First off, I'd like to correct the poster below me who said that God "Had a sniper rifle that fired tiny grenades." God was armed with a Barrett M-82A1 .50 caliber BMG. It is a current special forces rifle and is fully capable of (and often used for) putting a bullet all the way through a truck's engine, a foot of solid metal plate, or, as often shown in the movie, wimpy little concrete or cement block walls.
Anyway...
This movie is certainly not a feast for the brain, but neither is it intellectually devoid. The issue with the journalist in the movie is startlingly relevant in today's world, for example. I doubt it was intentional; it's likely that it was put in as a weak attempt at adding conflict and depth to a flat script. But hey, take what you can get, right?
The real strong point of this movie, for me, is the set design. This was shot back in the old days, when neat backdrops couldn't just be drawn in with computers over a bluescreen. The Beirut scene at the end of "Navy SEALs" has some of the best *real* urban combat sets I've ever seen, right up there with the Hue scene at the end of "Full Metal Jacket"... though not quite as good.
I don't know if the sets alone make this movie worth watching, but they do for me. It's generally mindless action, but that doesn't mean that it's without substance; just because "Navy SEALs" doesn't meet the standards of a "great" movie, with well-developed characters and all that junk, doesn't mean it's awful. "Navy SEALs" doesn't include much script depth because it really doesn't need to. That isn't the point. Do you think that real Navy SEALs would make well-rounded characters in the Hollywood sense? These soldiers *can't* have strife within the team, *can't* have little internal conflicts that, in most movies, would be considered interesting. That just isn't realistic.
Anyway...
This movie is certainly not a feast for the brain, but neither is it intellectually devoid. The issue with the journalist in the movie is startlingly relevant in today's world, for example. I doubt it was intentional; it's likely that it was put in as a weak attempt at adding conflict and depth to a flat script. But hey, take what you can get, right?
The real strong point of this movie, for me, is the set design. This was shot back in the old days, when neat backdrops couldn't just be drawn in with computers over a bluescreen. The Beirut scene at the end of "Navy SEALs" has some of the best *real* urban combat sets I've ever seen, right up there with the Hue scene at the end of "Full Metal Jacket"... though not quite as good.
I don't know if the sets alone make this movie worth watching, but they do for me. It's generally mindless action, but that doesn't mean that it's without substance; just because "Navy SEALs" doesn't meet the standards of a "great" movie, with well-developed characters and all that junk, doesn't mean it's awful. "Navy SEALs" doesn't include much script depth because it really doesn't need to. That isn't the point. Do you think that real Navy SEALs would make well-rounded characters in the Hollywood sense? These soldiers *can't* have strife within the team, *can't* have little internal conflicts that, in most movies, would be considered interesting. That just isn't realistic.