Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on October 13, 2014, 04:19:37 AM
-
Clint Eastwood's new movie, called American Sniper http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Based on the autobiography (of the same title) by Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL who says he is the most lethal sniper in US military history, with 160 confirmed kills. Kyle will be played by Bradley Cooper. The movie also stars Sienna Miller, whom I assume is playing his wife.
Here is a trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MItGoIxoVGk for the movie, which will open in limited release in US theaters on Dec. 25, 2015, and wide release in USA on Jan. 16, 2015.
Full release schedule is here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_inf+
Here is an interview with the real Chris Kyle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ12PN81xnI
More trailers and other vids on American Sniper here http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=american+sniper
I hope this movie is really good, i hope the movie gets the emotions/feelings/conflicts accurately, cuz to me this seems like a fascinating subject.
I just wish that Eastwood would use realistic colors on this one. For years now he has mostly been using washed-out color; this trailer looks impossibly white – even by the standards of a bombed-out war zone this looks fake; to me, if you want to accurately depict the issues presented here, the issue of a family man who has volunteered for an army, killed 160 people legally – can he just 'turn it on, turn it off,' be a good family man protecting his country and killing bad guys? – if you want to present this as accurately as possible, make it very real, not like a fantasy, I wish the colors would be accurate. Anyway, I'm not gonna judge anything from a 2-minute trailer. I really hope this movie is good, and hope to see it in the theater when it is released.
-
That's the first Eastwood trailer in years that gets me exited. And I'm a stupid Clint fanboy.
-
SPOILERS!
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/american-sniper/review/748460
-
excellent trailer. Can't wait for this movie, even though Eastwood has been a steaming pile of shit the past few years.
-
Eastwood has been a steaming pile of shit the past few years.
I thought Invictus (2009) and Changeling (2008) were decent (7-7.5/10).
But J. Edgar (2011) was an 8/10 and Gran Torino (2008) was even better
-
generally I don't like Eastwood-directed films, but of the recent crop the most memorable was Hereafter. Maybe that was because Cécile De France was in it. The ending was a bust, but up to that point it kept my interest. Gran Torino was OK. Changeling and Invictus were . . . (wait for it) . . . too T.V. Maybe the man is due for something special.
-
I hated J. Edgar with a passion. Changeling and Gran Torino were good but not especially memorable. Skipped the others.
-
New trailer:
http://youtu.be/NTya9A4O9Ws
Not sure if the editor is good or if Eastwood is back but although the pitch isn't attractive and the treatment seems "by the book", I am excited so somebody is doing something right.
-
That looks really, really, really, really fucking good
-
I hated J. Edgar with a passion.
Do you mean cuz of the factual/history aspect, or just that you didn't enjoy the movie? Or both?
I don't know anything about the history but I liked the movie.
-
Do you mean cuz of the factual/history aspect, or just that you didn't enjoy the movie? Or both?
I don't know anything about the history but I liked the movie.
He means the make up.
-
Do you mean cuz of the factual/history aspect, or just that you didn't enjoy the movie? Or both?
I don't know anything about the history but I liked the movie.
I hated just about everything about the movie. Bad casting, terrible script, boring direction, bizarre/sensationalized treatment of history, vomit-inducing makeup.
-
When the Grog is right, the Grog is right.
-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/American-Sniper-Blu-ray/ref=%26%2574%2561g%3d%2562l%2575r%2561y%252d017%252d20?SubscriptionId=AKIAIY4YSQJMFDJATNBA&tag=bluray-017-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00RGZ915C&ASIN=B00RGZ915C&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Yikes, I hope that $31.47 asking price comes down.
-
Saw AMERICAN SNIPER at a sold-out Union Square Regal theater. I give it an 8/10. Will discuss more later. For now, happy new year everyone. Enjoy your parties!
-
Okay, so now I have a little more time to discuss this movie a little more.
As I mentioned in the previous post, I give it an 8/10
I was hoping for a great movie, this one is very good. But I definitely want to see it again (and while I hate when others say "a re-watch may increase the rating," cuz I think that's usually a stupidly useless thing for the reader, this is one instance where I have to say it: I could see this rating going up on a re-watch. Point being, the 8/10 rating is the floor for this movie. It can only go up.)
The previews are a bit misleading - don't assume that when Kyle has to fire on a kid, there are clips of his own children flashing there in front of his eyes. That's all done for the preview. Also, don't assume that there is any agonizing over his job. Kyle seems absolutely convinced in the correctness of what he is doing and that is all, plain and simple. There is very little moralizing, debating, questioning, about whether a man can kill over 160 people and still be a good person and doing the right thing. (And there's no political stuff, like whether the war in Iraq is a good thing of bad thing. That political stuff is virtually never addressed - and that's a good thing.) I did not read the book, but according to the movie, Kyle joins the military after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. He believes in protecting America, when in Iraq he says things like "there's a lot of evil in this place" and that's all. This movie is not really about agonizing over whether or not Chris Kyle is doing the right thing – that is never questioned.
After he returns from his tours of duty in Iraq (I believe four in total) he begins growing distant from his wife and family. Seems like he is just passing time before his next tour of duty. But the scenes with his wife, played by Sienne Miller, are not in any way gratuitous. While Kyle doesn't seem to be traumatized or suffering from post traumatic stress disorder himself, he is certainly affected by the war and it's not like he can just come back from the tours of duty and be exactly the same man as if he never left.
This movie sorta gives you the facts and doesn't go to deeply into exploring the Why.
Bradley Cooper is marvelous as Chris Kyle. Don't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination.
The action/violence is a great triumph. Everything feels incredibly real; (I don't know if people who actually fought in the military would agree, but) at no point did it feel like movie bullshit. The guns, the shootings, the bombings, the blood, the explosions, all feel amazingly real, as do the locations. Incredible work on that front.
I don't love the color, everything feels so impossibly white, I mentioned in the first post of this thread that I wish they'd used more realistic color here. I have no idea why everything is so white, Eastwood seems to be in love with screwing around with color, but whatever, I'll have to live with that.
BOTTOM LINE:
A) Watch this movie
B) trust me on this: if you haven't yet read the book or read about Chris Kyle, DO NOT read anything about him, don't even go on his wikipedia page, before you see this movie. trust me. There are certain things that reading about him will spoil. Don't read anything at all about him before you see this movie.
I'll leave you with one thing: I saw this movie on New Years Eve, at a sold out theater in Union Square. The movie ended half an hour before midnight.
At the end of the movie, there is some documentary footage and photographs that flash by with the final credits. Not a single member of the audience moved from his/her seat until that sequence was done. I have never seen that in my life – even once the closing credits began, and it became a split-screen between closing credits and a section of documentary photo/video/text, not a single person stirred until that split-screen was gone. Half an hour before midnight on New Years Eve, nobody was rushing to leave the theater.
-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/American-Sniper-Blu-ray/ref=%26%2574%2561g%3d%2562l%2575r%2561y%252d017%252d20?SubscriptionId=AKIAIY4YSQJMFDJATNBA&tag=bluray-017-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00RGZ915C&ASIN=B00RGZ915C&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Yikes, I hope that $31.47 asking price comes down.
Yikes, now they want more than $40 for it! :o
-
I'll leave you with one thing: I saw this movie on New Years Eve, at a sold out theater in Union Square. The movie ended half an hour before midnight.
At the end of the movie, there is some documentary footage and photographs that flash by with the final credits. Not a single member of the audience moved from his/her seat until that sequence was done. I have never seen that in my life – even once the closing credits began, and it became a split-screen between closing credits and a section of documentary photo/video/text, not a single person stirred until that split-screen was gone. Half an hour before midnight on New Years Eve, nobody was rushing to leave the theater.
Same with my theater. Where I live, it's not often that a theater is absolutely packed... this was. Completely full theater didn't move or say a word til that footage was over.
Really an incredible movie though. I think the only reason that it doesn't have overwhelming reviews is because of the slightly conservative tone I mentioned - probably doesn't sit well with film critics. But as you mentioned, the movie overall does a remarkable job of not taking sides politically.
But, no, f*cking Selma REAAALLY deserves its 99% on rotten tomatoes.
-
yeah, I think this movie may have a tough time winning an Oscar cuz there will be some liberal voters who won't vote for a movie they see as conservative.
