Click here for the review of Act of Valor

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

I'm tremendously excited to see this film, the idea of real-life military personel doing films is fascinating. Though I have to ask one thing, what's the big deal about none of the characters getting tortured? Is it really necessary to show that sort of thing?

Also, how exactly is having the SEALS portrayed in an entirely positive light make them seem less like "real" characters? That dosne't make any sense to me, how would giving them negative traits improve anything?

Another interesting thing about the film is that actual live(as in REAL) ammo was used for most scenes.

Providing a video game experience in a film can be really interesting. Take a look at Gasper Noe's "Enter the Void" for a good example. That movie literally places the viewer in the first- or third-person perspective of the main character as he goes through different states of consciousness.

As an employee of the USMC, who gets their funding through the NAVY, I think I'm legally obligated to support it....America.

While I'm not questioning your right to spend your money any way you want, I do want to point out that you're already supporting it by paying your taxes and by working for the USMC. This film basically sounds like a piece of not-at-all disguised propaganda. If you want to watch a real film about the U.S. military, watch Restrepo.

Ironically, a viewing of the movie is necessary in order to ascertain whether the depiction of the SEALs could pass as propaganda or not.

Will be giving this a shot anyway!

Twas a joke Ragna...twas a joke.

Well the film did originally begin life as a recruitment video for the Navy, so yeah, I guess you could technically call it a "propaganda" film, though I personally think that term is incredibly overused and I think that does a great disservice. Really, you could say almost any war film is a form of propaganda, i've heard plenty of people call movies like Green Zone and Hurt Locker "liberal propaganda", and I don't see how this film is any more of a "propaganda" then a film like say Top Gun, which was pretty much a glorified recruitment video itself. I'm just relieved to see a different viewpoint of the war, just because this film presents soldiers in a positive way (unlike say something like Redacted) dosen't automatically make it a propaganda piece.

I find that the best war films tend to be apolitical, meaning that they don't take sides one way or the other. Hurt Locker doesn't strike me as propaganda since it focuses on 3 soldiers and mainly on the one (James). It doesn't paint the Iraqis as villains, nor does it paint the Americans as being heroes (in fact, that was part of the point of the scene with David Morse's character telling the soldier under his command to kill the wounded insurgent they captured with the words, "I said: he *didn't make it*."). If ignorant rednecks want to paint that as being "liberal", they're welcome to do so.

Yeah, I was talking about my *opinion* of the film based on JB's review, hence the words "...basically sounds like a piece of not-at-all disguised propaganda."

Well, you should still see Restrepo anyway. It's a damn good documentary. Here are some clips from the film.

Okay, okay, everyone take a chill. Just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it can't be good. That's often the case, but every now and again you get something like The Battleship Potemkin (which was almost 100 years ago, but whatever) which discredits the notion that any particular genre or subgenre is automatically bad (or good). Frankly, its status as propaganda in the long run won't matter; its quality of filmmaking will.

I'm with Ragna, though: Restrepo's pretty damn good.

Triumph of the Will is another example of well-made propaganda filmmaking, though of course I find Nazism repugnant. Leni Riefenstahl knew how to make a good film.

Right. And? No need for hostility really

EDIT: I stated it as an opinion, which doesn't require me to actually see the film. I don't have any particular interest in seeing it, but if it's on the TV, I may check it out.

Okay what the hell is your problem? Nobody questioned your opinion, yet you're being your usual hostile self.

Editing out hostilities.

I've got short patience with people who act/speak before they think, as you habitually do, particularly in response to my posts. Start using your brain, and I'll stop shitting on you. I know Vex has Asperger's Syndrome, so I give him leeway, but what's your excuse?

Funny how I DID read your post first. My response was to the general thread, not just to you.

Shit on me all you want. I can relax in the knowledge that I don't wear emotions on my sleeve or jump to conclusions.

No, you were just trying to be clever, even though your initial post was clearly a response to mine. Another thing that I have short patience with is passive-aggressiveness from males. If it turns out that you're a highly-attractive female with a well-endowed body in real life, I'm willing to forgive the passive-aggressiveness a little bit.

P.S.: That statement about "I don't wear emotions on my sleeve..." statement was belied by the words you edited out of your last post to me. Remember what I said about thinking before you post?

Oh was I? I'm glad you told me that

And what did you edit out? Something equally as uncalled for?

Give me some credit for having taking your bullshit for this long before snapping slightly.

No I'm a hairy bearded dude. Sorry