The movie seems more preoccupied with trivial details of authenticity than more important endeavors like story or character development. Can an actor not be taught how to hold a gun, how to clear a room, how to squeeze the shoulder of his colleague to communicate move forward? I salute the Seals for trying (as well as defending our country, naturally) but I'm reminded of the old adage: it's easier to teach an actor how to sing than a singer how to act. I understand the gimmick but I just can't comprehend the appeal. Is there anything in this movie that could not have been done with actors? I doubt it.

I can't fault these servicemen because they never signed up to be actors they have bigger things on their minds. There's little emotion to just about any line that isn't communicated via a bark.

The line delivery is so flat, like the Seals were just happy to spit out all their dialogue and move along. Who cares that the movie stars actual Navy Seals? Apparently enough people did judging by its healthy box-office returns in the spring, but really, why should a movie be any better because it has real Navy Seals pretending to be actors rather than actors pretending to be Navy Seals? Is this movie brought to a greater level of excellence because the characters know intuitively how to hold a gun properly? Was the slight difference in posture the difference maker? I suppose there is some curiosity seeing real Navy Seals go through all their training, but you know who else could be trained? Actors! Which these fellas are not. I just wish the filmmakers had spent less time on trivial yet realistic details and more time on plot, characters, and enticing action. Act of Valor was billed as the real deal. Navy Seals as their stars and made a movie based upon Seal combat experiences. The makers of Act of Valor thought they could do one better than Hollywood. Navy Seals look at 1990's Navy Seals as a paragon of military validity. Hollywood often gets ridiculed for its tenuous connection to reality.

Act of valor