-
yeah, I think this movie may have a tough time winning an Oscar cuz there will be some liberal voters who won't vote for a movie they see as conservative.
Yeah, but the liberal votes will be split among all the other candidates. The conservatives (of which there are many) will vote as a block and win. Well, that seems possible, anyway.
-
"Clint Eastwood's Fistful of Dollars": http://deadline.com/2015/01/weekend-box-office-american-sniper-kevin-hart-the-wedding-ringer-paddington-blackhat-martin-luther-king-jr-1201349929/
-
So I saw American Sniper for the second time last night, again at the Regal in Union Square.
This movie is a 9/10
Nobody who hasn't seen it should be reading this thread. There will be spoilers. For the last time, don't read this thread (or any thread devoted to a particular movie) if you don't want it to be spoiled.
Bradley Cooper gives an incredible, incredible, incredible performance here. Sienne Miller is good, though there is one real emotional crying scene she has (when they are in bed together) in which I didn't like her performance, she doesn't seem convincing; other than that one scene, she is very good.
The violence is amazing. Everything seems absolutely real. (No, Thank God I was never in a war so I can't tell you what it looks like when someone gets blown up, but) there wasn't a moment where I said, "That looks phony," or, "That looks like obvious CGI," or, "That's bullshit" or whatever. Everything seems absolutely real.
At the end, when the words come up on the screen informing us that Chris Kyle was killed, a gasp went up from the audience. And then, as the final credits flash by with a split-screen of the images from Kyle's funeral, the same thing happened that happened the first time I saw this movie: Not a single member of the audience stirred or made a sound throughout the entire sequence. Nobody got up from his/her seat, nobody moved, nobody started talking or gathering their bags; everyone stayed firmly in his/her seat until that entire final sequence was over. It was very emotional in the theater.
I totally disagree with RRPower's criticisms of the first 20 minutes; IMO it tells you the backstory in a very economical way, tells you everything you need to know about the backstory and is never boring.
There's nothing too deep about motivations here – little psychological or moral stuff or anything like that. Kyle plain and simple believes he is protecting the greatest country on earth and that he is on the side of good and the other side is evil. There is very little moralizing or political stuff. It's the story of a soldier, not a politician.
I read somewhere, I forgot who wrote it, some critic wrote in his review that he wishes that the movie had maybe gone into the technicalities of the sniper, not just telling us THAT Kyle was the greatest sniper but telling us HOW: going into the technicalities of what made him great, what he did better than others, etc. I'm not sure if there is a way that can be explained to civilians but if there is, then I agree, maybe the movie should have shown us the HOW. But I have very few criticisms of this movie. Watching it is a wonderful experience.
I have to re-emphasize: A) Amazing performance by Bradley Cooper; B) the violence was incredibly well-done.
p.s. i don't recall any music. Is there any music at all in this movie?
-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-american-sniper-targets-768784
Clint Eastwood's American Sniper has set its sight on another record — the biggest Super Bowl weekend gross of all time. That is, if it can best the $31.1 million earned in 2008 by Hanna Montana/Miley Cyrus: The Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour.
On Friday, Sniper stayed No. 1 with a mighty $10 million from 3,885 theaters for a domestic cume of $227.1 million for Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow. Projections show the film earning as much as $32 million for the weekend, pushing its total to just shy of $250 million. This past week, the Oscar-nominated Sniper became the biggest war-themed film of all time, eclipsing the $216.5 million earned by Saving Private Ryan, not accounting for inflation.
-
Since everyone else has written overlong pieces on American Sniper, why not me? Drink's commentary is mostly spot-on, though I wouldn't be surprised if non-American viewers don't dig Sniper the same way.
Clint Eastwood's American Sniper (2014) is this season's Gone Girl, an unassuming genre flick generating a thousand think pieces on its cultural significance. Eastwood's movie has more cause, drawing on a real person whose life and actions remain controversial. Nonetheless, it's an entertaining war movie with an excellent lead performance.
Spinning his wheels in 1990s Texas, Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) joins the Navy SEALS after witnessing al-Qaeda's 1998 African Embassy bombings. When the US invades Iraq, Kyle becomes a front-line sniper, gaining a reputation as "The Legend" for his impossible marksmanship. Kyle's colleagues die around him, and Kyle grows wary of the seemingly-endless conflict. His home life also suffers, with wife Taya (Sienna Miller) chafing at his long absences and inability to connect. Kyle tries coming home, yet whether through duty, habit or post-traumatic stress he repeatedly returns to Iraq.
American Sniper starts from the Sergeant York vein before turning darker. Its hero is a bumbling, none-too-bright Everyman who washes out of school and bull-riding until finding the Navy. His simple, right-and-wrong worldview meshes well with the military: he's a hero protecting America from its enemies. He relishes camaraderie with SEALS and Marines alike, finding military brotherhood simpler than family complications. Yet he becomes increasingly defined by killing people: at one point, a personal vendetta overtakes tactical considerations.
Eastwood packs Sniper with graphic battle scenes, exciting individually but cumulatively exhausting. Iraq is an anarchic wasteland where everyone's a potential enemy, with even children toting grenade launchers. This is less demonizing Arabs is than a product of limited perspective: Kyle's patriotism doesn't question the war's righteousness, measuring its human cost in lost colleagues rather than Iraqi lives. Kyle himself isn't above stupid mistakes that endanger his colleagues. Like Sniper's hero, we soon grow exhausted with the endless carnage.
Sniper intersperses combat with Kyle's spells at home. These scenes are problematic. On the one hand, Eastwood handles Kyle's PTSD with sensitivity: he can't adjust to civilian life, wracked by guilt and painful memories. His instincts kick in at the worst time, when a neighborhood dog plays too rough with his kid. His scenes with Taya, however, provide another wife who can't understand the hero's suffering. A shame, as Taya's early scenes suggest a more complex spousal figure than war movies usually provide. Fortunately, Kyle finds solace helping other veterans adjust.
Unsurprisingly, Eastwood takes liberties with the truth. There's Kyle's ongoing rivalry with Mustafa, an al-Qaeda marksman mentioned only in passing in Kyle's book. Worst is a melodramatic scene where Kyle chats with Taya during a ferocious firefight, which never happened and plays incredibly false. And Kyle was hardly as disillusioned as Sniper's later scenes depict. Then again, Kyle himself was prone to brazen exaggeration, whether cold-cocking Jesse Ventura or shooting looters after Hurricane Katrina. Eastwood's dramatic fictions seem less egregious than Kyle's own.
Really, liberal criticism of American Sniper centers around it not loudly condemning the Iraq War and Kyle himself as a war criminal. Criticizing a movie's politics is fair game, but Sniper isn't more odious than 1,000 other war movies you'd care to name. Perhaps these commentators are just upset that it's better than all the ponderous anti-Iraq War flicks which have come and gone without notice. Five years after it won Best Picture, who even remembers The Hurt Locker?
Bradley Cooper helps with a complex turn. Beefed up and sporting a passable Texas accent, he catches Kyle's redneck homeliness without denigrating the character. Cooper doesn't get the powerhouse moments that Oscar voters love, conveying Kyle's torment instead through muttered lines, avoided glances and facial resolution. Kyle isn't a character given to angry outbursts, channeling his pent-up rage into combat. Cooper makes Kyle complex and sympathetic, a believable hero with rough edges and credible failings.
American Sniper is an old-fashioned combat picture that's provoked an unexpectedly fierce debate. It's fair to question whether the genre's flag-waving hero worship isn't hopelessly anachronistic in 2015 - especially for a war as messy as Iraq, and a man like Chris Kyle. Comparing Sniper to Leni Riefenstahl is dense and provocative. 8/10
http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2015/02/american-sniper.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2015/02/american-sniper.html)
-
But, no, f*cking Selma REAAALLY deserves its 99% on rotten tomatoes.
Selma deserves to be watched, enjoyed (while playing), then filtered away with all the other Oscar bait biopics of the past 20 years. I suspect I'll think about it as often as I do The King's Speech or The Queen.
-
Enjoyed your review, Groggy.
