Box Office Guru Wrapup: SEALs Storm Into #1 Spot with Valor

Summary

American audiences were in the mood to support the troops as the Navy SEAL film Act of Valor ruled the Oscar frame with impressive results. Tyler Perry and Jennifer Aniston both saw some of the worst openings of their careers with their new offerings Good Deeds and Wanderlust, respectively, while Amanda Seyfried proved that she can't open a film on her own as her latest picture Gone was dead on arrival. Top Academy Award hopefuls continued to see respectable business outside the top ten from movie fans eager to see the likely winners before Sunday night's big ceremony. Back to Article

Comments

This comment has been removed.

Todd Garry

Todd Garry

Lenny couldn't agree more! Although we will get flamed for voicing our opinion. Get ready to hear that we are terrorist and that we hate America!!!!

Feb 26 - 07:07 PM

Todd Garry

Todd Garry

Lenny couldn't agree more! Although we will get flamed for voicing our opinion. Get ready to hear that we are terrorist and that we hate America!!!!

Feb 26 - 07:07 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

Act of Valor SUCKED DICK! I walked into the movie proud to be an American, and walked out wanting to move to Canada. Easily the worst movie I've seen in years. My girlfriend and I spent much of Saturday debating whether to see Safe House or Act of Valor, I chose Act of Valor, knowing it wouldnt be that good while she said we should see Safe House. Ultimately we agreed on Act of Valor, and after the previews then came an EXTREMELY horrible experience. The first 10 minutes was pure shit, more propaganda got shoved in my face than every war movie ever made combined, it truly felt less of a movie and more of a recruitment commercial. I ended up falling asleep around the 30-minute mark, after seeing the 2 lead actors- excuse me, SOLDIERS- have a conversation where they managed to have the worst dialogue and acting of any war movie ever. For the next hour of the movie this was my schedule; fall asleep for 14 minutes, woke up, 3 minutes of boring shootouts here, fell asleep for 8 minutes, woke up, heard the most overused line ever "This mission is unlike anything we ve ever seen before.", fell asleep for 11 minutes, woke up, 2 minutes of patriotic music and SEALS jumping out of planes there, fell asleep for 8 minutes, woke up, girlfriend says "This shit wack as hell", I laugh in agreement, fall asleep for 6 minutes, woke up, heard gunfire and soldiers shouting "RELOAD!" and "AMBUSH!", fell asleep for 7 minutes, woke up to a big ass explosion for 1 minute, fell asleep for 3 minutes, woke up and stayed awake for the last 30 minutes of the movie, which actually held my interest and was easily the best part of the whole film (ahem, recruiting commercial). The movie ended with one of the soldiers dying, being buried and end credits. When we were leaving out of the theater we looked around and saw a bunch of young girls crying like they were at a Justin Bieber concert. Maybe they lost someone to war, but at that moment I really didn't care. I felt like a damn fool. The entire drive home,my girl berated me over and over about how I should have chosen Safe House. Seriously, how do you go into a movie with extremely low standards and STILL come out disappointed? 8 weeks into 2012 and we have found the Worst Picture of 2012. I can not recommend this movie to anyone unless they purposefully want to waste 2 hours of their lives. How this piece of shit got an "A" grade on Cinemascore is purely from the soldiers in the audience.

Feb 26 - 07:11 PM

Theo K.

Theo Kanbe

I have not seen this movie, but I will bet good money that reading this comment was better than watching the whole movie.

Feb 26 - 07:29 PM

Brad H.

Brad Hadfield

Wow, it's not 1985. What rah-rah BS propelled this to #1? I respect our troops, for the most part, but this stinks of red state propaganda. Yeah, flyover States and teavangelicals! I'm sorry to get political, but wow, are we doomed if we don't have another obama term.

Feb 26 - 07:33 PM

jayboi

Jason Haynes

We are doomed even if we have another term of Obama. He is just as much an epic fail as Bush was.

Feb 27 - 05:43 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I dunno, under which Presidency 'succeeded' in hunting down Bin Laden who was America's most wanted 'dead and alive' and finally return troops home back to their families and friends!

Feb 27 - 03:28 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

How is Obama even in the same failure BALLPARK as Bush?

Bush threw the ENTIRE WORLD into a recession.

Obama has givin the US 3 straight years of economic GROWTH!

Look...http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/bush-vs-obama-on-spending-its-no.html

Feb 28 - 09:25 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Seems like if it was propoganda it'd be better right? Is a movie really propoganda if it doesn't make what it's promoting look good? Just a philosophical question there. I DO find it interesting (not aimed at you in particular, just making a general point) that the first people to bash on this kind of right wing propoganda are usually the first to praise left wing propoganda that is very prevalent in Hollywood as well. This is the real problem we have in America, we've allowed the media and our politicians to comfortably file us into rival armed camps Coastals and Flyover States, Red and Blue, Occupiers and Tea Partiers, Left and Right, Etc and Etc. Everybody who doesn't agree with us is an asshole, except we're all assholes because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real problem that all our govt officials are more interested in getting themselves re-elected by dividing us than actually doing a good job and being competent.

Feb 27 - 06:16 AM

scifimark

scifi mark

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never see this in a theater but ill definitely be watching it on video when it comes out. For me i would be curious to see actual real military tactics that the seals would use. But that is just my own justification for seeing it.

Also statistically only 20 percent of the people in the US will actually vote for who they think is the best candidate and not on party lines.

Feb 27 - 07:45 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Right, I never thought this was going to be Oscar worthy on an acting level. I'd probably equate this closer to The Expendables in terms of expectation for me. The draw is the realism of the action, not the quality of the acting. I would agree though this probably could have been more effective as a documentary on the SEALs than a fictional work. PS Lenny, since they're Navy SEALs they're not Soldiers, they're Sailor's. Just a minor correction.

Feb 27 - 07:59 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

The lack of story, which even "Act"s fans aren't denying, is what offends me most. And I hate political sanctimony regardless of which side of the partisan fence it comes from. But if Rick Santorum gets the nomination, will we still be talking with a straight face about all this "best candidate" nonsense?

Feb 27 - 01:12 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Rick Santorum is a right wing Christian racist- this is the guy that wants to bring back old fashion Christian values and if that is the case then he should throw away all his apple products as well as everything else that he has anything to do with technology since times have changed! He's probably pro-slavory too since that is the time when females have to hold an asprin between their knees and that men are the only breadwinners with women having to stay at home and do f-ck all except clean house which also means that he doesn't even believe in equal rights! 'Perfect' white collar families make me sick to my stomach and standing beside him underpaid ethnic butlers and maids who barely speak any English working on the side!

Feb 27 - 03:56 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely. Janson, I think thr belief that in a system where you have to be a multi millionaire and have the backing of hundreds of corporate sponsors and special interest groups precludes the idea that we're going to get the best candidate on either side. Obama won because we knew less about him than anyone else going and that played to his benefit in that election. It kills me that after 11 years of war we don't have any candidates with competent military experience. Say what you want, but senators, governors, etc nothing compares with being a general or leader during time of war for prepping you to make hard decisions. Where are the Eisenhowers and Kennedy's of this generation?

