Re: Act of Valor
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: srt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why the R rating? Is it from the graphic violence with dangerous guns or was there sex and nudity? </div></div>
No nudity, no sex, very little profanity. Now what it did have; almost nonstop action with impact shots, torture implied and heard but not seen.
As for the acting I thought it to be very realistic and life like, there weren’t long cunning dialogs as this wasn’t a social movie. Comparing this movie comprised with nonprofessional actors against the last movie I watched (Red Tails) with several well known actors, Act of Valor was much better.
I actually thought after walking out of the theater that this might be a little wake up call to big Hollywood and I can see why the big time critics don’t like it. The Act of Valor crew did a great job, acting and filming. Will it win awards, not unless they start a new category “most dangerous screen play”. But most of the better movies I have liked dont win awards... After all there was a lack of sexual preference scenes and/or shocking moral standards conveyed to the audience, nor challenging political statements made or implied. Hollywood doesn’t give awards out for conveying values, responsibility or to war movies that show the United States actions in a positive light. So why would it win an award.
Now for the bloopers.
Did anyone catch during the first briefing the Captain that was addressed as a lieutenant?