Act of Valor (2012)

So if the "Call of Duty" game series is essentially "Michael Bay: The Game," and "Act of Valor" is essentially "Call of Duty: The Movie," would it be accurate to call "Act of Valor" the equivalent of "Michael Bay: The Movie?" Because that's so cosmic that I think my brain just folded in on itself. I think I can see time…

The big deal about "Act of Valor," in case you were unaware, is that it stars not actors, but real-life, active duty Navy SEALs, and the story is reportedly based on "real acts of valor" as the movie says in the opening disclaimer. What that means is that while the story is obviously a work of fiction in the most Tom Clancy-esqe fashion, the phrase "acts of valor" gives them a lot of wiggle room. Kind of like, "Yes, it's true that a SEAL dove on a grenade to save his squad once, but we'll put it into an entirely different context involving a shootout with the Mexican Cartel. Therefore the act is still true, but it fits into our movie now."

I don't know how I feel about that. I think on some level, I would just prefer a true story. Aren't the SEALs interesting enough to begin with? Why do real things have to be implanted into an over-the-top, blow-up-the-world fantasy that reads like Jack Bauer's fanfic? Maybe it's just me, but I almost feel like that diminishes it in some weird way.

"Act of Valor" was pretty much exactly how I imagined it would be: really good action with absolutely horrible acting. And I was right. When "Act of Valor" is in full swing in its comfort zone, that being the combat, it is an absolutely thrilling experience that is not dissimilar to being wrapped in an American flag, set on fire and blasted out of a cannon while cranking Ted Nugent.

It's kind of like that.

But for as often as it's in its comfort zone, there are plenty of moments when we are forced to strap in and endure some of the most teeth-grindingly bad acting you can imagine. I thought from the beginning that casting real Navy SEALs was a pretty sharp double-edged sword, because as good as the action might be, unless they were playing a squad who had had their vocal chords removed in order to ensure quiet approaches, it could get ugly quick. 

I mean, there's a reason we have actors in movies. They can act. Not every SEAL can be Jessie Ventura, as "Act of Valor" clearly proved. And Jessie wasn't necessarily that good, he was just in stuff that played to his strengths, those being holding big guns and grunting badass one liners about not having time to bleed. You don't need Willem Dafoe for that, although now I really wish he had been in "Predator," too.

What baffles me is how much of this horrible acting we are subjected to. They really wanted to push hard the notion that these guys can hold their own in the acting department and carry the drama of the story in their dialogue, but they just can't. Give them a gun and something to shoot at and they're golden, but that's only about half the movie. That's a lot of action, mind you, but it feels like less because of how long the talky scenes feel like they go on for, that feeling being "eternity."

The most complicated dialogue coming from these guys mouths should be variations of "America, F*#k Yeah!" and "GROG SMASH!" But they're given heart-wrenching monologues about making it home to your wife and babies and stuff, and you just feel bad watching these poor guys embarrasses themselves trying to do it. I almost wanted to yell, "They don't deserve this! That's too cruel! Let them shoot something, for Odin's sake!" It almost makes the action not worth it.

Almost.

Hey, why don't you guys recon yourselves some actors?

There were a number of other little things that really bugged me. First and foremost were some very strange design choices. The movie is very fond of this weird heads up display that appears whenever a new SEAL is introduced, which pops up with his name, rank, photo, accommodations and other things, which are abbreviated in military jargon that I didn't understand. It's almost like you are on your computer and you get a little popup menu when you click on the guy. This fourth wall shattering gimmick is just so weird that I had to ask myself "why?" each time it came up. And it's not like it tells you anything. They all look the same under their helmets and camo anyways. Knowing their names didn't really help.

Another thing I'm on the fence about is the use of first person perspective, and boy do they use it a lot. It took me a second to process, but I realized after a while that it's like "Call of Duty." In fact, it's exactly like "Call of Duty." Huh. Imagine that. The movie that is basically "Call of Duty: The Movie" has a lot of FPS sequences. I would say that it's like the FPS sequence of "Doom," but honestly that scene in "Doom" made a lot more sense in context. I mean, it works in "Act of Valor," but it just comes off as being there just…because they could.

Oh! And remember "travel by map" from "The Muppets?" Yeah, they totally do that. A lot.

The opening scene. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything and is completely pointless, but enjoy the keys jangling in your face,

I've spent a lot of time nitpicking "Act of Valor" because honestly, I didn't like it when there wasn't any action on screen. In fact, I found a good portion of the drama, about half the film, to be unwatchable. However, like I said before, the action that is in it, although there should have been more, was very well done. My favorite segment was a rescue operation in the jungle which I would put up there with some of the most exciting and intense military action scenes I've seen in years. Everything was executed perfectly, with just the right amount of tension beforehand to amplify the chaos of the battle. Talk about slamming popcorn in your mouth.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Act of Valor" is half Rambo, half recruitment poster. Yeah, it's chest-thumping propaganda, but as far as propaganda goes, it's well done. However, the acting is going to hurt. Bad. Segal would look Oscar-worthy next to these guys. Ouch. Recommended solely for the action…but rent it.