Feb 27 - 04:55 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

BB - I hope you will support with me a constitutional amendment that will over turn 'Citizens United', declare that corporations are not people (only people are people), and establish publicly funded elections in order to put an end to the need to cater to these financial and industrial interests in the first place. And Obama has made some hard decisions concerning the failed Afghanistan 'surge' and the expansion of the illicit drone program. Pentagon funding has actually increased in every one of his budgets (so far). I'm obviously not one who supports these things, but, objectively, it's kinda kooky to accuse Obama of not being hawkish on his foreign policy.

Feb 27 - 06:22 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I definately would agree to all of that. I'm not accusing the President of anything of the sort and I have the utmost respect for the office of the President. No one has to make harder decisions, I was just saying that nothing can prepare you for the office of the President like military service and leading fighting men in life and death situations. I also don't think being a military veteran necessarily makes you by nature hawkish. I actually think most wars in American history began under Presidents with no military service and the two guys I mentioned though having proud records of military service were not people that went out looking for a fight and made some of the best decisions that kept the Cold War cold. I think people with combat experience understand the stakes in such things in a way that civilians can't and their military records demand instant respect from other world leaders as someone who will make the hard decisions if pushed. Not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously there are great Presidents who never served in the military Lincoln and FDR spring to mind immediately, but I still think it helps. Really Grant is the only bad President I can think of with a military background. I just find it odd that we're now on our 3rd President in a row with no military service and 5 of the last 6. 11 years of war and not one viable candidate? Just strikes me as and anomoly.

Feb 27 - 07:10 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Just to let you know, I supported Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004. He's exactly the kind of military dove you mentioned. His book "Winning Modern Wars" exposed exactly the kind of considerations that W ignored.

Feb 27 - 07:24 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

In hindsight Clark would have been good. Also, I wish Colin Powell could pull his balls out of his wifes purse and run I think he would have been a phenomenal President.

Feb 27 - 07:32 PM

George Patchell

George Patchell

I'm living in Australia so I don't really have a horse in this race - though I am thinking of moving to the states in about a year - but to me it seems like would you really want a general or military leader running a country during a time of war? How could they address each situation objectively? Its like how a lawyer should not handle their own personal cases because they are too close to it to see things objectively. You need someone who can stand back away from the situation. Anyway as I said im in Australia and I don't have a firm handle on American politics as I'm sure most Americans wouldn't know much about Australian politics. As for the movie if it ever gets to our screens given our terrible release schedule - 50/50 only comes out at cinemas this week! - then I think its one to avoid at all costs. When people say its the most realistic war (or whatever) film ever made it almost guarantees that it isn't and given the reviews and bad word of mouth on this site I think I'll steer clear. As for those mentioning Safe House I'd recommend you avoid it - yeah we get that same time as the states but you try catching Shame a week after it gets released and nope its already off the screens - and it was nothing great just another action movie with a twist visible from the beginning and a disappointing ending. Might check out The Artist this week as it was just released a week and a half ago but knowing my luck its already been removed to make way for The Vow or something else equally terrible.

Feb 28 - 12:58 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'd say you want a general because for one they've already had to make those decisions and have a better understanding of the intricasies and consequences of said decisions. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best example of the type of leadership you get from someone with military experience. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. You shouldn't actively seek out conflict like W did in Iraq, but you also can't let people think you're afraid to act so they believe they can dick you around for a decade like Saddam Hussein did after the first Gulf War because he figured out that the international community wasn't going to do anything about it...See also Kim Jung Il, Asad and any number of various warlords in Africa these days. Tough luck on the movie front dude, but hey at least you're in Australia which I've always enjoyed if you can avoid the brown recluses and salt water crocks. Best ladies in the world in Australia.

Feb 28 - 07:37 AM

Dave J

Dave J

"Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely" Understand something here Bigbrother, "propoganda" is manipulation and if you don't want to subject to any of what you perceive as "propoganda" then you might as well just turn your tv off and then hand them all your money, because all I'm doing is "quoting" some of what "one" Republican candidate is saying about going back to old fashion Christian values, in this case it happens to be Rick Santorum! People want more employment but how is that going to happen because you can't just take someone's word for "it" and then the jobs would just reappear out of nowhere, the bad economy was a result of Republicans and as always blame Democrats as an excused to wreck the economy even more- it's not so hard to understand this!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Obama consults with his "Minister of Defense" as well as his generals, I mean that's how they got Bin Laden, wasn't it! And Bush went to war with Iraq for the oil which is what W's business friends wanted him to do in the first place who contributed most amount of money for him to win his second term. And the reason why no President won't invade any country including similar to North Korea is because there's no financial gain in terms of it's resources to help the US economy unless they were to attack first of course!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

If everything you say about Santorum were true and as clear cut as you present it he wouldn't be a public figure unless you believe a majority of the voting public supports those ideas which I don't. You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda. Getting Bin Laden wasn't as simple as consulting with his generals and cabinet. Actually much to his great credit the President didn't listen to the advise of his cabinet when taking the chance to get Bin Laden. My issue with the Presidents military policy is twofold 1. He praises the military and touts their accomplishments for what they've done and sacrificed for him while cutting military jobs at senior levels and appointing Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter.

Feb 28 - 02:36 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

There's also a problem that never seems to come up with the we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil theory. 1. Afghans have no oil and 2. We haven't taken cheap barrel of oil one from Iraq. That's why our gas is pushing 4 bucks a barrel up from just north of two when we went in.

Feb 28 - 02:49 PM

Dave J

Dave J

You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda" Well, you got a point there bigbrother and it'd be idiotic if they really did say those things, but I remember on some MAD magazines or another they would sometimes have politicians and CEO's saying one thing only to really mean something else, so in this retropects it's a matter of "semantics" or how each individual interprets it, but to avoid propoganda any shape or form in it's entirety one would have to lock yourself in a closet and hope that you can converse with the candidates themeselves providing that you're allowed to ask the hard questions because they tend to avoid that! And you may not view it as no big deal whenever a candidate says that he wants to go 'back to old Christian values' but what do they really mean by that because racism was more acceptable during those times too, including the fact that the 1% of the wealthiest citizens of America used to be and still is white which is what happend back on those days when we had nothing but Christian values!

Feb 28 - 03:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I agree there was no oil in Afganistan, but to execute Osama Bin Laden was the main objective to invade Afganistan in the first place, but as I recall Bush's original agenda was to send troops to Iraq for the oil despite 9/11 happened even though 1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever 2) Saddam Hussein had no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and knew this, meaning that the reason why Bush invaded Iraq was basically for the oil instructed by his CEO friends! There's absolutely no other reason to invade Iraq other than that reason was for the oil! I also want to add that North Korea is becoming an impoverished nation and I don't think it can maintain a powerful army long unless the sanctions are lifted!

"Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter."

