on March 25, 2004
I love the movie, but readily admit there are parts that could most definitely use some improvement. It does, however, have lots of action, emotional moments, and even comedic relief throughout; making it fun to watch no matter what mood you're in.
I believe the SEALs deserve the utmost respect and was a bit upset that some parts of the movie, a movie bearing their name, didn't seem to do them justice. Though I don't know how your average Navy SEAL feels about the movie itself; they seem to be very pleased with Michael Biehn's (yay!) portrayal as a Navy SEAL. I read an article (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to cite in a review, an internet search should lead you to it though - fan club) that said the SEALs were excited about the prospect of Mr. Biehn being the narrator for the U.S. Navy UDT/SEAL Museum in Florida's new film. The film (I believe, as I haven't had a chance to visit the museum yet) is running continuously, showing the history and evolution of the United States Navy SEALs. Biehn, honored, narrated it for free. The SEALs seem to feel that Michael Biehn's depictions as a SEAL in "Navy SEALs" and "The Rock" were very accurate and well done. This is further evidenced by the fact that after his part in the museum film was completed, he received a special honor from Rear Admiral E.T. Olsen; he was awarded with a plaque and named Honorary Frogman for Life. This is a real honor since the SEALs say that the Admiral has only done this a few times and rarely gives such glowing compliments to anyone.
So, though the movie has it's faults, and what movie doesn't, it's still a good movie. Give it a try and enjoy if for what it is, a movie. If you're a Michael Biehn fan, it's a must see. Also, though Charlie Sheen's portrayal of a SEAL may not, putting it mildly, be the greatest, don't be too harsh a judge; remember, he's just doing the best he can, which is pretty darn good, with the shoddy part he's given.
on August 29, 2002
It took me three sittings to sit through most of Navy Seals, and I still dozed off through a few minutes of it. Yes, boredum the movie's biggest problem. This is by far the dullest action movie I've seen in years, maybe even of all-time.
What's the plot? Who cares? It's just bare bones enough to string up some action sequences, but unfortunately, the action scenes smell of made-for-TV quality. Heck, some of the stuff that's made-for-TV these days features better action (i.e. Band of Brothers). Director Lewis Teague obviously doesn't know much more than the good old point-and-shoot method, meaning he's got no style or, for that matter, a sense of direction. People shoot, get shot, and it's a basic, routine pattern that continues for all the gunfights. There are no cool stunts, outrageous situations, or edgy tension during all these scenes.
The way it is for me is that movies involving commando teams are rarely ever exciting, mainly because it's a bunch of tough guys who seem invincible, even when a couple of them get killed. Oh, don't get me wrong, there are notable exceptions (such as the nail-biter Executive Decision), but Navy Seals sure isn't one of them. The film never builds up any suspense because the villains never seem like a threat. None of the bad guys are even the slightest bit menacing. Already, at least half the movie's effectiveness is gone.
But the "heroes" are just as lame and uninteresting. For these parts, acting's what you'd expect. Charlie Sheen plays himself, annoying and idiotic as usual. Michael Biehn is the tough-as-nails commander, a role he can do in his sleep, though he plays the part so straight he might just induce some sleep in the viewers. Nobody else makes an impression, not even the usually funny Bill Paxton.
I don't have much more to say about Navy Seals, other than its third-rate, silly crap that fails on every intended level. It's dull plot and premise won't make this an enjoyable movie to trash in a crowd, and its boring execution will put a lot of viewers to sleep. Definitely one of the nadirs of awful modern action filmmaking.
1/2 out of *****
on July 19, 2000
Navy SEALs is a great action movie. When I obtained this movie, I wasn't expecting much. I'm not a huge fan of Sheen, but he was great in the movie. He has a great performance much like he did in Platoon. I've been an avid Michael Biehn fan for awhile and think that it's a shame he's not bigger then he is. He excelled in his role as the commander of the SEAL team. The only really inaccurate part of this movie that I could pick out was Sheen's character, who was obviously just thrown in there to add some character. I am not a SEAL, but from what I understand from reading books and watching the special people like Sheen's character would never have made it through training. I also don't know how realistic the drill they used was, seeing as I am not in the Service yet. Overall though, the movie was very enjoyable. There were enough one liners to keep me laughing and the action scenes are intence and fun. The SEALs are not trained to ask questions first, they're trained to shoot first and ask questions later, this is apparent in the movie. I loved it, deffinately a movie for lovers of the action movie and lovers of military films alike.
on September 15, 1999
Sometimes it's a worthwhile exercise to suspend disbelief and just enjoy a 'splosion-filled action-adventure movie. Commercials for "Navy Seals" aired in 1990, complete with the high-altitude low opening (HALO) and Close-Quarters Battle (CQB) sequences that motivate your average guy in uniform to fork over six bucks (at the time) for a good thrill ride. The elements seemed to be there. Charlie Sheen as a hothead adrenaline junkie junior grade lieutenant. Bill Paxton as "God" the sniper (comic relief). Michael Biehn as the Seal platoon leader (again - see "The Abyss" followed by "The Rock"). Dennis Haysbert (known to most as President David Palmer from 24) as team chief. Alas, the real bomb was not one of the many that detonated over the course of the movie. It was the film itself. What went wrong? Where did it go wrong? In Libya? In Beirut? Nope. In Hollywood, where plausibility and editing gave way to the desire to Pack It All In There.
Navy Special Warfare is an interesting community, comprised mostly of dedicated, serious professionals. They have fantastic weapons and equipment, and train in a variety of missions. Shrouded in secrecy, the SEALs' popularity apexed in the early 1990s. Instead of tapping American fascination by allowing a glimpse of this group's capability, the producers appear to have wanted to create a commercial showcase-or recruiting advertisement-for the community congruous to what "Top Gun" did for Navy Air and "The Hunt for Red October" did for The Silent Service. So, we got Everything. HALO. Locking out of a submarine. Closed-circuit scuba. In-extremis Hostage Rescue. Helocasting. Ship takedown (VBSS). The Special Application Scoped Rifle (incorrectly dubbed "the .50 caliber sniper rifle") with thermal scope. Classic over-reach.
Couple this with two-dimensional villains and wacky, mad-cap SEAL hijinks, and there just wasn't room for things like character development, good dialogue, or a coherent plot. The final battle sequence is laughable in its implausibility, and-of course-has to finish with our protagonists in their element (underwater) for the final showdown.
In five or ten years there will be some good books detailing presumably declassified heroics of the SEAL community in Afghanistan circa 2001-2002. Let's hope a new team does a better job next time around.
on December 11, 2000
This film to start off with is pretty good for one made in 1990. Its starts off with quite a bit of intensity as it performs an introduction of the people in the team and the true nature of there missions , it also shows there dedication and amazing skill and all that in just the introduction. This film focuses allot on the characters and the trust between team mates, it also explains the life of a seal pretty well and the ups and downs of being in the seals, and there responsibility in missions. I think anyone who sees this film will be impressed with the realism especially that in the missions as there real extremes are shown. Overall the mission scenes are very realistic, and Charlie Sheen is the craziest in the team, the only down side I think there is, is that there isn't enough emphasis on just how amazingly hard it is it is to get into the seals and just how tough you have to be, otherwise its a well made seals film.
on September 15, 2002
The movie is so dumb, I can't help but wonder how many Navy Seals felt insulted after seeing it. Maybe it is a cool thing for 12 year olds, I am sure they too want to be able to "sense" a door being locked or having a terrorist behind it just by placing your fingertips on it (did Sheen come up with that one himself??). At no point in the movie did they even look as the professionals they ought to be. At no point did the movie make any sense, or did the story entail any real intrigue or purpose. Perhaps the Beirut scenes make up for some of the idiotic and lame "acting" Sheen throws at you, but overal, I cannot help but feeling that this movie does more harm than good to the image and prestige of the US Navy's finest. Waste of money - waste of time.
on June 21, 2003
well hmm i was a little skeptical about this movie and was even laughing at it at the beginning but that is just because it is so outdated.. this is an era before everyone had cell phones, and the music is laughable except for a good ted hawkins song. i found the main seals sheen and beihn to not be particularly believable as seals ( they didnt have the builds, and there hair was to pretty boy) however i was impressed with the supporting seals. i liked seeing slider from top gun, and pedro cerrano from major league as beleivable seals, and paxton plays a good sniper. i didnt like the romance with the lebonese reporter and beihn, and couldnt really find out what she did to help the seals. the beirut scene was good with the apc and seal rescue, but i could have done without some of sheens silly antics and overacting by other cast members. the movie is oh so predictable but it is still very entertaining. they do cover a good bit of actual seal techniques from halo's to 12 mile swims to cqb, bu they did not use stealth to the degree that actual seals would. tears of the sun is much better although it is modern so they are not really comparable. watch it though its good enough
on June 20, 2003
The lineup of cast members are really impressive, minus Charlie Sheen, who again makes it to the script's boat motor and pulls and pulls the string, breaking it. My two fav actors are Biehn and Paxton (real life friends) and I must say that this flick was not worthy of the cast, especially these two. Joanne Whaley, Cyril O'Reiley, and Rick Rossovich, also good actors, were wasted. Some scenes, like the debut of their skills, during the rescue of the remaining 2 American G.I.'s, and the skydive to the coast, were great. Too many of the other action scenes were not believable or tactically true. Biehn is always on the ball, although his dialouge and scrpit matter fail to let him shine. Dennis Ranbert, too bad he was knocked off by Sheen's carelessness. And then Hawkin's is still allowed to be on the team? Is the script stupid or what? I vote for a remake, but with the same cast-I know they're older, bu so what. And the lines by Sheen? He's not THAT bad...and it's not his fault: it's the scriptwriter and producers! Sheen just seems to eat up the dialouge like a dinner-he really seems to be having fun with the garbage can script.
Biehn: "Cool off!"
Sheen: "You should see me when I'm hot!"
Rescue the cast and put this NAVY adventure in a kiddie pool with water guns.
on May 15, 2002
Charlie Sheen was not as passionate in this as he was in Platoon, which by the way, was intense. Biehn was decent, but he could've had better writing. The producer was definitely thinking you throw a couple names together, along with some two-bit typical Hollywood writing, and you'll get a blockbuster. That's not the way it works, and it showed. It was, however, good for action and mild gore. As an Military Officer myself, I can say that the scenes of Navy tactics are midly accurate, albeit modified slightly for TV. The action, as said earlier, is pretty good, especially given the era in which it was produced. The plot was pretty ridiculous, not true to life in any aspect. The idea of a SEALs unit operating indepedent and autonomous of the Navy Chain of Command is downright unheard of and the plot offers no consolation to the hackneyed Hollywood writing. Navy SEALs has the repuation for being a "shoot 'em up" movie, with little to offer in any other department. This is pretty much true. There are good gunfights, lots of explosions, bad guys who hit everything but their targets and consequently die, BADLY, but nothing to stimulate the intellectual modern barbarian. Basically, if you like shoot 'em up movies and don't care about too much of a plot, this is for you. If you want to be stimulated, go buy some sappy chick flick.
on August 12, 2002
This movie was great! I think we all have to remember that when you see movies some 10 - 11 years after they were made, it is going to "lose something in the translation"(See TOP GUN!) The movie flowed along nicely, provided a lot of action, took a look inside seal combat training, and brought the seals to life in a time when they weren't as well known as they are now. The Beriut seen at the end was one of the greatest action scenes of ever and was very innovative and creative.