This is one of your best-written, most-well-thought-out ones. Nice work :)
I haven't read Kyle's book so I have no idea about what's true and what's not. All I know is, I couldn't believe a sniper would be chatting with his wife on the satellite phone while looking through the spyglass. It works dramatically if you completely close your eyes to what is true/plausible.
Did someone really compare this movie with Leni Riefenstahl?
Truth is, even if you are a big liberal, there is no reason to hate Kyle more than any other soldier. He did what everyone else fighting the war was trying to do - only he was the best at it. No reason to hate Kyle more or less than any other soldier.
I'm not one to blindly use the term "hero" in referring to military members, nor to wave the flag and blindly support the military or wars or whatever, but I was genuinely saddened when I read on the screen that Kyle died. I'm sure it was a combination of the screen character and thinking about what it must have been in real life, but bottom line is he can't be compared with the terrorists. Even if the US invading Iraq was a brutal mistake, there's still no doubt that al-Quada in Iraq and the various other terrorist groups are deranged and the US isn't giving grenades to kids to be suicide bombers. In other words, even if I was a vigorous opponent of the Iraq War, I'd have little problem rooting for Kyle here.
As to the question of the war .... I (along with the rest of America) must have spent at least 5 years in fierce debate over whether or not the war is justified, and I have neither energy nor interest to revisit that. I don't think about that anymore. All I know is, Thank God Sadaam Hussein is dead and Thank God we are (mostly) out of there. At this point, what I think won't change anything so I don't think about it too much.
Anyway, here is an interesting point to ponder: If Kyle had been in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, would he be hailed as a hero by all Americans?
-
As to the question of the war .... I (along with the rest of America) must have spent at least 5 years in fierce debate over whether or not the war is justified, and I have neither energy nor interest to revisit that. I don't think about that anymore. All I know is, Thank God Sadaam Hussein is dead and Thank God we are (mostly) out of there. At this point, what I think won't change anything so I don't think about it too much.
Absolutely right. Keep your energy focused on our upcoming wars. Like the one we're about to have with Iran. I say, don't just take out targets that directly impede their nuclear program. Go after all infrastructure. Roads, railroads, bridges . . . and especially rich targets connected to petroleum production and storage.
But who am I kidding? President Candy-ass isn't going to do anything. Which means we can't possibly get going until 2017. And now I hear they're planning to junk the A10 Warthog, the best tank killer in the world. It's all beyond pathetic. After we get done fighting ourselves, will we have anything left for our enemies?
-
Thanks, Drink.
Did someone really compare this movie with Leni Riefenstahl?
To be fair, mostly internet loudmouths, no big journalists. Invoking Riefenstahl is the cinephile equivalent of Godwin's Law. It's only tangentially appropriate and doesn't really make sense. American Sniper is not a two hour pseudo-documentary, after all.
Truth is, even if you are a big liberal, there is no reason to hate Kyle more than any other soldier. He did what everyone else fighting the war was trying to do - only he was the best at it. No reason to hate Kyle more or less than any other soldier.
I think the controversy involves a) Kyle being a sniper (hence, allegedly, not a frontline infantryman - which is garbage, but you'll be surprised how often that crops up) or b) his being a truth-twister, which is easier to substantiate. The latter's more valid, but comes with the territory with memoirists, be they soldiers or journalists or politicians.
Presenting him as an American Every soldier - well, in memoirs and interviews he's rather extreme in his gung-ho attitudes towards combat. But by eliding that stuff, Eastwood's prettifying Kyle, not condoning that attitude. Seems like an odd criticism to advance.
-
Presenting him as an American Every soldier - well, in memoirs and interviews he's rather extreme in his gung-ho attitudes towards combat. But by eliding that stuff, Eastwood's prettifying Kyle, not condoning that attitude. Seems like an odd criticism to advance.
what did you want - Eastwood should have endless scenes of Kyle moralizing?
I am very glad that Kyle presenting his political views was kept to a minimum in the movie. The point is showing the story of his snipering and the effect it had on his life and that of his family; the point isn't his political views. I don't give a damn about Kyle's political views; the story of his being a sniper and the effect it had is very interesting. So Eastwood has a couple of brief moments where we see that Kyle has a clear conscience, we know his view and it isn't belabored, and we get on with the important stuff. This is really not a political movie and I think Eastwood and the screenwriter handled it very well.
BTW, you can make a case that BOYHOOD is as much (or more) blatantly political than AMERICAN SNIPER is. Ethan Hawke's character goes on and on about Iraq being Bush's lie – and Linklater said that was a deliberate attempt to get his criticism of the war into the record. Of course, (at that point in time) the Hawke character is a flake – and he even steals a McCain sign off a neighbor's lawn! But when the kids ask neighbors if they can hang an Obama sign on their lawn, the friendly neighbor of course is the Obama supporter, while the man who says no of course has to invoke the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" name and says "I can shoot you" for coming onto my property and of course has a Confederate flag. So remember, McCain supporters can't just be nice people who believe in more of a free market or lower taxes than Obama wants. No, McCain supporters are racist gun-carrying Confederates.
Yes, BOYHOOD is as political a movie as AMERICAN SNIPER. ;)
-
Absolutely right. Keep your energy focused on our upcoming wars. Like the one we're about to have with Iran. I say, don't just take out targets that directly impede their nuclear program. Go after all infrastructure. Roads, railroads, bridges . . . and especially rich targets connected to petroleum production and storage.
But who am I kidding? President Candy-ass isn't going to do anything. Which means we can't possibly get going until 2017. And now I hear they're planning to junk the A10 Warthog, the best tank killer in the world. It's all beyond pathetic. After we get done fighting ourselves, will we have anything left for our enemies?
Luckily, Israel won't stand by while this happens (I hope). If Iran crosses that red line (especially if Netanyahu is still Prime Minister), Israel will do to Iran what it did to Iraq in 1981. And just like then, America will condemn Israel's action, but eventually realize that Israel did the world a favor.
Hopefully, it won't get to that.
-
Israel can try, but logistics and the fact that Iran's nuclear infrastructure is far larger and more complex than Iraq's in '81 would make it unlikely to work.
Anyway, what is this, 2005? Are you lot really focusing on Iran when ISIS is running rampant and Putin's screwing with the Ukraine?
-
what did you want - Eastwood should have endless scenes of Kyle moralizing?
I think you misread my comment (to be fair, it was badly worded). I don't care about Kyle's opinions being expressed on screen. I'm noting that the movie's being criticized for not including them.
I haven't seen Boyhood and probably never will. As someone who's spent a decent chunk of the Obama Administration in Western PA, I can confirm that gun-toting Obama-hating rednecks are legion in rural areas.
-
I haven't seen Boyhood and probably never will. As someone who's spent a decent chunk of the Obama Administration in Western PA, I can confirm that gun-toting Obama-hating rednecks are legion in rural areas.
don't take my comment about BOYHOOD too seriously. Other than those two scenes (each lasting maybe 3 minutes) the movie is completely unrelated to politics in any way, shape, or form. My comment was sort of a joke. Seriously, I'd strongly advise everyone to see BOYHOOD, and certainly, my comment about the politics should not be a reason not to see it.
Seriously, I know there are plenty of gun-toting rednecks among the Obama haters. I am an Obama hater who has never touched a gun, never fucked his sister, never driven a pickup truck, and lived in a big city all my life. My point just was, the one anti-Obama guy they show in the movie of course threatens to shoot little kids and has a Confederate flag. It's obviously a dumb caricature. I could just as easily caricature Obama supporters as being Stalinists or whatever.
Anyway ... seriously, watch BOYHOOD. It's a terrific movie.
-
Seriously, I know there are plenty of gun-toting rednecks among the Obama haters. I am an Obama hater who has never touched a gun, never fucked his sister, never driven a pickup truck, and lived in a big city all my life. My point just was, the one anti-Obama guy they show in the movie of course threatens to shoot little kids and has a Confederate flag. It's obviously a dumb caricature. I could just as easily caricature Obama supporters as being Stalinists or whatever.
I'd say the movie just as fairly ridicules the Obama-lover stereotype though with the hip, young hot mom who so heavily supports him just because he's "young and cute" or something. Thought that was a pretty funny scene that didn't have any real political bias, just poking fun at the two very common political stereotypes (ie. dumb college bimbo and my dad). And it's fun + in character for Hawke's character to support Obama - it's not like the alcoholic step dads are blatantly labeled as republicans.