And I don't know too much about this for this could be labelled as propoganda as well since the troops themselves haven't said anything when a portion of our troops were always relying on "contributions" funded by other people. I mean would you rather have them go back to war, is war better that can possibly wreck a man's mentality and go into deep depression, I want to understand this bigbrother!

Feb 28 - 03:49 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Let me just say about Santorum: His own comments about sex not being for pleasure, and how birth control has resulted in more out-of-wedlock births, or how he has supported limiting birth control to married couples, or how he has publicly defended both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno, or how his reaction to his fellow Catholic Kennedy's speech on religious tolerance made him almost puke, or how rape babies are gifts from God, ad nauseum - all that is what it is. I won't judge him, but I will say that if you think he's going to be the nominee and you think he's going to run for president in the 21st century on these issues (and he's also been very clear on imposing "God's law" on all American's despite the 1st amendment and Jefferson's wish to protect those "of any faith or no faith", then all I'll say is "Good Luck with that!"

Feb 28 - 04:13 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive and I'm not advocating maintaining wars just so our troops can have something to do, I simply question the logic of cutting our military forces back to below pre-war levels when those forces were proven to be wholy inadequate to the task when conflict actually came. People may not remember, but when the initial conflicts kicked off in 2001 and 2003 the same units were constantly deploying over and over again which probably did much of the psychological damage you reference, now ten years on we've finally gotten some kind of handle on it and we want to cut back so if something does happen in Iran, syria or North Korea we'll face the same situation we did when we started. Also I've seen first hand measures the secdef and administration has implemented to cut the force without making it look like they're cutting forces and the people who are getting cut out and forced to leave are those same people who were eating the repeat deployments all those years ago, they're reward? getting told their service is no longer required and they're not allowed to make their 20 and collect thier retirement pension because they're less important than the blatant bureaucracy and tons of waste that fuels our govt. If you've ever worked with people prosecuting the wars they're not saying we need more equipment or we need to develop these great billion dollar high tech tools, they say we need more people and the reason you don't hear about it from service members is very simple. Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use their positions as members of such to get involved in politics or desperage their Commander in Chief or high ranking members of the govt. Essentially they're forbidden by law from complaining as members of the military. It's why General McChrystal was asked to resign based on a Rolling Stone article where he and his staff spoke ill of how the administration was processing the war.

Feb 28 - 06:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive" I was talking about fundraisers to help troops financially mostly for the ones who were disabled as a result of the war. Similar to how politicians raise money to win there campaigns and nominations!

Feb 29 - 01:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, in my defense, I haven't been reading articles from Rolling Stones for awhile now, but was wondering how old is this article and on what administration was he criticizing, was it "just" the current President or does this include the previous one, and I just want to say how convenient it is that complaints regarding the military is coming out in full circle once Obama came into Presidency but nothing was said when Bush was in office- how convenient! And also wondering whether this was the same General who said he wouldn't serve under the Obama administration because he didn't think he was an American and wanted him to produce a birth certificate, just wondering!

Feb 29 - 01:45 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Come to think of it for it's been a very long time, the general that's arising issues regarding the military in the Rolling Stones magazine, wasn't he the same general that had some animosity toward Obama after replacing him with another certified general and now he's an ex-general, just wondering because maybe the complaints and accusations that were made might be for personal reasons rather than being a noble one!

Feb 29 - 05:00 PM

Chris L.

Chris Liu

Since you brought up philosophy, I must point out that the claim ‚??this film is bad‚?? does not follow from the claim ‚??this film is propaganda.‚?? Clear case in point is Triumph of the Will. I‚??m sure that Act of Valour has plenty of legitimate reasons for meriting criticism, but being propaganda is not one of them.

Feb 29 - 09:24 PM

rle4lunch

Chad W

It's always interesting to read outsiders points of views on the military and how they would run it. Nevertheless, the back and forth banter here was fun to read. lol.

Mar 2 - 12:31 PM

Dave J

Dave J

On the flip side of things that by paying money to see this is a support of the Marines, even though they're not the same Marines that did Bin Laden they're still ex-Marines trying their chops at acting even though the film itself is in no way indeed memorable! I'll probably see this too some day when I'm at home with my "fast-forward" remote on my other hand!

Also, although you saw the film and I haven't, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree about the recruitment thing since to become a Marine has different standards than becoming a soldier, you can say that it may be a ploy to convince recruitment within the army but to become a Marine is actually harder than it looks because it's only a select "few" that can succeed to become one out of hundreds, perhaps thousands!

Feb 27 - 01:23 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Are you sure? I thought the marines took absolutely anybody that enlisted, weather or not they survived bootcamp is a different story of course.

Feb 27 - 03:50 PM

Dave J

Dave J

After the killing of Bin Laden, there was a couple of segments about them on "60 Minuutes" and on "Nightline" showcasing Marines and I think upon watching it, if the training had any limits with any of the men which could be sky diving or staying underwater for a specific amount of time can rule them out of the group forcing them to resort to the army instead, I could be wrong! The training of Marines is never the same as army men in uniform, never is never was! I think when people try out to be a Marine and at the same token doesn't mean that they would actually make it out as one either!

Feb 27 - 04:06 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

They're not Marines. They're SEALs, Navy SEALs. So this entire thread is pointless. SEALs have to go through excruciating tests and trials to become SEALs. That was one thing GI Jane got right, the failure rate.

Feb 27 - 04:44 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Oops, you're right it is the SEALS, but I think I got confused was because they used ex-marines to star in this movie vehicle portraying as SEALS and the fact that they're so many "war" games to play, such as SOCOM, Medal Of Honor and Call Of Duty, it's sometimes kinda hard to keep things in check!

Feb 28 - 12:20 PM

Otoniel Gonzalez

Otoniel Gonzalez

the movie is LOUD so I wonder how you manage to fall asleep! I agree tho the movie SUCKED BALLS .

Feb 28 - 06:20 AM

Christopher Granado

Christopher Granado

safe house had denzel wahinhgton in it, act of valor non actors.

Feb 28 - 02:37 PM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Haven't seen the movie yet, but just wanted to say that we're Sailors, not Soldiers.

Mar 2 - 12:26 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

But are you the muthafucking SHORE PATROL!

Mar 2 - 04:44 PM

jessica S.

jessica Smith

++++++My friends told me about---casualchats.com---. They told me it is the best place to seek casual fun and short-term relationship. I have tried. It is fantastic! Tens of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys are active there. You wanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone you like there. Have fun!:D

Mar 3 - 06:31 AM

Theo K.

Theo Kanbe

I have not seen this movie, but I will bet good money that reading this comment was better than watching the whole movie.

Feb 26 - 07:29 PM

Brad H.

Brad Hadfield

Wow, it's not 1985. What rah-rah BS propelled this to #1? I respect our troops, for the most part, but this stinks of red state propaganda. Yeah, flyover States and teavangelicals! I'm sorry to get political, but wow, are we doomed if we don't have another obama term.

Feb 26 - 07:33 PM

jayboi

Jason Haynes

We are doomed even if we have another term of Obama. He is just as much an epic fail as Bush was.

Feb 27 - 05:43 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I dunno, under which Presidency 'succeeded' in hunting down Bin Laden who was America's most wanted 'dead and alive' and finally return troops home back to their families and friends!

Feb 27 - 03:28 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

How is Obama even in the same failure BALLPARK as Bush?

Bush threw the ENTIRE WORLD into a recession.

Obama has givin the US 3 straight years of economic GROWTH!

Look...http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/bush-vs-obama-on-spending-its-no.html

Feb 28 - 09:25 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Seems like if it was propoganda it'd be better right? Is a movie really propoganda if it doesn't make what it's promoting look good? Just a philosophical question there. I DO find it interesting (not aimed at you in particular, just making a general point) that the first people to bash on this kind of right wing propoganda are usually the first to praise left wing propoganda that is very prevalent in Hollywood as well. This is the real problem we have in America, we've allowed the media and our politicians to comfortably file us into rival armed camps Coastals and Flyover States, Red and Blue, Occupiers and Tea Partiers, Left and Right, Etc and Etc. Everybody who doesn't agree with us is an asshole, except we're all assholes because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real problem that all our govt officials are more interested in getting themselves re-elected by dividing us than actually doing a good job and being competent.

Feb 27 - 06:16 AM

scifimark

scifi mark

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never see this in a theater but ill definitely be watching it on video when it comes out. For me i would be curious to see actual real military tactics that the seals would use. But that is just my own justification for seeing it.

Also statistically only 20 percent of the people in the US will actually vote for who they think is the best candidate and not on party lines.

Feb 27 - 07:45 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Right, I never thought this was going to be Oscar worthy on an acting level. I'd probably equate this closer to The Expendables in terms of expectation for me. The draw is the realism of the action, not the quality of the acting. I would agree though this probably could have been more effective as a documentary on the SEALs than a fictional work. PS Lenny, since they're Navy SEALs they're not Soldiers, they're Sailor's. Just a minor correction.

Feb 27 - 07:59 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

The lack of story, which even "Act"s fans aren't denying, is what offends me most. And I hate political sanctimony regardless of which side of the partisan fence it comes from. But if Rick Santorum gets the nomination, will we still be talking with a straight face about all this "best candidate" nonsense?

Feb 27 - 01:12 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Rick Santorum is a right wing Christian racist- this is the guy that wants to bring back old fashion Christian values and if that is the case then he should throw away all his apple products as well as everything else that he has anything to do with technology since times have changed! He's probably pro-slavory too since that is the time when females have to hold an asprin between their knees and that men are the only breadwinners with women having to stay at home and do f-ck all except clean house which also means that he doesn't even believe in equal rights! 'Perfect' white collar families make me sick to my stomach and standing beside him underpaid ethnic butlers and maids who barely speak any English working on the side!

Feb 27 - 03:56 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely. Janson, I think thr belief that in a system where you have to be a multi millionaire and have the backing of hundreds of corporate sponsors and special interest groups precludes the idea that we're going to get the best candidate on either side. Obama won because we knew less about him than anyone else going and that played to his benefit in that election. It kills me that after 11 years of war we don't have any candidates with competent military experience. Say what you want, but senators, governors, etc nothing compares with being a general or leader during time of war for prepping you to make hard decisions. Where are the Eisenhowers and Kennedy's of this generation?

Feb 27 - 04:55 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

BB - I hope you will support with me a constitutional amendment that will over turn 'Citizens United', declare that corporations are not people (only people are people), and establish publicly funded elections in order to put an end to the need to cater to these financial and industrial interests in the first place. And Obama has made some hard decisions concerning the failed Afghanistan 'surge' and the expansion of the illicit drone program. Pentagon funding has actually increased in every one of his budgets (so far). I'm obviously not one who supports these things, but, objectively, it's kinda kooky to accuse Obama of not being hawkish on his foreign policy.

Feb 27 - 06:22 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I definately would agree to all of that. I'm not accusing the President of anything of the sort and I have the utmost respect for the office of the President. No one has to make harder decisions, I was just saying that nothing can prepare you for the office of the President like military service and leading fighting men in life and death situations. I also don't think being a military veteran necessarily makes you by nature hawkish. I actually think most wars in American history began under Presidents with no military service and the two guys I mentioned though having proud records of military service were not people that went out looking for a fight and made some of the best decisions that kept the Cold War cold. I think people with combat experience understand the stakes in such things in a way that civilians can't and their military records demand instant respect from other world leaders as someone who will make the hard decisions if pushed. Not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously there are great Presidents who never served in the military Lincoln and FDR spring to mind immediately, but I still think it helps. Really Grant is the only bad President I can think of with a military background. I just find it odd that we're now on our 3rd President in a row with no military service and 5 of the last 6. 11 years of war and not one viable candidate? Just strikes me as and anomoly.

Feb 27 - 07:10 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Just to let you know, I supported Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004. He's exactly the kind of military dove you mentioned. His book "Winning Modern Wars" exposed exactly the kind of considerations that W ignored.

Feb 27 - 07:24 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

In hindsight Clark would have been good. Also, I wish Colin Powell could pull his balls out of his wifes purse and run I think he would have been a phenomenal President.

Feb 27 - 07:32 PM

George Patchell

George Patchell

I'm living in Australia so I don't really have a horse in this race - though I am thinking of moving to the states in about a year - but to me it seems like would you really want a general or military leader running a country during a time of war? How could they address each situation objectively? Its like how a lawyer should not handle their own personal cases because they are too close to it to see things objectively. You need someone who can stand back away from the situation. Anyway as I said im in Australia and I don't have a firm handle on American politics as I'm sure most Americans wouldn't know much about Australian politics. As for the movie if it ever gets to our screens given our terrible release schedule - 50/50 only comes out at cinemas this week! - then I think its one to avoid at all costs. When people say its the most realistic war (or whatever) film ever made it almost guarantees that it isn't and given the reviews and bad word of mouth on this site I think I'll steer clear. As for those mentioning Safe House I'd recommend you avoid it - yeah we get that same time as the states but you try catching Shame a week after it gets released and nope its already off the screens - and it was nothing great just another action movie with a twist visible from the beginning and a disappointing ending. Might check out The Artist this week as it was just released a week and a half ago but knowing my luck its already been removed to make way for The Vow or something else equally terrible.

Feb 28 - 12:58 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'd say you want a general because for one they've already had to make those decisions and have a better understanding of the intricasies and consequences of said decisions. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best example of the type of leadership you get from someone with military experience. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. You shouldn't actively seek out conflict like W did in Iraq, but you also can't let people think you're afraid to act so they believe they can dick you around for a decade like Saddam Hussein did after the first Gulf War because he figured out that the international community wasn't going to do anything about it...See also Kim Jung Il, Asad and any number of various warlords in Africa these days. Tough luck on the movie front dude, but hey at least you're in Australia which I've always enjoyed if you can avoid the brown recluses and salt water crocks. Best ladies in the world in Australia.

