doing in Afghanistan.  They died in Iraq.  To me, there is a much more tragic quality, the loss is much more senseless, than the losses we suffered in Afghanistan.  I don’t intend to minimize what the military did in Iraq, and the hardships suffered there.  But it’s facile, disingenuous, and ultimately ignorant to conflate two very separate endeavors as a response to 9/11.  

    Better to simply close your stupid movie with a title card that reads “For the Special Forces warriors who have died” instead of “For the Special Forces warriors who have died since 9/11″.

  • Ryan

    The reason why I brought it up, is because I respect you a lot and the work you do and the site you’ve put together.  I’m a huge fan.  

    Generally in my work (I can have a somewhat public profile in my field) I’ve tried to avoid even the appearance of politics and religion type conversations, though in my younger days I was guns blazing.  I wasn’t sure whether you knew the impact of what you were saying, but that was presumptuous of me, writers care about every word they write.   

    It sounds like you’re comfortable with entering the arena, and this is your place so I’ll back off.  

  • Linden

    I disagree with your statement that 9/11 had nothing to do with the military. Thousands of people joined the military and especially athletes joined to be in special forces because of 9/11. It was a catalyst for many now serving.

  • http://twitter.com/gndwyn Urthman

    Ryan, you are correct that the movie makes a politically inflammatory connection between 9/11 and the military, and Tom is merely pointing that out.

  • tomchick

    That’s a fair point.  I guess what I’m getting at is that if you want to honor military service, tying it to 9/11 feels to me like pandering.

  • tomchick

    I think part of the difference, Ryan, is that I feel writers who bring their personal experience into what they write about shouldn’t avoid political and religious context.  I’m not asking anyone to agree with me.  I’m just trying to articulate why I feel the way I feel about my entertainment.

    But I get what you mean about guns blazing.  I’m not trying to offend anyone or shut down any differences of opinion.  I’ll try to be more careful in the future to make sure it doesn’t come across that way.

  • Cornbread

    The athlete thing is weird. Is there a slew of notable athletes outside of Pat Tillman that joined?

  • Mygaffer Nunya

    Please don’t Tom! The review was great but the long comment you wrote in response to Ryan, those moments are part of why I follow your work. When I read your work I come away with the belief that I am hearing your honest opinions, not what will keep readership up, not what will appease a publisher, but what Tom Chick goddamn believes to be the truth.
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke ;)

  • Mygaffer Nunya

     That athlete analogy was referring to the acting of the servicemen versus the actual actors in the movie. As in, the actual actors looked like pro athletes while the servicemen, not being actors, performed as young child would. Athletics is just the analogy, acting ability is what is really being discussed.
    I took some acting classes when I lived in LA and let me tell you, acting is HARD. They just make it look easy on TV. Right Tom?

  • MrBismarck

    He’s referring to Linden’s post – ”
    Thousands of people joined the military and especially athletes joined to be in special forces because of 9/11.”

  • http://twitter.com/john_swaine John Louis Swaine

    Urthman, I’m not so sure. Given that 9/11 was the catalyst for the declaration of the ‘War on Terror’ it seems a pertinent date. 
    Whether or not the appellation is the best one is a matter of taste but it seems churlish to argue that the two aren’t connected. It’s a bit like saying that “British servicemen who have died since the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand” would be invalid or incorrect.

  • tomchick

    I would agree with this if, after the assassination of Ferdinand, England responded by sending the bulk of its servicemen to invade Africa in order to grab new territory for the British Empire.

  • Anonymous

    Hmm. Most people would argue that 9/11 has everything to do with the military, because it was the catalyst for the War of Terror that led to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (right or wrong is a separate issue.) But that’s a common opinion and I’m sure you meant to start up the controversy by stating otherwise… 

    Instead your article made me wonder if it’s possible to do effective criticism on a movie when you don’t agree with its political message. I think it’s fine if a reviewer understands his/her biases and is able to separate the criticism of technique or presentation from the criticism of content. I think a reviewer has the responsibility to say “I dislike this film’s pro-war stance but the acting is top-notch” for example.

    If this movie had its 9/11 title card in the beginning instead of the end, would it have made it worse? Granted this movie wasn’t good to start with… now if you saw the same card at the beginning of, say, “Saving Private Ryan”?

  • tomchick

    Act of Valor doesn’t really have any politics until that title card at the end.  

  • Dave

    Hahaha it’s like this guy read my mind! I was thinking the same exact thing about the interrogation scene where the one terrorist guy Christo I think his name was, did a real nice job but then the commander guy looked like he was in a high school play or something. And then when the guy jumped on the grenade I had no idea which guy it was! I had look it up online to find out if it was the guy that jumped on the grenade that died or the one that got shot about 50 times lol. All in all I enjoyed watching this movie but it definitely could have been a whole lot better

  • ktm4

    You are a dumbass first don’t claim to “answer the call” when you obviously haven’t.. 2. They are not special forces. Only the army has a SF unit. The rest are special ops. The funny part where the guys dives on a fg? Real event and saved his unit…your an embarrassment to the nation and those who really fight for it

  • Confused person

    How is this movie at all offensive…? unless you’re a terrorist or someone who was in the military before 9/11 and are offended that you didn’t get honored in a movie then it shouldn’t be offensive

  • Jon Doe

    I think you missed the entire point of the movie…

  • Atomou

    Tom chick sure its cheesy but the action is great, and the interrogation scene was not bad at all. Take it for what it is, and stop resenting a military that protects your country overall. You arrogant snot nosed jerk.

  • Charlie

    You claim to have answered your calls to duty, but then say 9/11 had nothing to do with the military. This movie was about terrorists and the “unsung Hereos” who do a lot of the dirty work and recieve none of the credit because they’re not supposed to exist. The names were honoring those elite warriors who died anonymously to protect their country.
    Moreover, the Special Operators received a shout out because they are the Anti-Terorism Units. 1st SFOD-D (1st Special Forces Operation Division-Delta, “Delta Force”) and NSW Devgru (Naval Special Warfare Development Group [more commonly, and incorrectly, known as SEAL Team 6]) are the Army’s and Navy’s Elite Anti-Terrorism units respectively. They train, often together, to hunt, track and kill terrorsits.
    Also, the term “Special Forces” in reference to the US is specifically designated for US Army Special Forces (Green Berets). Every other Special Warfare Unit is a “Special Operations Force.” And it may seem petty, but SF Operators don’t like being called a hat but also take pride at being the original “Operators” before the SEALs starting using the term in Vietnam followed by any other unit under the command of SOCOM or JSOC. So, Special Forces=Army Green Berets (Including Delta) and everyone is Special Operations Forces.