PS I didn't read / find the original joke / post, so i may be saying stuff thats already been said.
-
Yes it is true that Hawke the Obama lover is not a very positive character (at that point in the movie; later on he shapes up and IMO is a very touching character). But you also have the kind neighbor who supports Obama. The one anti-obama guy, has a Confederate flag and upon being asked by the kids if they can put an Obama sign in his yard, replies DO I LOOK LIKE I WANT A BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SIGN IN MY YARD? YOU KNOW I CAN SHOOT YOU FOR COMING ONTO MY PROPERTY.
it's a cheap caricature of the one anti-Obama guy in the movie.
(and btw, IMO the couple of minutes that politix are discussed are more blatantly political than the couple of minutes AMERICAN SNIPER mentions politix. Cuz while Kyle (briefly) mentions his political views, IMO they aren't presented as if they are truth, they are just Kyle saying his views. IMO BOYHOOD is making a political statement more than AMERICAN SNIPER is.
But forget that crap. Everyone - liberal, conservative, libertaraian, or indifferent - should see both movies. They are both terrific :)
-
Lawsuit and financial controversy surrounding Chris Kyle's widow Taya
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/american-sniper-chris-kyles-widow-at-center-of-111390083907.html
-
The prosecution has rested, and the defense has begun calling witnesses, in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the man who killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/us/american-sniper-chris-kyle-trial/
-
Michael Cimino's (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/deer-hunter-directors-first-interview-773132?facebook_20150220) recent interview. He talks about American Sniper and Clint Eastwood a bit.
-
American Sniper 5/10
Very good SEAL commercial. If you succeed to put the moral issues aside, it's a good war film. An 7.5/10 that could have been 8+. But only a psycho would be able to put the moral issues aside.
The action scenes as well as the intimate husband/wife scenes are good. The direction is way above everything Eastwood did after Million Dollar Baby. I suspect his team helped a lot because it's a tough job, especially for a 85+ guy. A few scenes/elements that are borderline laughable: the very not nice sniper scenes, a couple lines, the "come back to us your familly need you" rants...
(I'm quoting you here cuz I'd rather not risk spoiling anything in the RTLMYS thread.)
The movie may be a "pro military" movie, but I wouldn't say it's that much of a "pro-Iraq-War" movie. Kyle is certainly in favor of the war 9or at least doesn't question it) but I wouldn't say the movie itself is in favor of that. When his buddy dies and then at the funeral his mom reads the letter he wrote questioning the war and then Kyle says "that letter is what killed him," IMO the movie isn't presenting that statement as truth; it's presenting it as Kyle's opinion and we're supposed to ask ourselves whether Kyle is right or whether the deceased solider was right.
If someone hates the military in general I can see how they'd hate this movie. But if someone doesn't have a problem with the military in general, and is just against the American intervention in Iraq, I think you can enjoy this movie. (I personally have ambivalent feelings about the Iraq War and have no interest in revisiting that debate, but) I had no problem rooting for Kyle here. Even if America absolutely did not belong in Iraq, the fact remains that those who were fighting the Americans were for the most part very bad people (whether Saddam loyalists or suicide bombers or fighters terrorizing local civilian populations), so I have no problem rooting for Kyle to succeed.
And obviously much of the movie is about Kyle's own battles – himself, his family, etc., and that's something that is really applicable to any war, even one less controversial than the Iraq War.
If someone believes that every American soldier fighting in Iraq (including Kyle obviously) is a murderer, then yeah, I can understand that it's impossible for you not to consider that when watching/evaluating the movie. But if you can at least tolerate the idea of the Americans (actually coalition forces) in Iraq and can focus on Kyle, I think this is a very good war movie that can be greatly enjoyed. And I maintain that the movie is really not a forcefully pro-war movie. It (briefly) mentions Kyle's opinions in favor of the war and that's all.
IMO the fighting scenes are incredible, the violence looks amazingly real, Bradley Cooper's performance is absolutely amazing ... it's a shame if someone is unable to enjoy this cuz of the political stuff. But I can certainly understand it. But what I can't understand is, were you expecting anything different? After all that's been written about it, after seeing all the previews, were you really expecting anything else?
No, I never thought this movie did have a real chance of winning Best Picture. No way in hell. But it is laughing all the way to the bank. Would you rather an Oscar or 400 million dollars? ;)
-
Jury deliberations begin the trial of Eddie Ray Routh http://goo.gl/KPniqV
Dude's either gonna be in a prison or a nut house for the rest of his life. Won't matter much.
-
Eddie Ray Routh found guilty of the murder of Chris Kyle and another man; immediately sentenced to life without parole in a Texas prison http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/24/american-sniper-murder-trial-verdict/23896859/
-
(I'm quoting you here cuz I'd rather not risk spoiling anything in the RTLMYS thread.)
The movie may be a "pro military" movie, but I wouldn't say it's that much of a "pro-Iraq-War" movie. Kyle is certainly in favor of the war 9or at least doesn't question it) but I wouldn't say the movie itself is in favor of that. When his buddy dies and then at the funeral his mom reads the letter he wrote questioning the war and then Kyle says "that letter is what killed him," IMO the movie isn't presenting that statement as truth; it's presenting it as Kyle's opinion and we're supposed to ask ourselves whether Kyle is right or whether the deceased solider was right.
If someone hates the military in general I can see how they'd hate this movie. But if someone doesn't have a problem with the military in general, and is just against the American intervention in Iraq, I think you can enjoy this movie. (I personally have ambivalent feelings about the Iraq War and have no interest in revisiting that debate, but) I had no problem rooting for Kyle here. Even if America absolutely did not belong in Iraq, the fact remains that those who were fighting the Americans were for the most part very bad people (whether Saddam loyalists or suicide bombers or fighters terrorizing local civilian populations), so I have no problem rooting for Kyle to succeed.
And obviously much of the movie is about Kyle's own battles – himself, his family, etc., and that's something that is really applicable to any war, even one less controversial than the Iraq War.
If someone believes that every American soldier fighting in Iraq (including Kyle obviously) is a murderer, then yeah, I can understand that it's impossible for you not to consider that when watching/evaluating the movie. But if you can at least tolerate the idea of the Americans (actually coalition forces) in Iraq and can focus on Kyle, I think this is a very good war movie that can be greatly enjoyed. And I maintain that the movie is really not a forcefully pro-war movie. It (briefly) mentions Kyle's opinions in favor of the war and that's all.
IMO the fighting scenes are incredible, the violence looks amazingly real, Bradley Cooper's performance is absolutely amazing ... it's a shame if someone is unable to enjoy this cuz of the political stuff. But I can certainly understand it. But what I can't understand is, were you expecting anything different? After all that's been written about it, after seeing all the previews, were you really expecting anything else?
No, I never thought this movie did have a real chance of winning Best Picture. No way in hell. But it is laughing all the way to the bank. Would you rather an Oscar or 400 million dollars? ;)
To me, the movie is:
1) greatly anti-war in general
2) rather pro Iraq war
3) extremely "pro military"
4) 100% pro Chris Kyle
1) Of course it's anti-war. Eastwood isn't a lunatic.
2) As you say, the movie isn't really about whether the US should be in Iraq or not. Still, nobody refutes Kyle when he repeatedly says they're protecting Texas in Iraq. Still, weirdly, the movie show you the 9/11 attacks and suddenly you're in Iraq. I understand the concept of ellipse, but such a shortcut is a dangerous lie. Especially in a World where so many people in real life have forgotten that the war that followed the attacks was in Afghanistan. The Iraq war is somewhat linked to the attacks but telling people that US soldiers are trying to avoid a new 9/11 by shooting Iraqis is nothing but propaganda. Really dangerous propaganda.
Also, the way Iraqis and american are portrayed in the film isn't what you could call fair. Iraqis are either evil murderers who torture children, brainwashed kids or civilians without opinion. The American, on the other hand... are all great people. All of them. Apart from the guy who kills Kyle in the end, the most negative American character is the marine who's supposed to watch Kyle's back and refuses to put his life in danger. That's it. Even Saving Private Ryan is more balanced and it's a film shot by a jew in which they're fighting fucking Nazis.
All this is quite weird to me because it doesn't compute with what I know about Eastwood: he's not racist (the film is), I think he was against the Iraq war and he's shown numerous times he's able to balance points of views (just watch Letters from Iwo Jima).
3) Yes it's pro military. I have no problem with the idea but the way it's done here is, once again, really unbalanced. I don't blame the film moral for that because "serious films" are often unbalanced the other way so let's say it's like Dirty Harry: it feels good to ear some discording voice. Still, it's really "in your face" and too basic for me. Unlike Dirty Harry, it's propaganda level. Conservative cliché. Let's put it more clearly: it's dumb as fuck.
The first scene between Kyle and his soon to be wife is a telling example. The dialogue is really good until she questions his logic about being in the army: she only says basic liberal shit ("that's egoist, after all, in some way, I don't really know which one!"), he answers basic conservative propaganda ("how is that egoist? I'm saving the world and stuff. I guess. That's what Fox News and Dave Jenkins said."), and they show you he clearly got a point. Seriously? We were in Gone Girl territory 30 seconds earlier and we're now listening to some dialogue that could be in the worst TV shows we have in fucking FRANCE. And I'm telling you, you don't want to sit through dialogues from the the worst TV shows we have in fucking France.
4) It's possible an earlier version of the script (or of the edit) was far more ambiguous: people keep telling Kyle "you're not doing this just to help" so there was really some room for the truth here. But the way it's done here he always wins these "debates".
I don't know much about Kyle but from what I understand he was FAR from being the angel you see in the film. I'm not saying he was the crazy fascist and Texan caricature some are depicting. First of all, I don't know enough about him. But all in all, he didn't declare war to Iraq, he just did his job and was good at it. I doubt he enjoyed killing children. Still, nobody is that good at something without thinking it's exciting. And being a sniper is exciting. It's a drug. It's extremely satisfying. I know it not only because of video games but because of what veteran sniper usually say. There was room in the film for something far deeper and interesting about that character. May be he's there for good reasons, but may be he cannot quite for bad reasons. That doesn't make him evil: it makes him human, hence ambiguous, hence interesting.
Last but not least, from what I understand, the real Kyle bragged quite a lot about having shot people in Louisiana (during Katrina) and car robbers in Texas. This fact alone (whether he did it or not) deserves a more nuanced portrait than what the film does.
-
Apart from that: the death of the Syrian sniper was terrible. Cheap bullet time right out of Max Payne 1 (the game). Hopefully you get the great shooting in the sand storm right after that so you forget what you've just seen.
-
To me, the movie is:
1) greatly anti-war in general
2) rather pro Iraq war
3) extremely "pro military"
4) 100% pro Chris Kyle
1) Of course it's anti-war. Eastwood isn't a lunatic.
This is like saying Twister is anti-tornado. True, but completely uninteresting.
2) As you say, the movie isn't really about whether the US should be in Iraq or not. Still, nobody refutes Kyle when he repeatedly says they're protecting Texas in Iraq. Still, weirdly, the movie show you the 9/11 attacks and suddenly you're in Iraq. I understand the concept of ellipse, but such a shortcut is a dangerous lie. Especially in a World where so many people in real life have forgotten that the war that followed the attacks was in Afghanistan. The Iraq war is somewhat linked to the attacks but telling people that US soldiers are trying to avoid a new 9/11 by shooting Iraqis is nothing but propaganda. Really dangerous propaganda.
You need to watch the film again, because you are misremembering it. The 9-11 attacks are followed by the wedding scene. It is only during that scene that the SEAL team gets their deployment call. And only then do we go to Iraq. That wedding scene is important, since it shows a huge ellipsis between 9-11 and when the Iraq mission began.
I find it weird that you expect the film to be a documentary about US foreign policy. Kyle didn't go to Afghanistan, so there is no place in the picture for info about that theater. The chain of reasoning that got the US to Iraq was complex (and involved Saddam bragging about WMD he didn't have) so the film doesn't have the time to go into it. Anyway, everything in the film is from Kyle's perspective and what he knew/cared about the larger picture is largely up for grabs. We do know what he said about the conflict, and those views are accurately portrayed (as far as I can determine) in film. If you are looking for a perspective other than Kyle's you are free to find it, but it must be from outside the movie. This is not propaganda, anymore than Nightcrawler is.
Also, the way Iraqis and american are portrayed in the film isn't what you could call fair. Iraqis are either evil murderers who torture children, brainwashed kids or civilians without opinion.
Again, go back and watch the film. There are in fact Iraqis in the movie who side with the Americans. There are also Iraqis who are the victims of al-Qaeda, and this is some of the most moving material. The scene where the night-time raid exposes one of the al-Qaeda abattoirs is one of the most harrowing in the film. Yeah, it shows the bad-guys in a really bad light: they were torturing and killing their own people. But the victims deserve recognition too.
The American, on the other hand... are all great people. All of them
.
America's military forces have never been better staffed than they are now. That's because since 1973 we've used volunteers, no conscripts. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are chosen on merit, and then are only retained on the same basis. This military is very different from, say, the one that went to Vietnam. And again, we are seeing everything from Kyle's viewpoint. He obviously loved the guys he served with; that's why he kept going back for additional tours. He wouldn't have returned so many times to support idiots.
Your whole approach here is strange and comes from watching movies rather than having any actual contact with members of the profession of arms. Let's say instead of a war film this were a cop movie, and not a 70s cop film, but something more like a Law & Order episode. Would you expect to have a bunch of dysfunctional cops unable or unwilling to do their jobs correctly? Would you have characters questioning why they're doing what they're doing? Characters who would wonder why they were being so mean to the criminals? Who would even be trying to empathize with the crooks? Or would you expect to have a class of men and women acting like professional Law Enforcement Officers, doing their jobs conscientiously. American audiences expect the latter, because generally they respect the LEOs in their communities. They also respect members of their armed forces, and expect to see them acting professionally when depicted. The fact that Hollywood has routinely failed to meet this expectation is one of the reasons American Sniper has had the huge box-office success it has had.
(just watch Letters from Iwo Jima).
A bad film (with one good scene) which you would realize was bad if you knew anything about Japan.
The first scene between Kyle and his soon to be wife is a telling example. The dialogue is really good until she questions his logic about being in the army: she only says basic liberal shit ("that's egoist, after all, in some way, I don't really know which one!"), he answers basic conservative propaganda ("how is that egoist? I'm saving the world and stuff. I guess. That's what Fox News and Dave Jenkins said.")
You've lost me here. Invoking Fox News and the wonderful Mr. Jenkins can only be a good thing. But you're actually worrying about dialog . . . in a war film? Personally, I came for the action scenes.
) It's possible an earlier version of the script (or of the edit) was far more ambiguous: people keep telling Kyle "you're not doing this just to help" so there was really some room for the truth here. But the way it's done here he always wins these "debates".
I don't know much about Kyle but from what I understand he was FAR from being the angel you see in the film. I'm not saying he was the crazy fascist and Texan caricature some are depicting. First of all, I don't know enough about him. But all in all, he didn't declare war to Iraq, he just did his job and was good at it. I doubt he enjoyed killing children. Still, nobody is that good at something without thinking it's exciting. And being a sniper is exciting. It's a drug. It's extremely satisfying. I know it not only because of video games but because of what veteran sniper usually say. There was room in the film for something far deeper and interesting about that character. May be he's there for good reasons, but may be he cannot quite for bad reasons. That doesn't make him evil: it makes him human, hence ambiguous, hence interesting.
You're arguing for a film they didn't make and weren't inclined to make. The film as it stands is successful on its own terms. And most of the 300 Million appear to be happy with it. It was never intended for the artsy-fartsy fag crowd.
Last but not least, from what I understand, the real Kyle bragged quite a lot about having shot people in Louisiana (during Katrina) and car robbers in Texas. This fact alone (whether he did it or not) deserves a more nuanced portrait than what the film does.
Outside the scope of the picture. There was some kind of story about Jesse Ventura too. Both are less interesting than what the filmmakers chose to focus on. The picture can't be about everything touching Kyle's life. Choices had to be made, and I think the choices made were good ones.