Feb 28 - 07:37 AM

Dave J

Dave J

"Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely" Understand something here Bigbrother, "propoganda" is manipulation and if you don't want to subject to any of what you perceive as "propoganda" then you might as well just turn your tv off and then hand them all your money, because all I'm doing is "quoting" some of what "one" Republican candidate is saying about going back to old fashion Christian values, in this case it happens to be Rick Santorum! People want more employment but how is that going to happen because you can't just take someone's word for "it" and then the jobs would just reappear out of nowhere, the bad economy was a result of Republicans and as always blame Democrats as an excused to wreck the economy even more- it's not so hard to understand this!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Obama consults with his "Minister of Defense" as well as his generals, I mean that's how they got Bin Laden, wasn't it! And Bush went to war with Iraq for the oil which is what W's business friends wanted him to do in the first place who contributed most amount of money for him to win his second term. And the reason why no President won't invade any country including similar to North Korea is because there's no financial gain in terms of it's resources to help the US economy unless they were to attack first of course!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

If everything you say about Santorum were true and as clear cut as you present it he wouldn't be a public figure unless you believe a majority of the voting public supports those ideas which I don't. You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda. Getting Bin Laden wasn't as simple as consulting with his generals and cabinet. Actually much to his great credit the President didn't listen to the advise of his cabinet when taking the chance to get Bin Laden. My issue with the Presidents military policy is twofold 1. He praises the military and touts their accomplishments for what they've done and sacrificed for him while cutting military jobs at senior levels and appointing Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter.

Feb 28 - 02:36 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

There's also a problem that never seems to come up with the we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil theory. 1. Afghans have no oil and 2. We haven't taken cheap barrel of oil one from Iraq. That's why our gas is pushing 4 bucks a barrel up from just north of two when we went in.

Feb 28 - 02:49 PM

Dave J

Dave J

You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda" Well, you got a point there bigbrother and it'd be idiotic if they really did say those things, but I remember on some MAD magazines or another they would sometimes have politicians and CEO's saying one thing only to really mean something else, so in this retropects it's a matter of "semantics" or how each individual interprets it, but to avoid propoganda any shape or form in it's entirety one would have to lock yourself in a closet and hope that you can converse with the candidates themeselves providing that you're allowed to ask the hard questions because they tend to avoid that! And you may not view it as no big deal whenever a candidate says that he wants to go 'back to old Christian values' but what do they really mean by that because racism was more acceptable during those times too, including the fact that the 1% of the wealthiest citizens of America used to be and still is white which is what happend back on those days when we had nothing but Christian values!

Feb 28 - 03:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I agree there was no oil in Afganistan, but to execute Osama Bin Laden was the main objective to invade Afganistan in the first place, but as I recall Bush's original agenda was to send troops to Iraq for the oil despite 9/11 happened even though 1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever 2) Saddam Hussein had no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and knew this, meaning that the reason why Bush invaded Iraq was basically for the oil instructed by his CEO friends! There's absolutely no other reason to invade Iraq other than that reason was for the oil! I also want to add that North Korea is becoming an impoverished nation and I don't think it can maintain a powerful army long unless the sanctions are lifted!

"Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter."

And I don't know too much about this for this could be labelled as propoganda as well since the troops themselves haven't said anything when a portion of our troops were always relying on "contributions" funded by other people. I mean would you rather have them go back to war, is war better that can possibly wreck a man's mentality and go into deep depression, I want to understand this bigbrother!

Feb 28 - 03:49 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Let me just say about Santorum: His own comments about sex not being for pleasure, and how birth control has resulted in more out-of-wedlock births, or how he has supported limiting birth control to married couples, or how he has publicly defended both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno, or how his reaction to his fellow Catholic Kennedy's speech on religious tolerance made him almost puke, or how rape babies are gifts from God, ad nauseum - all that is what it is. I won't judge him, but I will say that if you think he's going to be the nominee and you think he's going to run for president in the 21st century on these issues (and he's also been very clear on imposing "God's law" on all American's despite the 1st amendment and Jefferson's wish to protect those "of any faith or no faith", then all I'll say is "Good Luck with that!"

Feb 28 - 04:13 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive and I'm not advocating maintaining wars just so our troops can have something to do, I simply question the logic of cutting our military forces back to below pre-war levels when those forces were proven to be wholy inadequate to the task when conflict actually came. People may not remember, but when the initial conflicts kicked off in 2001 and 2003 the same units were constantly deploying over and over again which probably did much of the psychological damage you reference, now ten years on we've finally gotten some kind of handle on it and we want to cut back so if something does happen in Iran, syria or North Korea we'll face the same situation we did when we started. Also I've seen first hand measures the secdef and administration has implemented to cut the force without making it look like they're cutting forces and the people who are getting cut out and forced to leave are those same people who were eating the repeat deployments all those years ago, they're reward? getting told their service is no longer required and they're not allowed to make their 20 and collect thier retirement pension because they're less important than the blatant bureaucracy and tons of waste that fuels our govt. If you've ever worked with people prosecuting the wars they're not saying we need more equipment or we need to develop these great billion dollar high tech tools, they say we need more people and the reason you don't hear about it from service members is very simple. Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use their positions as members of such to get involved in politics or desperage their Commander in Chief or high ranking members of the govt. Essentially they're forbidden by law from complaining as members of the military. It's why General McChrystal was asked to resign based on a Rolling Stone article where he and his staff spoke ill of how the administration was processing the war.

Feb 28 - 06:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive" I was talking about fundraisers to help troops financially mostly for the ones who were disabled as a result of the war. Similar to how politicians raise money to win there campaigns and nominations!

Feb 29 - 01:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, in my defense, I haven't been reading articles from Rolling Stones for awhile now, but was wondering how old is this article and on what administration was he criticizing, was it "just" the current President or does this include the previous one, and I just want to say how convenient it is that complaints regarding the military is coming out in full circle once Obama came into Presidency but nothing was said when Bush was in office- how convenient! And also wondering whether this was the same General who said he wouldn't serve under the Obama administration because he didn't think he was an American and wanted him to produce a birth certificate, just wondering!

Feb 29 - 01:45 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Come to think of it for it's been a very long time, the general that's arising issues regarding the military in the Rolling Stones magazine, wasn't he the same general that had some animosity toward Obama after replacing him with another certified general and now he's an ex-general, just wondering because maybe the complaints and accusations that were made might be for personal reasons rather than being a noble one!

Feb 29 - 05:00 PM

Chris L.

Chris Liu

Since you brought up philosophy, I must point out that the claim ‚??this film is bad‚?? does not follow from the claim ‚??this film is propaganda.‚?? Clear case in point is Triumph of the Will. I‚??m sure that Act of Valour has plenty of legitimate reasons for meriting criticism, but being propaganda is not one of them.

Feb 29 - 09:24 PM

rle4lunch

Chad W

It's always interesting to read outsiders points of views on the military and how they would run it. Nevertheless, the back and forth banter here was fun to read. lol.

