Navy Seals

As far as some action films go, "Navy Seals", the 1990 film directed by Lewis Teague, doesn't deserve most of the criticism that some contributors to this forum have expressed. While it doesn't add anything to the genre, it is a movie targeted to a certain audience, who will no doubt react to it.

On the other hand, watching it on cable the other night, it proved to be the entertainment it's meant to be and nothing more. Let's hope the real Navy Seals will be more selective in picking someone that is as misguided and egocentric as Lt. Hawkins, who disobeys his orders and causes the death of a man that shouldn't have died.

This film appears to be a vehicle for Charlie Sheen who was at the height of his intense period. Michael Biehn plays the man in command, Lt. Curran with flair. Joanne Whalley is seen only briefly. The rest of the cast, notably, S. Ephata Merkerson and Dennis Haysbert contributed to make the film better than it is.

All in all, this is a film for action fans with not a lot of expectations.

Michael Biehn's character said during the movie in a training montage that only 10% of recruits get to become Navy Seals. Remember that 90% of Navy Seal candidates are not good enough and fail the training.

In this movie there are three actions scenes. The first they are required to go in silently and extract some hostages and get out quietly without a shot fired. They are successful in doing this. Until Charlie Sheen's Character pulls out a pump action shotgun and shoots down a door with three shots for no other reason than he wanted everyone outside to hear them for a gunfight to kick off as he was craving an adreniline rush.

He causes directly a fellow Navy Seal to be shot and killed in this op. But because this was an unknown character at this point nobody seems to care and its just next day who cares.

Second mission, once again they need to silently extract someone without anyone hearing. This is all going to plan until Charlie Sheen's character wants a gun fight again so walks up to the enemy shooting him. He directly causes a second Navy Seal to be killed. Now cue 15mins of everyone being full of sorrow and teary eyes for this guy dying as he was known in the film up until that point.

Third mission, they need to quietly blow up a building. Charlie Sheen's character decides to shoot someone with the loudest hand gun he takes from his back pocket - when he has silenced gun on him already - and ruins that op too as everyone hears it and starts shooting. The main leader gets shot and is down for dead and Charlie Sheen disobeys further orders to just blow the building and to go in and get him out so they cannot blow the building till he does this.

This is meant to be the Navy Seals. And he is somehow the second in command of the team and any Navy Seal wouldn't want this guy coming within 500 miles of them as he seems to want to get killed everyone of his team mates and never follows orders. And yet he is deemed the hero of the movie. This guy ruined the movie for me as he was so annoying. It would have been a good movie with all the others but his character in it.

OK, I'll try to comment mostly on the music cause enough has been said about this movie. I think it's a very watchable action movie (despite some flaws). Yes, it's not too realistic, but such a movie would most probably be boring (check how it worked out in The Finest Hour). Yes, it's not too deep, but come on, which action movie is (e.g. what's so deep about characters in Die Hard? nobody complains about that and they shouldn't)? Please take into consideration some other action movie involving the SEALS e.g. The Rock - the unwatchable Michael Bay/Nicholas Cage exploding blockbuster escapade which somehow has over 7.0 rating.

The most positive thing about this movie are the great action scenes which look pretty realistic (the gunfights in Beirut, for example). Nice use of the camera (although it looks a bit 'TV' in some places) and very authentic looking scenery (with some nice details, e.g. like that destroyed Israeli M113 in the background).

But the amazing thing is (personally) one of the best music scores in an action movie ever (which unfortunately I can't seem to find anywhere). I mean, Sylvester Levy really did his job right. Every time they head for action, they are followed by excellent instrumental scores which give this film and the scenery much more depth (my favorite one plays when they are running for the shore). Unbelievably good.

So, must have seen it a couple of dozen times and still like to watch it for the above reasons. It's not a deep movie, just good war action and great music. I enjoy(ed) it. Maybe you will, too. Personally, I'd rate it as 6, objectively at 5, IMDb 7 at least (should have more since atrocities like The Rock get 7.3 average).

"Navy SEALS" is a fun escapist Hollywood testosterone rush packed with action and built around a thin story about a SEALS team which goes after some Stinger missels which have fallen into the hands of mid-East terrorists. The film features some great stunts, lots of pyrotechnics, and firefights galore as it shows SEALS in a variety of combat missions including high altitude and undersea insertion platforms. A critically panned flick but a great watch for military action junkies.

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.