-
Apart from that: the death of the Syrian sniper was terrible. Cheap bullet time right out of Max Payne 1 (the game). Hopefully you get the great shooting in the sand storm right after that so you forget what you've just seen.
This point I grant you.
-
This is like saying Twister is anti-tornado. True, but completely uninteresting.
;D
Yes I was just clarifying. You may or may not know it but many people say the film is pro-war.
You need to watch the film again, because you are misremembering it. The 9-11 attacks are followed by the wedding scene. It is only during that scene that the SEAL team gets their deployment call. And only then do we go to Iraq. That wedding scene is important, since it shows a huge ellipsis between 9-11 and when the Iraq mission began.
I know this. I didn't mention the recruitment either. Still, that's the shortcut the film (and most people) make. On such a dangerous point, there is no excuse for the film to blurring out a fact that is being forgotten (even by anti war people).
I find it weird that you expect the film to be a documentary about US foreign policy.
I don't. It's about Kyle, and Kyle is treated as a hero that every worthwhile american should imitate (I have no problem with that).
Kyle didn't go to Afghanistan, so there is no place in the picture for info about that theater. The chain of reasoning that got the US to Iraq was complex (and involved Saddam bragging about WMD he didn't have) so the film doesn't have the time to go into it. Anyway, everything in the film is from Kyle's perspective and what he knew/cared about the larger picture is largely up for grabs. We do know what he said about the conflict, and those views are accurately portrayed (as far as I can determine) in film. If you are looking for a perspective other than Kyle's you are free to find it, but it must be from outside the movie. This is not propaganda, anymore than Nightcrawler is.
No. You're adopting a line of defense Eastwood often used for other films and usually he was right: because a character, even the protagonist, does/says/thinks something doesn't mean the filmmaker endorses it. I have already seen a couple movies in my life so I managed to figure that out by myself. But it doesn't work here. Because like I said, Kyle is treated as a hero. 100% pure. What he says is treated as the universal truth. People who contradict him (slightly) lose every debate. The way a scene is done shows you the point of view of the filmmaker. You can easily see what the opinion of the movie is.
PS: Nightcrawler's leftish propaganda doesn't impress me either. It's just less dangerous and more nuanced (that's how you leave propaganda territory).
Again, go back and watch the film. There are in fact Iraqis in the movie who side with the Americans. There are also Iraqis who are the victims of al-Qaeda, and this is some of the most moving material. The scene where the night-time raid exposes one of the al-Qaeda abattoirs is one of the most harrowing in the film. Yeah, it shows the bad-guys in a really bad light: they were torturing and killing their own people. But the victims deserve recognition too.
Are you seriously saying American soldiers and Iraqis are presented under the same light? They're not. Putting a couple translators isn't sufficient to me. It doesn't make up for all the Liberty Angels you're portraying and calling the enemy "savage" the whole film. That's not how you make a war movie in 2014. Especially about a war in which abuses by American soldiers have been heavily documented.
America's military forces have never been better staffed than they are now. That's because since 1973 we've used volunteers, no conscripts. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are chosen on merit, and then are only retained on the same basis. This military is very different from, say, the one that went to Vietnam.
That's interesting (but doesn't invalidate anything I said. I'm not anti-militarist and I'm not anti-USA.
And again, we are seeing everything from Kyle's viewpoint. He obviously loved the guys he served with; that's why he kept going back for additional tours. He wouldn't have returned so many times to support idiots.
We already covered that viewpoint thing.
Your whole approach here is strange and comes from watching movies rather than having any actual contact with members of the profession of arms. Let's say instead of a war film this were a cop movie, and not a 70s cop film, but something more like a Law & Order episode. Would you expect to have a bunch of dysfunctional cops unable or unwilling to do their jobs correctly? Would you have characters questioning why they're doing what they're doing? Characters who would wonder why they were being so mean to the criminals? Who would even be trying to empathize with the crooks? Or would you expect to have a class of men and women acting like professional Law Enforcement Officers, doing their jobs conscientiously. American audiences expect the latter, because generally they respect the LEOs in their communities. They also respect members of their armed forces, and expect to see them acting professionally when depicted. The fact that Hollywood has routinely failed to meet this expectation is one of the reasons American Sniper has had the huge box-office success it has had.
In law and order? Not more than in John Rambo 37. But this is not John Rambo, this is a biopic and is presented (not only marketed but also written, shot and edited) as a "serious" film.
A bad film (with one good scene)
I know. I pay a tribute to the concept.
which you would realize
I do.
was bad if you knew anything about Japan.
I don't.
You've lost me here. Invoking Fox News and the wonderful Mr. Jenkins can only be a good thing. But you're actually worrying about dialog . . . in a war film? Personally, I came for the action scenes.
I came for the film. But then again I'm not the kind of guy who rates Raid 10/10. If they put something in a film, it has to be good. That's what a good film is. They don't want to put good dialogues? It's fine with me as long as they don't put dialogues at all. If it's good, leave it in the film. If it's bad, cut it out. Filmmaking 101.
They do have a lot of very good dialogues in this film, by the way.
You're arguing for a film they didn't make and weren't inclined to make.
Of course. I'm arguing for a better film. They had other ways to do a better film, I'm not pointing in the only possible direction. I'm pointing in the easiest.
Anyway, they should have.
The film as it stands is successful on its own terms. And most of the 300 Million appear to be happy with it. It was never intended for the artsy-fartsy fag crowd.
I'm not even answering this non-sense, you're better than that ;D
Do you want a Godwin point? Because that's how you get a Godwin point.
Outside the scope of the picture. There was some kind of story about Jesse Ventura too. Both are less interesting than what the filmmakers chose to focus on. The picture can't be about everything touching Kyle's life. Choices had to be made, and I think the choices made were good ones.
Telling the truth, they could have made the movie about pretty much anything they want. My problem is that the choices they show are simplistic and uninteresting AS IS. They could have been fascinating.
But like I said, put the moral issues aside, all in all it's a good film. Remove the couple laughable stuff and you get an 8+/10. Tighten that sniper duel plot, give it a progression or something, don't show the bad sniper apart from the olympics picture and boom, 9/10.
-
Here's the litmus test. Put the following war films in order of merit. If you can't or won't it means you don't know what you're talking about.
The Enemy Below
They Were Expendable
Pork Chop Hill
Run Silent, Run Deep
A Walk in the Sun
The Story of GI Joe
Objective Burma
Merrill's Marauders
Twelve O'clock High
Men in War
American Sniper is a war film and fits in very nicely with this group. All you're really saying is you don't like this genre. Big deal.
-
Of course, because of the progress of humanity during the past 50 years, I expect less racism in a 2014 film than in a 1945 one. Even Deer Hunter wouldn't be acceptable nowadays.
I love most genres, and war films is a genre I love. But only the good ones. You sound like an american movie critic saying to Leone "So you don't like love stories in westerns? They belong to the genre. You don't like westerns."
I don't criticize Hollywood westerns from the 40's for depicting the Indians as evil murderers. But if someone made nowadays a movie called "American Cowboy" with the same sense of nuance than American Sniper, we would both be laughing at it.
-
why is it that any movie that depicts an enemy that American soldiers are fighting is deemed racist?
This movie is not racist against Iraqis or Arabs or Muslims. This movie depicts THE ENEMY AMERICA IS FIGHTING as very bad people. Which they were. This does not mean all Iraqis or all Arabs or all Muslims. But the enemy fighting America in this war (however justified the war was or wasn't) were really bad people – they weren't merely soldiers protecting their homeland against invading occupiers. These were soldiers siding with Saddam Hussein – whom, whether he had "stockpiles of WMD's" or not, was a very evil man; these were people who did indeed have child suicide bombers. And that's the enemy Kyle and his buddies are fighting. Did you want more depictions of the good Iraqis? Kyle isn't fighting them. If you are making a World War II movie and show the Americans fighting the Nazis, are you being racist because you're not also showing the Germans who opposed Hitler? For God's sake, the movie is concerned about Kyle and the enemy he is fighting; the reason it doesn't feel a need to emphasize that not all Arabs are bad is that it never believes all Arabs are bad - it doesn't feel a need to justify itself to the n_l's of the world. The Arabs right now have a million and one factions killing each other, and the movie doesn't feel a need to show them all. This movie is about Kyle and the enemy he is fighting. It is not The History of America in the Middle East.