Mar 2 - 12:31 PM

Jaxx Raxor

Adam Jones

I'm really surprised that Act of Valor won the weekend and made as much money as it did. I guess the Navy Seals gimmick/Call of Duty action really appealed to men (although not to me, although I'm not a Caucasian). I wonder how many military families watched this film?

Good Deeds was a fairly poor opening for Mr. Perry. It is a shame that his most finacially sucessful movies feature that stupid Madea character, but his other movies aren't that much better.

I'm not surprised that Gone bombed considering how popular the Vow and This Means War continue to be with young women, but I am surprised at how much Wanderlust bombed. I guess audiences simply had no interest. Very happy Arietty held well in it's second weekend. So sad that it won't be a big money maker but anime will always have trouble in the mainstream market that Studio Ghibli aims for (well obviously except for Japan).

Also one notice for the Best Picture nominee the Artist. I loved the film but it has almost no mainstream appeal with the typical American audiences so I while I think it may reach $40 million thanks to the award wins and still expanding in theaters, it won't go beyond that.

Feb 26 - 09:03 PM

BMS1234

brandon sideleau

'Act of Valor' is #1? Why am I not surprised? Shove any jingoistic nonsense down the throat of the masses and they will gobble it up like good little sheep. I hate to be cynical...but just watching the previews for this garbage made me wince. Regardless of one's political views, propaganda can at least be done professionally...these guys sound like failed middle-school theater students when they open their mouths. The summer can't come soon enough...Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises will deliver the goods.

Feb 27 - 04:53 AM

jayboi

Jason Haynes

We are doomed even if we have another term of Obama. He is just as much an epic fail as Bush was.

Feb 27 - 05:43 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I dunno, under which Presidency 'succeeded' in hunting down Bin Laden who was America's most wanted 'dead and alive' and finally return troops home back to their families and friends!

Feb 27 - 03:28 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

How is Obama even in the same failure BALLPARK as Bush?

Bush threw the ENTIRE WORLD into a recession.

Obama has givin the US 3 straight years of economic GROWTH!

Look...http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/bush-vs-obama-on-spending-its-no.html

Feb 28 - 09:25 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Seems like if it was propoganda it'd be better right? Is a movie really propoganda if it doesn't make what it's promoting look good? Just a philosophical question there. I DO find it interesting (not aimed at you in particular, just making a general point) that the first people to bash on this kind of right wing propoganda are usually the first to praise left wing propoganda that is very prevalent in Hollywood as well. This is the real problem we have in America, we've allowed the media and our politicians to comfortably file us into rival armed camps Coastals and Flyover States, Red and Blue, Occupiers and Tea Partiers, Left and Right, Etc and Etc. Everybody who doesn't agree with us is an asshole, except we're all assholes because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real problem that all our govt officials are more interested in getting themselves re-elected by dividing us than actually doing a good job and being competent.

Feb 27 - 06:16 AM

scifimark

scifi mark

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never see this in a theater but ill definitely be watching it on video when it comes out. For me i would be curious to see actual real military tactics that the seals would use. But that is just my own justification for seeing it.

Also statistically only 20 percent of the people in the US will actually vote for who they think is the best candidate and not on party lines.

Feb 27 - 07:45 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Right, I never thought this was going to be Oscar worthy on an acting level. I'd probably equate this closer to The Expendables in terms of expectation for me. The draw is the realism of the action, not the quality of the acting. I would agree though this probably could have been more effective as a documentary on the SEALs than a fictional work. PS Lenny, since they're Navy SEALs they're not Soldiers, they're Sailor's. Just a minor correction.

Feb 27 - 07:59 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

The lack of story, which even "Act"s fans aren't denying, is what offends me most. And I hate political sanctimony regardless of which side of the partisan fence it comes from. But if Rick Santorum gets the nomination, will we still be talking with a straight face about all this "best candidate" nonsense?

Feb 27 - 01:12 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Rick Santorum is a right wing Christian racist- this is the guy that wants to bring back old fashion Christian values and if that is the case then he should throw away all his apple products as well as everything else that he has anything to do with technology since times have changed! He's probably pro-slavory too since that is the time when females have to hold an asprin between their knees and that men are the only breadwinners with women having to stay at home and do f-ck all except clean house which also means that he doesn't even believe in equal rights! 'Perfect' white collar families make me sick to my stomach and standing beside him underpaid ethnic butlers and maids who barely speak any English working on the side!

Feb 27 - 03:56 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely. Janson, I think thr belief that in a system where you have to be a multi millionaire and have the backing of hundreds of corporate sponsors and special interest groups precludes the idea that we're going to get the best candidate on either side. Obama won because we knew less about him than anyone else going and that played to his benefit in that election. It kills me that after 11 years of war we don't have any candidates with competent military experience. Say what you want, but senators, governors, etc nothing compares with being a general or leader during time of war for prepping you to make hard decisions. Where are the Eisenhowers and Kennedy's of this generation?

Feb 27 - 04:55 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

BB - I hope you will support with me a constitutional amendment that will over turn 'Citizens United', declare that corporations are not people (only people are people), and establish publicly funded elections in order to put an end to the need to cater to these financial and industrial interests in the first place. And Obama has made some hard decisions concerning the failed Afghanistan 'surge' and the expansion of the illicit drone program. Pentagon funding has actually increased in every one of his budgets (so far). I'm obviously not one who supports these things, but, objectively, it's kinda kooky to accuse Obama of not being hawkish on his foreign policy.

Feb 27 - 06:22 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I definately would agree to all of that. I'm not accusing the President of anything of the sort and I have the utmost respect for the office of the President. No one has to make harder decisions, I was just saying that nothing can prepare you for the office of the President like military service and leading fighting men in life and death situations. I also don't think being a military veteran necessarily makes you by nature hawkish. I actually think most wars in American history began under Presidents with no military service and the two guys I mentioned though having proud records of military service were not people that went out looking for a fight and made some of the best decisions that kept the Cold War cold. I think people with combat experience understand the stakes in such things in a way that civilians can't and their military records demand instant respect from other world leaders as someone who will make the hard decisions if pushed. Not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously there are great Presidents who never served in the military Lincoln and FDR spring to mind immediately, but I still think it helps. Really Grant is the only bad President I can think of with a military background. I just find it odd that we're now on our 3rd President in a row with no military service and 5 of the last 6. 11 years of war and not one viable candidate? Just strikes me as and anomoly.

Feb 27 - 07:10 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Just to let you know, I supported Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004. He's exactly the kind of military dove you mentioned. His book "Winning Modern Wars" exposed exactly the kind of considerations that W ignored.

Feb 27 - 07:24 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

In hindsight Clark would have been good. Also, I wish Colin Powell could pull his balls out of his wifes purse and run I think he would have been a phenomenal President.

