Shelf Life: Charlie Sheen’s “Navy SEALs”


Posted by on

Although there will always be something primal and urgent about action movies that connects with their fans on a visceral level, the authenticity their execution has varied wildly throughout the years. Some are highly stylized, exaggerated adventures as exhilarating as they are detached from any tangible reality, and others exude a chilling believability that makes viewers recoil even as they grow more invested. And on last Friday, Relativity Media took a little from column A and a little from column B for “Act of Valor,” a military adventure starring real, active-duty Navy SEALs whose “realism” will strike some as riveting and others as risible.

But Navy SEALs have been portrayed on film several times in the past, perhaps most notably in the film of the same name, “Navy SEALs.” The 1990 film, directed by Lewis Teague, mythologizes the “off-the-books” branch while taking pages from the playbooks of almost every military movie in the previous decade, which is probably one of the big reasons why it was poorly received upon its initial release. But two-plus decades later, was it more prescient or accurate or just plain entertaining that audiences once thought it was? This week’s “Shelf Life” investigates to find out.

The Facts

Released July 20, 1990, “Navy SEALs” was not a commercial success; although it debuted in theaters at No. 4 at the box office, it earned little bit more than $25 million during its theatrical run. No numbers are available for its home video revenues, but by all accounts it was more successful there. Meanwhile, the film earned only a 19 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, receiving four positive reviews and 17 negative ones.

What Still Works

The irony of my statement about it being derivative above is that “Navy SEALs” probably works best as a nostalgia piece, a portrait of where action movies were at by 1990 – or ones without high-profile stars or directors, anyway. After all, it almost exclusively stars actors whom audiences identified with military-themed movies – Charlie Sheen (“Platoon”), Michael Biehn (“The Terminator,” “Aliens”), Rick Rossovich (“Top Gun”) and Bill Paxton (“Aliens”) – and it exhibits the last vestiges of ‘80s leading-man super-heroics that in many ways helped its predecessors become such iconic pieces of entertainment.

“Top Gun” is the movie’s most obvious template, as much because of the character dynamic between Sheen’s Dale Hawkins and the rest of his team as the film’s dubious if frequently amusing attribution of accuracy to its story. Like “Top Gun” it’s less propaganda than a masturbatory celebrations of the military, and it offers an ennobling look at the lives and careers of soldiers, chronicling both their heroism in action and their camaraderie off the battlefield.

Conversely, Biehn’s seeming inability (at least at that time in his career) to play a character capable of real joy or lightheartedness works like gangbusters for his character, whose control over Hawkins is tenuous at best despite the ongoing realization that what he and his men are fighting for is nothing to be dismissed or looked down upon. Plus, he lives on a houseboat, which is one of the greater action-movie clichés of all time.

And while I’ll always have a soft spot for practical effects, the film’s set pieces are genuinely impressive, especially during the finale, in which the producers created a rich and detailed battle zone for the heroes to fight through. And even if Sheen and the rest did none of their own stunts (the big ones, anyway), there are a couple of cool little gags in the film, such as when Sheen’s character jumps out of a moving jeep, off of a bridge, into a river, and when the character later chases down a tow truck, jumps onto the bed, releases his car, and drives backwards in order to rescue his car without being smashed to bits by an oncoming 18-wheeler.

What Doesn’t Work

Particularly in retrospect, the film’s cartoonish sense of individualism. While the choice to make Maverick a “hot shot who lives fast and plays by his own rules” not only made Tom Cruise a bona fide star but worked enormously well within the confines of that story, Sheen’s character is no Maverick, and by the third or fourth mission he goes on in the film, he would, or at least should have been punished for outright insubordination. At one point Hawkins’ disobedience gets one of his team members killed, and it’s almost as if you can hear the break of dawn of the Age of Entitlement, where now characters (much less people) aren’t required to atone or sometimes even acknowledge their mistake; while he admits he “fucked up,” there’s never really any catharsis or payoff to the realization that him not doing his job right ended with someone else literally being killed, and even at the end, his defiance is looked at ambivalently, if not embraced via his decision to go back in (against orders) and rescue a superior officer.

Hawkins’ insubordination is unfortunately the tip of a very large iceberg in terms of the film’s egregious inaccuracies, all of which are discernible to even the most casual viewer. In battle, none of the soldiers wear helmets, instead donning do-rags or nothing at all, and their strategies in the field are feeble-minded at best, and consistently are created with seemingly complete ignorance of the particulars of the assignment, who they might see, how to handle situations, or what sort of opposition they might encounter.

Finally, the dialogue isn’t just on the nose, it’s in it: after a rescued pilot tells the team “you guys are amazing,” Biehn says, “there’s no reason to thank us. We don’t exist. This never happened.” And when it’s not stupidly underscoring plot points or highlighting subtext, the dialogue is often comprised of one-liners that aren’t even clever, such as when Biehn tells Sheen to cool it. Sheen responds, “I’m cool – you should see me when I’m hot!”

The Verdict

“Navy SEALs” isn’t an outright bad film – it would need to be more ambitious to have failed so nobly – but in general it’s pretty boring and consistently mediocre. That doesn’t necessarily to do with the performances as much as it does the script, which is assembled largely from ‘80s blockbuster clichés and the thinnest pretense of real-world accuracy, which is why it hasn’t endured as one of the great thrillers of its era. All in all, “Navy SEALs” is too bland and unexciting to inspire much love or hate – which is probably why a movie like “Act of Valor” can come along, champion its military bona fides with confidence, and somehow not feel like a sorry follow-up.

Leave your own impressions of “Navy SEALs” in the comments below!

Watch More

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar


IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”

Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”

But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet