Act of Valor - new film starring active duty Navy Seals..

My take - not enough action, lots of scenes with focusing issues, and they should have used real actors for the leads...
 
My take: I went to see a film that was made (mostly) with a 5D but walked out of the theatre with a whole new appreciation for the men and women who serve in the military. There were definitely some focus issues and the dialogue-heavy scenes made me appreciate real actors that much more. I wanted to like this film and I did.
 
I've seen the film twice now, once with my wife (digital projection) 2nd time, guys night out at the movies (film projection) some military friends as well.

I absolutely loved the movie, even more so the 2nd time.

Yes the acting was a little dry in spots and the plot was a bit forgettable but the overall "story" was very real and is something I think everyone should see and pay attention to.
These things go on and and people should be aware of it. (I'm referring to the character driven/family aspects not the over the top action bits lol).

Actually I personally didn't feel the acting was that bad especially considering these guys weren't actors. Some of the deliveries may have been a little flat but IMO these guys sold it with their expressions and in their eyes especially during the action scenes when they were just "doing they're thing". yes professional actors would have been better during some of the dialogue scenes between the Seals but I think there are only a hand full of actors that could have pulled off the believability during the action scenes. The interrogation scene was FANTASTIC IMO. (considering the focus issues)

I haven't seen my wife so engaged in a movie in a long time, we both have a variety of tastes when it comes to movies but she was seriously emotionally involved with the characters and movie. I don't think I've ever heard her say "Wow" and "OMG" and squeeze my hand so tight so many times during a movie. She was really drawn in as was I.


Now for the technical stuff...

We all know this was primarily shot on a 5D and WOW, it looked great! Cut in with the Film/Phantom, etc. segments just fine.
I wanted to see this film regardless of format but being shot digitally on a 5D and the style that allowed Shane and crew to achieve just made it that much more enticing.
I went into the film trying to pay attention to the technicalities (pixel peep) of how the camera held up but was immediately pulled into the film. i thought during the 2nd viewing I could pay more attention to the technical aspects, nope pulled into the film again haha, IMO its that good.
The Cinematography, pacing and yes, even acting is just that good. The plot is engaging enough to hold my attention through 2 viewings but is still a bit forgettable but the characters (especially being real people helps IMO) and overall "story" are quite satisfying.

I did notice some major focus issues that have been mentioned in this thread. Thats unfortunate because that was the only thing that pulled me out from the film in certain sequences. Surprisingly my "filmmaker" friends did not notice nor care though. Note they are more director/producer types though haha. Still this is not because of the camera, well I guess it is being so damn hard to focus but IMO inexcusable soft shots especially during a few very good performances. I'd catch myself looking at the guys ear because that was the focus point lol. I find this odd because the focus was held brilliantly during the action and tracking sequences but they can't hold focus during a (handheld) dialogue scene…

The texture from the 5D was excellent in the digital projection. I'm sure this had to do with the work they laid over the footage in post. Still though I preferred the film projection.
In some spots the film just looked a little too "digital" IMO, Some films I prefer this, some films not. However I preferred the way some of the aerial shots looked in the film projection, not so much the bulk of the film. These scenes seemed to have a less digital texture/look in the film projection, Ironically I read many of the aerial shots were shot on 35mm. I also heard a Sony 900 so…
Still the 5D looked great in both versions, it was just a few of the wide aerial shots that screamed "digital" to me, not the action or stuff that I know was 5D.


IMO this film has set the bar for action films. The cinematography/shot design is just breathtaking. Also its a pretty engaging story that I think people should see.

Last I checked Rotton Tomatoes had a Critic rating of 27% but a User rating of 85%. I think this says a lot. I enjoy a lot of movies the critics bash. Every film can't and shouldn't be a "Tree of Life" "Hugo" or
"The Artist", etc.
 
Last edited:
Just got back from the last showing in my area (Atlanta). I wanted to see the 5D on the big screen which is why I went (that and the cool trailer). Overall I think it was pretty mediocre as a movie, but had some great parts to it and some nice visuals at times. A couple dialog tweaks could've saved some of the scenes where the acting wasn't great. Some scenes had dialog and performances I enjoyed quite a bit, like the conversation on the yacht between the billionaire and Sr. The opening action sequence was the best to me. As others had stated, the film was often hard to follow jumping around from here to there with me trying to constantly figure out where I was and why I was there. The death of the secondary bad guy at the end seemed a little anti-clamactic to me.

While I appreciated the shooting style at times (some of the first person stuff was great), overall it was all over the map. I didn't have much of a problem with focus as much as editing. It was honestly worse then some of the Bourne movies, which I actually can follow really well during action scenes. There were large chunks where I was completely disoriented which at times might have been intended but other times I know it wasn't, and if it was...it was a poor choice at the time. The time the action was best is when the geography was understood well and where the fast pace cutting helped to move the action forward amongst the geography. This is why the opening sequence to me was better, since even as the geography changed, your understanding of the space was kept as the action moved forward.

Still, I did come away respecting more what our military does and what they sacrifice. It also sheds light a bit on the "secret" things that go on every day we don't know about. It's far too easy to paint things with a broad brush not knowing just how much it takes to protect us constantly from the multitudes of people who hate our guts.

In regards to the 5D itself, I thought for the most part it held up pretty well. Had things not been so choppy at times and had the focus been a bit more controlled, I think it would've been even easier to hide it. Now, I was at a cheaper theater, so the picture (which was running off a film print) wasn't the best...but even then it held up pretty good. The film portions were obvious at times, and other times not. Rolling shutter and especially the pieces where the 30p > 24p conversion wasn't ideal gave the 5D away more then anything. There's definitely a few places of the film that things look more like video then anything else. Still, it really gave me an idea how well DSLRs can hold up. Of course they're soft, that's a given and in wide shots it's even softer, but even those held up well at times, and the close-ups and other shots of that sort did especially well.

For what it was and what they had...a respectable effort, but in the story/editing department it fell short hurting what could've been.
 
I think this film is getting too much slack because it's not 'real' actors. It's as if we're patting our 2-year-old nephew for making a 'movie' and saying it was great, considering they're 2-years-old. However the difference is this was a world wide release in theaters, so let's judge it by that book.

That considered, the acting and dialogue scenes were pretty horrendous. Yes they're not actors, but there's a saying thrown around in Martial Art films. You can teach and actor martial arts, but you can't teach a martial artist to act. Same goes for soldiers IMO. In fact the ENTIRE selling campaign around this movie is that it's done by real US marines.

There's no real purpose to use real US marines for anything other than stunts and consultation, other than as a selling point. It's to sell the movie, that's it and that's all. They could have easily gotten the same action, same stunts, same everything with much better acting.

As for the story, kind of mediocre. They're stopping a US attack. It's really nothing new and lots of movies have treated this subject in a lot more inventive ways. Plus, because we're 'stuck' with the marines, we don't see it from all sides. We hardly see any of the CIA involvement, we hardly see any political actions, etc...

As for the action itself. Gotta admit the opening shoot-out was quiet heart pounding. Thought not really sure what the purpose of the boat was and how they coordinated it for the 'perfect timing' at the end? Aside from that it was really fun. After that, however, the rest of the shoot-outs just fell flat for me. Regular clearing of buildings, nothing more than procedural tactics IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top