Feb 27 - 07:32 PM

George Patchell

George Patchell

I'm living in Australia so I don't really have a horse in this race - though I am thinking of moving to the states in about a year - but to me it seems like would you really want a general or military leader running a country during a time of war? How could they address each situation objectively? Its like how a lawyer should not handle their own personal cases because they are too close to it to see things objectively. You need someone who can stand back away from the situation. Anyway as I said im in Australia and I don't have a firm handle on American politics as I'm sure most Americans wouldn't know much about Australian politics. As for the movie if it ever gets to our screens given our terrible release schedule - 50/50 only comes out at cinemas this week! - then I think its one to avoid at all costs. When people say its the most realistic war (or whatever) film ever made it almost guarantees that it isn't and given the reviews and bad word of mouth on this site I think I'll steer clear. As for those mentioning Safe House I'd recommend you avoid it - yeah we get that same time as the states but you try catching Shame a week after it gets released and nope its already off the screens - and it was nothing great just another action movie with a twist visible from the beginning and a disappointing ending. Might check out The Artist this week as it was just released a week and a half ago but knowing my luck its already been removed to make way for The Vow or something else equally terrible.

Feb 28 - 12:58 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'd say you want a general because for one they've already had to make those decisions and have a better understanding of the intricasies and consequences of said decisions. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best example of the type of leadership you get from someone with military experience. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. You shouldn't actively seek out conflict like W did in Iraq, but you also can't let people think you're afraid to act so they believe they can dick you around for a decade like Saddam Hussein did after the first Gulf War because he figured out that the international community wasn't going to do anything about it...See also Kim Jung Il, Asad and any number of various warlords in Africa these days. Tough luck on the movie front dude, but hey at least you're in Australia which I've always enjoyed if you can avoid the brown recluses and salt water crocks. Best ladies in the world in Australia.

Feb 28 - 07:37 AM

Dave J

Dave J

"Thanks for not trying to drag the discussion down into jingoistic nonsense Dave J. you illustrated my point nicely" Understand something here Bigbrother, "propoganda" is manipulation and if you don't want to subject to any of what you perceive as "propoganda" then you might as well just turn your tv off and then hand them all your money, because all I'm doing is "quoting" some of what "one" Republican candidate is saying about going back to old fashion Christian values, in this case it happens to be Rick Santorum! People want more employment but how is that going to happen because you can't just take someone's word for "it" and then the jobs would just reappear out of nowhere, the bad economy was a result of Republicans and as always blame Democrats as an excused to wreck the economy even more- it's not so hard to understand this!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Obama consults with his "Minister of Defense" as well as his generals, I mean that's how they got Bin Laden, wasn't it! And Bush went to war with Iraq for the oil which is what W's business friends wanted him to do in the first place who contributed most amount of money for him to win his second term. And the reason why no President won't invade any country including similar to North Korea is because there's no financial gain in terms of it's resources to help the US economy unless they were to attack first of course!

Feb 28 - 12:18 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

If everything you say about Santorum were true and as clear cut as you present it he wouldn't be a public figure unless you believe a majority of the voting public supports those ideas which I don't. You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda. Getting Bin Laden wasn't as simple as consulting with his generals and cabinet. Actually much to his great credit the President didn't listen to the advise of his cabinet when taking the chance to get Bin Laden. My issue with the Presidents military policy is twofold 1. He praises the military and touts their accomplishments for what they've done and sacrificed for him while cutting military jobs at senior levels and appointing Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter.

Feb 28 - 02:36 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

There's also a problem that never seems to come up with the we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil theory. 1. Afghans have no oil and 2. We haven't taken cheap barrel of oil one from Iraq. That's why our gas is pushing 4 bucks a barrel up from just north of two when we went in.

Feb 28 - 02:49 PM

Dave J

Dave J

You jump to extreme conclusions based on limited and shaky facts to me that thinking is just as dangerous as deliberate propaganda" Well, you got a point there bigbrother and it'd be idiotic if they really did say those things, but I remember on some MAD magazines or another they would sometimes have politicians and CEO's saying one thing only to really mean something else, so in this retropects it's a matter of "semantics" or how each individual interprets it, but to avoid propoganda any shape or form in it's entirety one would have to lock yourself in a closet and hope that you can converse with the candidates themeselves providing that you're allowed to ask the hard questions because they tend to avoid that! And you may not view it as no big deal whenever a candidate says that he wants to go 'back to old Christian values' but what do they really mean by that because racism was more acceptable during those times too, including the fact that the 1% of the wealthiest citizens of America used to be and still is white which is what happend back on those days when we had nothing but Christian values!

Feb 28 - 03:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I agree there was no oil in Afganistan, but to execute Osama Bin Laden was the main objective to invade Afganistan in the first place, but as I recall Bush's original agenda was to send troops to Iraq for the oil despite 9/11 happened even though 1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever 2) Saddam Hussein had no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and knew this, meaning that the reason why Bush invaded Iraq was basically for the oil instructed by his CEO friends! There's absolutely no other reason to invade Iraq other than that reason was for the oil! I also want to add that North Korea is becoming an impoverished nation and I don't think it can maintain a powerful army long unless the sanctions are lifted!

"Pannetta who is less a SecDef and more a blatant hatchetman cutting military jobs and retirement benefits for people who have given decades of service to their country while blowing absurd amounts of money on programs like the joint strike fighter and Osprey helicopter."

And I don't know too much about this for this could be labelled as propoganda as well since the troops themselves haven't said anything when a portion of our troops were always relying on "contributions" funded by other people. I mean would you rather have them go back to war, is war better that can possibly wreck a man's mentality and go into deep depression, I want to understand this bigbrother!

Feb 28 - 03:49 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

Let me just say about Santorum: His own comments about sex not being for pleasure, and how birth control has resulted in more out-of-wedlock births, or how he has supported limiting birth control to married couples, or how he has publicly defended both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno, or how his reaction to his fellow Catholic Kennedy's speech on religious tolerance made him almost puke, or how rape babies are gifts from God, ad nauseum - all that is what it is. I won't judge him, but I will say that if you think he's going to be the nominee and you think he's going to run for president in the 21st century on these issues (and he's also been very clear on imposing "God's law" on all American's despite the 1st amendment and Jefferson's wish to protect those "of any faith or no faith", then all I'll say is "Good Luck with that!"

Feb 28 - 04:13 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive and I'm not advocating maintaining wars just so our troops can have something to do, I simply question the logic of cutting our military forces back to below pre-war levels when those forces were proven to be wholy inadequate to the task when conflict actually came. People may not remember, but when the initial conflicts kicked off in 2001 and 2003 the same units were constantly deploying over and over again which probably did much of the psychological damage you reference, now ten years on we've finally gotten some kind of handle on it and we want to cut back so if something does happen in Iran, syria or North Korea we'll face the same situation we did when we started. Also I've seen first hand measures the secdef and administration has implemented to cut the force without making it look like they're cutting forces and the people who are getting cut out and forced to leave are those same people who were eating the repeat deployments all those years ago, they're reward? getting told their service is no longer required and they're not allowed to make their 20 and collect thier retirement pension because they're less important than the blatant bureaucracy and tons of waste that fuels our govt. If you've ever worked with people prosecuting the wars they're not saying we need more equipment or we need to develop these great billion dollar high tech tools, they say we need more people and the reason you don't hear about it from service members is very simple. Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use their positions as members of such to get involved in politics or desperage their Commander in Chief or high ranking members of the govt. Essentially they're forbidden by law from complaining as members of the military. It's why General McChrystal was asked to resign based on a Rolling Stone article where he and his staff spoke ill of how the administration was processing the war.

