Act of Valor...to sit through this garbage

Below, there may be spoilers. However, the film-makers themselves created the biggest spoiler, by making this crock.

Saving Private Ryan, Three Kings, Jarhead.
Great war-movies.
Act of Valor is not one of them.

Act of Valor is a poorly acted, terribly written and superficially directed series of money shots for the Navy.
It started off as a commercial for the Navy. It never became anything else. Instead of uniforms, the "actors" should be wearing khakis and rolled-up blue shirts - it was that much of an infomercial.

If you want to compare it to another war film, use this: TROPIC THUNDER.  Where Tropic Thunder showed us that actors can't fight, Valor shows us what happens if soldiers go and act. It ain't pretty.

DON'T ASK, PREY TELL...
On the plus side, kudos for going full-gay with the sub-text between the two leading SEALS. The two guys seemed to spend half of the movie having romantic, golden-hour strolls through shit they've just blown up, where they talk about relationships and babies.

SWEATY TREACHEROUS JEW ALERT!!!!!
Do you think the sweaty, treacherous Jew is a good guy or a bad guy?
Mmm, clue please.
He's not Christian.
And he's foreign.
And he ain't got no standard issue crew-cut. Got to be a bad guy.

But what about the portrayal of a Muslim? Let me reframe that...

THE CONVERT TO ISLAM WITH FACIAL SCARRING....
Good guy or bad guy? Well he ain't no Christian that's for sure. And he's an ex-Ruskie.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE FULL CLICHE
A guy in the first act learns his wife is pregnant....
Now what's going to happen to him?
Is he the cursed cop on the last day on the job?
Is he a Star-Trek red-shirt?
Oh no, they can't go full-cliche can they?

Hell yeah. Full cliche and proud, ma;am!

PLOT HOLES? WE GOT 'EM BY THE SHIP LOAD
Example.  Why does the guy who makes millions of dollars smuggling shit into the US, give up all that to let his one-time pal smuggle in explosives? They either get caught smuggling it in (thereby shutting down his smuggling routes) or else investigations will lead to his smuggling routes. Either way, he's unmotivated in shutting down his business.

ACTION SEQUENCES YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE
If you've never watched an Army or Navy commercial?
Or seen a Michael Bay or Tony Scott movie.
Or played a video game.
Then sure, they'll be new to you.

BUT IT'S GOT TOBACCO FILTERS
That add a nice glow to the action and to the romantic gay-subtext walk on the deck scenes.
If you like your war movies with tobacco filters, then this is the one for you.

CALLING MR BAY
I was longing for the character "subtlety" of Bay or Scott. Believe me, if you hadn't appreciated those directors before, you will do now when you see what incompetent film-making really is.

WHERE'S CHUCK?
This is the kind of movie Chuck Norris might have starred in, many wars ago. It's border line though, as he may have wanted the script rewritten to get all the way up from garbage to mediocre.

Ultimately, the worst thing that can be said about this movie though is it's boring. Really boring.

If you want to ban gay marriage, then you're a socialist.

Democracy is about citizens pursuing life and happiness in a manner which pleases them.

If you want to interfere and stop others from doing that, then you have to have sound reasons such as the protection of our fellow citizens who cannot protect themselves.

You cannot intervene merely on the grounds that you don't like something. That is nothing but state-sponsored bullying.

If you are a Republican, someone who believes in freedom of choice and that government intervention should be kept only to minimal and necessary actions, then how is it possible to justify preventing other people from being happy?  If two gay people chose to marry, it has no impact on non-gays. If we're against gay marriage then we don't have to marry someone of the same sex. That is the limit of our opposition and that should be the limit imposed by the state. We don't like it, we don't have to do it. And as it has no direct impact on us, we don't have the right to stop others from doing it. Anything else is an unwarranted intrusion from big government. It is anti-democratic.

Dicks and Dictators: On why crotch shots are democracy's friend

Weiner's been hounded out of Congress for sending pictures of his crotch to various people. Why? What he wants to do in his spare time is his concern and his alone.  He's been forced out for moralistic reasons; forced to resign because it was against the aesthetic and ethic tastes of certain other people. He did nothing illegal, so what has he done exactly that really means he should not serve his full term?

In a democracy and a society that is truly egalitarian in citizenship, we  must be accepting and tolerant of difference. Whether we like or embrace that difference is irrelevant. If something is legal but not to our taste or our way of doing things, it doesn't matter. We still have to let others go about and do their thing and we still have to stand up and defend their right to do it. If we don't then we're nothing but a bunch of moralizing egomaniacs who believe our way and our tastes are the only way of doing things. That is, we become intolerant dictators of how others should live.

It's your constitutional right to be a dick

David Tyree says the push to legalize gay marriage in the United States will be "the beginning of our country sliding toward ... anarchy"  and that "... two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

It's clearly his right to be a sexist, ignorant, bigot, but it is beyond his right to impose his sexist, ignorant bigotry upon others. He doesn't like it, he doesn't have to support it and he doesn't have to partake in it. He doesn't like or agree with gay marriage, then simply put, he doesn't have to marry someone of the same sex. That should be the limit of his power of veto on the subject. It doesn't affect him, so he should have no say on the matter. In a phrase, he should butt out.

What Happens In Vegas

Waiting staff who don't pay attention and argue with you even when they are wrong.
Hotels that stink of Febreze to hide the cigarette smoke.
Rancid smokers who insist on smoking indoors, just because they can.

Hookers.
Strippers.
Chinese.
Fat people.
Fat Chinese people.

Chain restaurants.
High end stores in malls.
High end restaurants in malls.
High end restaurants selling their hard-earned name to make a fast buck at an ersatz restaurant bearing the same name.

Ersatz.

College students who think it is wild to be able to carry an open beer in the street.
People who want your money.
Security at hotels who let the hookers go to the rooms without a glance but who check the foreign looking families.
The rich and famous selling their over-priced wares to the poor and anonymous.
People who think all of this is good.

All of what happens in Vegas, can stay in Vegas.

They're welcome to it.

IMHO

People who preface a statement with "In my humble opinion..."

Never have one.

Anti Social Network

People who think The Social Network is a great movie probably think that Facebook is a great thing.
They probably think that most things they say or do is interesting.
They probably think their virtual friends say and do interesting things.
With standards that low, of course they're going to like that movie.

Cheap shot? Meh.

Some thoughts on the movie.

If it's true, make it true. 
If you know them, then follow the facts and follow the characterizations and relationships.
Do not make them up.
Do not sell them as truth when they are known to be not.
Do not hide behind the laziness of "it's a movie so we had to change some things to make it dramatic".
If you change ANYTHING from the truth, it is no longer a true story.
And you should not sell it as such.
If it's not the truth, then don't use the real names of living people and active corporations. Make them up. You're creative, you can probably stretch and do that.
Otherwise, hell, some people might be deceived or get lost between the truth and the "film-makers truth".

If you're making a film purporting to tell  the true story of real, living people, then do you not have a moral obligation to tell that story as truthfully as possible?  If you knowingly make things up/fabricate events, relationships or characterizations, then surely you no longer have the moral right to use real names? You're bullshitting the audience and you're doing the real people who share the same names as characters in your movie, a huge disservice.

The lead character doesn't give a shit so why should I?
Unempathetic characters flow throughout this movie. There is no one who I wanted to win. They all could have done with a quick corrective slap and been told to behave.

However, this point is not about liking or disliking the characters. But, if I didn't feel for them, then I can't give a damn about the outcome.  This is not about them being good or bad, heroes or villains.  I love "Dexter" and he's a reprehensible character. But the writers there use their skill to make us feel what he feels - they allow us to be passengers on his scary ride. Here, we weren't on the rollercoaster with these characters, we were watching them ride from some distance.

The Stakes are low
They're ultra smart.
They're privileged
They're kids.
They're at Harvard.

How bad can it be?

What do they want?
What will happen if they fail to get what they want?
What is the worst thing that can happen to them? They don't become billionaires? Well boohoo. They're still educated, intelligent and living way beyond poverty.

What's the worst thing that could happen to Zuckerberg in the movie?
If Zuckerberg's character lost the Facebook battle, then he'd only lose the Facebook battle. According to the movie, he's not motivated by money. So even if he loses the money battle, he loses. He's still the guy who invented Facebook.
No big deal there.

If he wins, he's still the guy who invented Facebook and is now worth multi-billions. If he loses, he's worth a few billion less, but still worth billions. The difference in stakes for the character (especially one who doesn't give a shit about money)  between becoming a billionaire and multi-billionaire is pretty small.

Compare this to The Bicycle Thief - the difference between having a bicycle and not having a bicycle is a job, a marriage, a family and happiness. There is something to be won and something to be lost and there is a vast and discernible difference between the two possible outcomes.

The outcome of the movie is known.
Zuckerberg has control of Facebook.
So we know he wins.
So it has to be about how he wins that engages us.
However, it would appear, he just does.
After the first couple of weeks of avoiding the twins, he doesn't outmaneuver or fight.
He doesn't use his skills to outwit the twins at Harvard or in the depositions.
He just got in first and then had his lawyers do the rest (apart from a couple of snarky comments in the depositions).
Not really a hero or anti-hero fighting for what he believes is right.
He bitches, pays good lawyers and wins.

And I won't even start on all of Sorkin's characters always sounding the same and always sounding like Sorkin...