Acts of Valor vs. the Critics

Acts of Valor vs. the Critics

“Valor” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery.” The only real issue concerning the just-released war film, “Act of Valor,” is that it is mistitled since it depicts not just one but multiple instances of amazing personal bravery.

I wouldn’t dare suggest movie critics don’t respect the courage of our military and, especially, among the Navy’s SEALS. At least none of the critics have said that–although most of them find fault with virtually everything else in the movie. Then, too, how could they criticize or say they abhor the military without sacrificing the illusion of their objectivity.

For a brief synopsis and trailers, see http://bit.ly/roegRu.

The chief critical objections to “Act of Valor” is that the principal characters are wooden and that the plot is contrived.

The former charge is somewhat true due to the fact that the protagonists are active duty SEALS and not professional actors, though we’ve all sat through stinko acting by pros. The contention that the story is unreal is more a reflection of critical biases than of actuality.

The narrative is complex, taking the viewer all over the globe and filled with unrelenting, ultra-violent action but I suspect left-leaning movie critics were far more exercised over the film’s themes than its plot.

Those themes incorporated not just military bravery but the reality of war, the essence of patriotism, the principle of idealism, and even a recogntion of God, none of which are favorite themes of America’s Left. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14853.)