Feb 28 - 06:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean about other contributions our troops receive" I was talking about fundraisers to help troops financially mostly for the ones who were disabled as a result of the war. Similar to how politicians raise money to win there campaigns and nominations!

Feb 29 - 01:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, in my defense, I haven't been reading articles from Rolling Stones for awhile now, but was wondering how old is this article and on what administration was he criticizing, was it "just" the current President or does this include the previous one, and I just want to say how convenient it is that complaints regarding the military is coming out in full circle once Obama came into Presidency but nothing was said when Bush was in office- how convenient! And also wondering whether this was the same General who said he wouldn't serve under the Obama administration because he didn't think he was an American and wanted him to produce a birth certificate, just wondering!

Feb 29 - 01:45 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Come to think of it for it's been a very long time, the general that's arising issues regarding the military in the Rolling Stones magazine, wasn't he the same general that had some animosity toward Obama after replacing him with another certified general and now he's an ex-general, just wondering because maybe the complaints and accusations that were made might be for personal reasons rather than being a noble one!

Feb 29 - 05:00 PM

Chris L.

Chris Liu

Since you brought up philosophy, I must point out that the claim ‚??this film is bad‚?? does not follow from the claim ‚??this film is propaganda.‚?? Clear case in point is Triumph of the Will. I‚??m sure that Act of Valour has plenty of legitimate reasons for meriting criticism, but being propaganda is not one of them.

Feb 29 - 09:24 PM

rle4lunch

Chad W

It's always interesting to read outsiders points of views on the military and how they would run it. Nevertheless, the back and forth banter here was fun to read. lol.

Mar 2 - 12:31 PM

Jimmy G.

Jimmy Gee

The releases are starting to get crappy now. Good thing we had The Grey, Chronicle, and a few other half decent films in February. I don't hold out any hope for John Carter or Wrath of the Titans or any of these Summer blockbuster wannabes...We will have to wait until summer probably when Avengers and Dark Knight and others open up. Welcome to the cinematic wasteland!

Feb 27 - 07:02 AM

King  S.

King Simba

I don't know. This March looks pretty eventful compared to most. Granted, I'm not holding my breath for Mirror, Mirror or Wrath of the Titans, but Hunger Games looks really promising and early screenings for John Carter say it's a pretty good film (not surprising considering it's from Andew Stanton) while The Lorax might be good (I thought Horton was pretty solid. Unlike The Grinch or The Cat in the Hat it managed to adapt the book in a way that didn't feel padded out)

April looks pretty dead though, with the only thing I'm looking forward to being the Titanic re-release (Yes, I love Titanic. There, I said it!)

Feb 27 - 09:25 AM

Jimmy G.

Jimmy Gee

Yeah, I meant to mention Lorax. I think it might be pretty good. I want to really like Hunger Games although it feels like a kiddish movie (Though I'm sure much better than Twilight, but probably not as good as the latest Harry Potters).

Feb 27 - 11:33 AM

King  S.

King Simba

From what I've heard from early screenings, Hunger Games is far from kidish, with some scenes that realy push the PG-13 rating.

Feb 27 - 12:54 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Saw a Hunger Games preview on the NBA all star game. I have no prior knowledge except that it's indeed based on a book, but it looked stupid and ridiculous on a Battlefield earth scale. Maybe it was just the dude's insane beard, but there were literally no redeeming features in the trailer.

Feb 27 - 02:44 PM

scifimark

scifi mark

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never see this in a theater but ill definitely be watching it on video when it comes out. For me i would be curious to see actual real military tactics that the seals would use. But that is just my own justification for seeing it.

Also statistically only 20 percent of the people in the US will actually vote for who they think is the best candidate and not on party lines.

Feb 27 - 07:45 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Right, I never thought this was going to be Oscar worthy on an acting level. I'd probably equate this closer to The Expendables in terms of expectation for me. The draw is the realism of the action, not the quality of the acting. I would agree though this probably could have been more effective as a documentary on the SEALs than a fictional work. PS Lenny, since they're Navy SEALs they're not Soldiers, they're Sailor's. Just a minor correction.

Feb 27 - 07:59 AM

King  S.

King Simba

Looks like all that advertising paid off for Act of Valor. The lack of such advertising explains the performance of Wanderlust. Seriously, for a film starring Jennifer Aniston, who's coming off of two blockbuster hits, you'd think the studio would put more of an effort behind selling this film, especially after they saw how huge The Vow was.

On, a side note what's with the overenlarged photo for Act of Valor, or is it just my computer? Would have loved it if they had done something similair with other number one films (namely that Breaking Dawn photo)

Feb 27 - 09:17 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

I had no problem seeing "Wanderlust" ads, but since I like a lot of late night comedy, that's probably the market they were aiming at.

Feb 27 - 01:07 PM

King  S.

King Simba

I don't know. This March looks pretty eventful compared to most. Granted, I'm not holding my breath for Mirror, Mirror or Wrath of the Titans, but Hunger Games looks really promising and early screenings for John Carter say it's a pretty good film (not surprising considering it's from Andew Stanton) while The Lorax might be good (I thought Horton was pretty solid. Unlike The Grinch or The Cat in the Hat it managed to adapt the book in a way that didn't feel padded out)

April looks pretty dead though, with the only thing I'm looking forward to being the Titanic re-release (Yes, I love Titanic. There, I said it!)

Feb 27 - 09:25 AM

Jimmy G.

Jimmy Gee

Yeah, I meant to mention Lorax. I think it might be pretty good. I want to really like Hunger Games although it feels like a kiddish movie (Though I'm sure much better than Twilight, but probably not as good as the latest Harry Potters).

Feb 27 - 11:33 AM

King  S.

King Simba

From what I've heard from early screenings, Hunger Games is far from kidish, with some scenes that realy push the PG-13 rating.

Feb 27 - 12:54 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Saw a Hunger Games preview on the NBA all star game. I have no prior knowledge except that it's indeed based on a book, but it looked stupid and ridiculous on a Battlefield earth scale. Maybe it was just the dude's insane beard, but there were literally no redeeming features in the trailer.

Feb 27 - 02:44 PM

Chase Lehocky

Chase Lehocky

I actually enjoyed Act of Valor for what is was, yes the acting wasn't good but what do you except? Maybe because I am in the military, I enjoy these kind of movies. This is way more real then most war movies out there.

Feb 27 - 10:31 AM

What's Hot On RT

Weekly Binge
Weekly Binge

Check out Boardwalk Empire

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of classic movie pairs

Annabelle Trailer
Annabelle Trailer

Horror spin-off of The Conjuring

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile