Category Archives: Thrillers

If you have ever longed for a “Call of Duty” film, look no further.

“Act of Valor,” the recent military action film starring “active duty Navy SEALs” is a fast-paced, patriotic action film that recalls a simpler era of moviemaking. Here, viewers won’t find angsty meditations on the implications of Bush-era foreign policy – this is simply a movie about the men who defend our nation from “enemies foreign and domestic.” And as such, it succeeds.

The plot will be familiar to anyone who’s played one of the “Modern Warfare” games: SEALs are dispatched to rescue a captured CIA operative in Colombia, but it soon becomes clear that an international conspiracy is developing. Russian smuggler and arms broker Christo has allied with radical jihadist and Chechen leader Al-Shabal, and the two men are plotting acts of terror on the U.S. home front. Through a series of globe-hopping missions, the SEALs confront – and eliminate – a variety of terrorist cell groups.

First, the positives…

The action scenes are stunning. “Act of Valor” is one of the best-made shoot-’em-up films I’ve seen in a long time, particularly in terms of cinematography and staging. Key sequences contain plenty of frenetic energy, but it’s never difficult to tell exactly what is happening onscreen. Every inch of the film is suffused with brutal realism, right down to the live ammunition used in many of the combat scenes. In terms of action execution, “Act of Valor” is head-and-shoulders above “The Expendables,” “RED,” or “The A-Team.”

“Act of Valor,” however, isn’t perfect. As many other critics have observed, the acting is remarkably poor. I recognize that the stars of this film are Navy SEALs, not trained actors, but the lifeless lead performances are distractingly bad. Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson might be able to infuse “corny” lines with dramatic power, but that just doesn’t happen here. And unfortunately, weak acting does detract somewhat from the movie’s emotional climax.

The worldview portrayed by “Act of Valor” is remarkably black-and-white: bad people threaten America, SEALs kill bad people. Though I’m often exasperated by political correctness, it’s worth noting that all of the villains fall into one of six categories: black people, Filipino people, Jewish people, Mexican people, Colombian people, and Arab people. In contrast, most of the SEALs (including the two leads) are Caucasian. I would have liked, for example, to have some of the villains be disaffected Anglo-American teenagers who’ve bought into a mindset of hate. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but a little more nuance wouldn’t have hurt.

These faults, however, are ultimately beside the point. “Act of Valor” is a hymn to the courage and self-sacrifice of our top soldiers – and on that level, it succeeds with flying colors. Sitting in the theater, I found myself thinking “I hope other nations are watching this.” Our military succeeds not merely because of technology, but also because of the character of those on the front line. In our affluent country, there are plenty of spoiled, upper-class college kids whining about whether or not it was right to take out Osama bin Laden…I don’t see any of them stepping up to lay their lives on the line. Americans can live free from terrorism because of soldiers’ heroism – and that’s a point “Act of Valor” certainly brings home.

Objectionable content comes in the form of violence (many people are shot in the head with some blood spray, and there’s a brief scene of the CIA operative being tortured) and a fair amount of strong language. Compared to a lot of recent war films, though, it’s rather restrained.

Is it worth watching?

“Act of Valor” lacks the emotional punch of “Saving Private Ryan” or “We Were Soldiers.” But as a testament to the bravery of America’s finest, it’s outstanding. There are definitely some problems – particularly with the script and acting – but when weighed against the superbly rendered action scenes, these are mitigated. Fans of action and military films alike will likely enjoy “Act of Valor.”

VERDICT: 8/10
A rousing, patriotic action film. Imperfect, but succeeds in being both entertaining and moving.

Normalized Score: 5.8

I wasn’t the biggest fan of 2009’s “Sherlock Holmes.” Sure, it had wit and pizzazz to spare (and Robert Downey Jr. was fantastic in the leading role) but overall, the film lacked a real emotional core. An expensive, slickly packaged product (I’m looking at you, “Transformers'”) does not a good film guarantee. Still, it was entertaining and clever…and good enough to justify a look at its sequel, “A Game of Shadows.”

Picking up shortly after “Sherlock Holmes,” “A Game of Shadows” pits Holmes and Watson (Jude Law) against the brilliant criminal mastermind Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Moriarty, much more of a Bond-villain type than the first film’s antagonist, has malevolent designs for all of Europe…and of course it falls to Holmes to save the day. Cue a series of elaborate set pieces involving hand-to-hand brawls, giant explosions, and slow-motion gun battles.

First, the good…

The relationship between Holmes and Watson is the true touchstone of the film. Their “bro-mantic” bond is at times both hilarious and touching – and it’s obvious they’re both willing to make great sacrifices for one another. This leads to another of the film’s strengths: it finally shows viewers a vulnerable Holmes. The brilliant, invincible genius of the first film takes a serious beating in the sequel, both physically and emotionally. Although some of these elements could have used better development, it’s still a step up from its predecessor.

The action scenes are also remarkably well-executed. A “bullet time” sequence in a snowy forest is particularly stunning, as are the (numerous) scenes in which Holmes rapidly plans out his techniques for dispatching an attacker. In a Hollywood that seems to rely more and more on recycling old clichés, it’s refreshing to see some creatively choreographed fisticuffs.

Most importantly, however, the last act of the film is simply sublime. Ritchie finally manages to integrate his story with Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic tales, resulting in a breathtaking climax that redeems the entire movie. It’s clever, tense, and yet heartfelt – an almost impossible balance to strike in a film like this, but Ritchie nails it. When the credits rolled, I found myself grinning ear to ear – as a longtime fan of Conan Doyle’s work, I appreciated such a brilliantly executed finale.

That’s not to say, however, that “A Game of Shadows” is perfect – not by a long shot.

The film is horribly paced. Viewers are hit with an incoherent barrage of action and plot exposition within the first half-hour, which quickly gives way to an agonizingly dull midsection. For much of the movie, the plot is borderline incomprehensible – things only become clear as the film reaches its conclusion.

Unfortunately, Ritchie can’t resist the temptation to insert a homoerotic subtext into the Holmes/Watson relationship. Though there’s nothing overtly questionable here, there’s plenty of wink-wink subtext pandering to a juvenile demographic (Holmes briefly shows up in drag, and a wrestling match between him and Watson results in clothes getting torn off). The director isn’t trying to make a creative point about the repression of homosexual rights throughout history…he’s going for adolescent sniggers.

Finally, the depiction of Moriarty is somewhat less intimidating than it should be. Without spoiling any major plot points, Moriarty’s motives are simply too simplistic for such a multifaceted character. Throughout Conan Doyle’s work, Moriarty is an entirely sociopathic master criminal who takes pleasure in thwarting the law. In the end, Ritchie’s Moriarty needs more Hannibal Lecter and less Gordon Gekko.

So, should you see it?

From a worldview standpoint, there’s little of note…aside from a particularly memorable quip by Moriarty that reflects a cynical – yet biblical – understanding of human nature. While fleeting, it’s more than viewers get from most hyperkinetic action films. And as previously noted, there’s the whole “gay” dynamic between Holmes and Watson, but that’s employed exclusively for lowbrow laughs.

When all’s said and done, the last twenty minutes of “A Game of Shadows” are so good that they make up for the film’s deficiencies. It’s good Christmas-break entertainment – there won’t be any Oscar nods here, but it’s still probably worth seeing for fans of the original.

VERDICT: 7/10
An imperfect yet entertaining sequel.

Normalized Score: 3.4

Addendum: Yes, there is a trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises.” Yes, it is spectacular.