You can't deal with a movie about conflict between two parties that isn't intended as a complete history lesson on the subject matter?
BTW, DJ makes a great point indeed about the volunteer army. Personally, I am opposed to a military draft as I am opposed to slavery – I think a military draft is in some ways as bad and in some ways worse than slavery. And movies like Battleground where all the soldiers want to do is go home, you don't see them really now, because anyone who is fighting is doing so voluntarily. So, the fact that the soldiers are all happy to be there, that is a good thing – as a general matter, I only want soldiers to fight if they want to.
Look, this is the story of Chris Kyle, that's all. It's legitimate to show his point of view, and it's legitimate to ask the audience what it thinks of it – and make no mistake, when Chris tells Taya "that letter is what killed him," the audience is supposed to wonder if Chris is right. Chris is obviously firm in his belief that the war is right, but the dead soldier (and probably a great many others) question whether the war is right. And the movie doesn't try to answer this question. If it indeed shows Kyle as having a simplistic "pro war" viewpoint, then maybe that's cuz he had that viewpoint, but I disagree with n_l that the movie is showing Kyle as winning every argument. I think the movie is depicting what Kyle would answer, and it's up to each viewer to decide whether to agree with Kyle or not.
Oh by the way, I haven't watched any news on tv or read any newspaper or followed any political happenings in over 2 years. I am much happier and less stressed ;)
Finally, while I again must emphasize that I have very ambivalent feelings about the Iraq War, I also gotta say that as a general matter, the idea that every war movie has to present nuance to every side is ludicrous. It's kind of ridiculous that even movies with Nazis have to present them as nuanced people. You wanna call me old-fashioned or simplistic or stupid or conservative or whatever, but there are some people that are very evil and we should call a spade a spade. Not that America (a nation of over 320 million people with very diverse views) is always right or always good; I despise American politicians as much as any others. But if there is an enemy – whether Nazis or radical Islam or whatever – that is thoroughly evil, let's call a spade a fucking spade. If we make a movie about ISIS, you also wanna show them as nuanced? Should we show the guys who burned that Jordanian pilot alive as nuanced? At the risk of offending liberal sensibilities, I'll say it: some people are plain and simple evil and deserve no understanding or sympathy.
p.s. n_l, I ever tell you how much I love you? I love DJ too, but he already knows it ;)
-
Devil's advocate. >:D
why is it that any movie that depicts an enemy that American soldiers are fighting is deemed racist?
How about because every Arab in the movie is either a murderous monster or a pathetic victim? There's no attempt to humanize anyone Kyle meets in Iraq. You're welcome to draw the distinction between good and evil Arabs but the movie does not.
Finally, while I again must emphasize that I have very ambivalent feelings about the Iraq War, I also gotta say that as a general matter, the idea that every war movie has to present nuance to every side is ludicrous. It's kind of ridiculous that even movies with Nazis have to present them as nuanced people. You wanna call me old-fashioned or simplistic or stupid or conservative or whatever, but there are some people that are very evil and we should call a spade a spade. Not that America (a nation of over 320 million people with very diverse views) is always right or always good; I despise American politicians as much as any others. But if there is an enemy – whether Nazis or radical Islam or whatever – that is thoroughly evil, let's call a spade a fucking spade. If we make a movie about ISIS, you also wanna show them as nuanced? Should we show the guys who burned that Jordanian pilot alive as nuanced? At the risk of offending liberal sensibilities, I'll say it: some people are plain and simple evil and deserve no understanding or sympathy.
This issue with this particular film is that, like it or not, Iraq isn't really comparable to the Second World War. Perhaps this is the problem - you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq was a counterinsurgency conflict where most individuals will be civilians caught between the two sides, so demonizing an entire country makes less dramatic sense. Unless you're trying to make a point.
If you show a World War II movie where the Nazis or Japanese are card-carrying villains, that's understandable. Unless we're talking the very end of the war, you're not in Germany among German civilians - every German you're going to meet is an enemy combatant. If you show an Iraq War movie with Americans working amongst (and alongside) Iraqis who aren't RPG-wielding terrorists, the issue's hardly so cut-and-dried. In American Sniper, the only Iraqi who gets any sympathy gets a hole drilled in his head.
You're definitely right that the movie's shown from Kyle's perspective, so the movie reflects his relatively-simplistic view of the conflict. It's fair to question though whether this approach is successful.
Sorry, I went back and edited this a few times.
-
This issue with this particular film is that, like it or not, Iraq isn't really comparable to the Second World War. Perhaps this is the problem - you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq was a counterinsurgency conflict where most individuals will be civilians caught between the two sides, so demonizing an entire country makes less dramatic sense. Unless you're trying to make a point.
If you show a World War II movie where the Nazis or Japanese are card-carrying villains, that's understandable. Unless we're talking the very end of the war, you're not in Germany among German civilians - every German you're going to meet is an enemy combatant. If you show an Iraq War movie with Americans working amongst (and alongside) Iraqis who aren't RPG-wielding terrorists, the issue's hardly so cut-and-dried. In American Sniper, the only Iraqi who gets any sympathy gets a hole drilled in his head.
You're definitely right that the movie's shown from Kyle's perspective, so the movie reflects his relatively-simplistic view of the conflict. It's fair to question though whether this approach is successful.
Sorry, I went back and edited this a few times.
My point wasn't to necessarily compare American Sniper to a WWII movie.
My point was a more general one that there is often a knee-jerk reaction that anytime there is a war movie, the enemy needs to be depicted with nuance and understanding, and that depicting an enemy as purely evil is simplistic, conservative, narrow-minded, or whatever other pejorative the enlightened elites can think of. And I think this view – that nuance always has to applied when depicting an enemy – is wrong. My example of WWII was just to use the most extreme example imaginable of a purely evil enemy whose portrayals deserve no complexities – and because n_l mentioned Saving Private Ryan. I'm just saying that to automatically criticize a depiction of an enemy because it lacks complexity is IMO wrong.
The movie is about Chris Kyle – his conflict with the enemy in Iraq (and also his conflict with himself and his family). So, the movie shows Kyle vs. the Arab enemy, and doesn't focus on the Arab non-enemies. is it true that the people Kyle was fighting were Arabs? Yes. Is it true that many of them were very evil? Yes. Is it true that this enemy deliberately targeted and terrorized civilians? Yes. Is it true that some of them sent their own kids to be suicide bombers or throw grenades? Yes. So what's the problem with depicting that?
is it also true that there were many controversies in America's entry into the war? Yes. Is it also true that America had Arab allies? Yes. Is it also true that not every American troop conducted himself honorably in the war, such as with Abu Ghraib? Yes. But these issues are outside the scope of the story of Chris Kyle. That's what this movie is – the story of Chris Kyle. I didn't read his book, but to me it seems that all the "other" side stuff that some people want the movie to have shown is beyond the story of one man's (very successful) career as a sniper and his subsequent struggles at home.
-
Grog is a good advocate.
My point wasn't to necessarily compare American Sniper to a WWII movie.
My point was a more general one that there is often a knee-jerk reaction that anytime there is a war movie, the enemy needs to be depicted with nuance and understanding, and that depicting an enemy as purely evil is simplistic, conservative, narrow-minded, or whatever other pejorative the enlightened elites can think of. And I think this view – that nuance always has to applied when depicting an enemy – is wrong. My example of WWII was just to use the most extreme example imaginable of a purely evil enemy whose portrayals deserve no complexities – and because n_l mentioned Saving Private Ryan. I'm just saying that to automatically criticize a depiction of an enemy because it lacks complexity is IMO wrong.
The movie is about Chris Kyle – his conflict with the enemy in Iraq (and also his conflict with himself and his family). So, the movie shows Kyle vs. the Arab enemy, and doesn't focus on the Arab non-enemies. is it true that the people Kyle was fighting were Arabs? Yes. Is it true that many of them were very evil? Yes. Is it true that this enemy deliberately targeted and terrorized civilians? Yes. Is it true that some of them sent their own kids to be suicide bombers or throw grenades? Yes. So what's the problem with depicting that?
is it also true that there were many controversies in America's entry into the war? Yes. Is it also true that America had Arab allies? Yes. Is it also true that not every American troop conducted himself honorably in the war, such as with Abu Ghraib? Yes. But these issues are outside the scope of the story of Chris Kyle. That's what this movie is – the story of Chris Kyle. I didn't read his book, but to me it seems that all the "other" side stuff that some people want the movie to have shown is beyond the story of one man's (very successful) career as a sniper and his subsequent struggles at home.
Ok so let's say it again:
1 - Every Iraqi is not a terrorist.
2 - Every US soldier who crossed the path of Chris Kyle is not a good guy.
3 - Everything Kyle did/thought isn't right and the movie never questions it (apart from that letter thing but who cares). Some movies let the viewer decide for himself. This one DOES NOT.
Just imagine you're an Iraqi and you watch that film. You'd be really, really pissed off. End of story.
ps: love u too baby :-*
-
I know this. I didn't mention the recruitment either. Still, that's the shortcut the film (and most people) make. On such a dangerous point, there is no excuse for the film to blurring out a fact that is being forgotten (even by anti war people).
WTF? The recruitment has nothing to do with 9-11. This is how the first 20 minutes of the movie unspools:
We begin with sniper overwatch in Iraq. We cut on Chris Kyle taking a shot at an Iraqi to young Kyle felling his first deer. We cut to a school yard fight as we hear Kyle's father in voice-over begin espousing his sheep/wolves/sheepdog philosophy before cutting to the dinner table scene. We cut to adult Kyle in a cowboy hat. We cut to a rodeo where Kyle does some business while his brother watches. We cut to their drive home. We get the cheating-girlfriend scene. We cut to Kyle and his brother watching the news report about the embassy bombings. We cut to Kyle down at the recruiter's office signing up. We cut to SEAL training. We cut to meeting cute in the bar. Back to more SEAL training. Back to the romance. Then 9-11 on the TV. Cut to the wedding and the deployment call (in the same scene). Cut to Tour One.
Although the movie has a lot of ground to cover in backstory, it gets through all this with great economy. And it plays fair. It doesn't show a straight line from 9-11 to Iraq. Kyle was already a SEAL when 9-11 hit. He joined up for other reasons (the embassy bombings). Then there is a huge lapse in time between 9-11 and deployment. Obviously, audiences should be informed about the complete state of events that led to the US involvement in Iraq, but that's on them, not the film. How is the film supposed to be responsible for everyone's thorough knowledge of the Iraq War? The film certainly doesn't mislead people.
And why is this "a dangerous point"? Since when are films capable of "dangerous points"? This is commu-nazi talk.
When I saw the first 20 minutes I was impressed with the alacrity with which we got through the backstory, and the clarity with which each point was delivered. I thought the editing was marvelous. I sat there thinking, "This is great filmmaking." Others, I guess, came with an extra-cinematic agenda that required them to find fault with the sequence, even when there was no fault to find.
-
How is the film supposed to be responsible for everyone's thorough knowledge of the Iraq War? The film certainly doesn't mislead people.
It does. The ellipse is misleading. At least it was to me: after 5 minutes in Iraq I asked myself "wait, that's not Afghanistan?"
I may be stupid, but no, I'm not.
And why is this "a dangerous point"? Since when are films capable of "dangerous points"? This is commu-nazi talk.
I frankly don't understand the question since I know for a fact that you know the answer. You wouldn't be arguing if you didn't.
Because the war is still going on, because people are being killed right now, because of terror attacks in Europe, because a lot of political decisions (including wars) are decided by what the popular opinion is, because a film, especially a big success, has an influence on popular opinion, and because propaganda is a thing.
When I saw the first 20 minutes I was impressed with the alacrity with which we got through the backstory, and the clarity with which each point was delivered. I thought the editing was marvelous. I sat there thinking, "This is great filmmaking."
Me too! Yay! Fuck RRpower! (with all due respect)
Others, I guess, came with an extra-cinematic agenda that required them to find fault with the sequence, even when there was no fault to find.
Come on, the film has more of an extra-cinematic agenda than I have. The title itself means "we're making a statement here". I can understand if you'd say "I don't care about the political implications of the film", IMO that would be wrong but at least coherent. You could also try to nuance what I'm saying, by showing instances where the film tries to adopt a more objective view on the events, just like D&D is doing. But doing as if the film had no political implications is just weird.
And let me restate:
Just imagine you're an Iraqi and you watch American Sniper. You'd be really, really pissed off.
-
That being said, I've read a French review that makes some great points about the movie being far more ambiguous than I (and you) thought.
Do you guys see the killing of Mustafa as the moment Kyle loses sight of his mission, protecting soldiers (instead of killing enemies)? If that's the case, then the movie is exactly what I asked it to be. (apart from the portraying of Iraqis)
-
Just imagine you're an Iraqi and you watch American Sniper. You'd be really, really pissed off.
No more pissed off than a British person watching your favorite war film, The Patriot. I'm not sure the Iraqis are part of the target audience for American Sniper, but if such viewers there be, why do you seem to be suggesting that pissing off the audience is a bad thing? Isn't one of the aims of art to provoke?
-
No more pissed off than a British person watching your favorite war film, The Patriot.
;D The Patriot is a piece of shit and British people should have taken Gibson to court for this one. I guess they were afraid of losing another war.
I'm not sure the Iraqis are part of the target audience for American Sniper, but if such viewers there be, why do you seem to be suggesting that pissing off the audience is a bad thing? Isn't one of the aims of art to provoke?
I like provoking art. I'm less fond of art that spits on the weak. My dad always told me I wasn't raised to be a sheep and if I become a wolf he will kick my ass.
-
I will agree with n_l that the movie does risk drawing a straight line from 9/11 to Iraq. After the 9/11 scene, you have the wedding, then the SEALs get the cellphone calls, WE'RE AT WAR, which I assumed was Afghanistan, then boom, Kyle is back in Iraq. I absolutely can agree with an argument that they could have taken the extra step there, because the people who attacked us on 9/11 were not in Iraq.
On an unrelated note, I have a question for you, n_l: Would your opinions RE: the movie (i.e., RE: Kyle's heroism, the righteousness of Americans, the evilness of the enemy, etc etc etc) be different if Kyle had been deployed to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, but everything else in the movie remained the same?
-
N_l, why do you go halfway and give the movie a 5/10? Have the courage of your convictions and give the movie what it deserves, a 0/10 :P
-
Because a political stand isn't the only thing there is in a movie. It's a good film. Without the weird propaganda, it would be around 8/10.
-
hey DJ, goddamn French, right?
;)
-
So, nobody answered, but here is a possible way to see the story:
- Kyle is a good guy. A dog. He sheperds the weak.
- In Iraq, he's a great sniper. He kills enemies to protect the US troops.
- He progressively looses sight of his mission when he gets into a vendetta against the Syrian sniper: more and more, he's focused on killing that guy (instead of protecting his guys).
- When he takes the shot and finally kills the guy, the situation is more than ambiguous: he's just trying to save one guy, while endangering about 10 of them (they're surrounded by Iraqis). Some say "shoot", others say "don't." and here, the audience is supposed to wonder if that was a good call or not.
The decision was so tough he can abandon his weapon and has to go home right now.
He then erases every single "tough call" (the kid, the sniper) by becoming a guy who only helps veterans and don't kill anyone.
-
So? No opinion?
-
Reviews for American Sniper are here mostly bad or mediocre. (the film not the reviews)
-
Reviews for American Sniper are here mostly bad or mediocre. (the film not the reviews)
Reviews were mostly good to great here (average: 3.7/5) but when they were bad, they were really bad.
http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-208041/critiques/presse/#pressreview40020448
But more importantly, it has been #1 in box office for its first two weeks of exploitation, in front of 50 Shades of Grey, which gives some hope for the future of humanity (I'd rather live in a racist world than in a sexy Twilight one).
-
n_l,
We definitely are supposed to wonder about Kyle's actions; when he gets the sniper with that final shot, thereby giving away the location of him and the other SEALs, is he really doing it because that sniper "had eyes on our guys," or because it has become a personal thing? Is it worth it to kill that sniper and lead to that big battle at the end? Kyle is far from perfect. And as mentioned before, Kyle's insistence that "the letter is what killed him" is also supposed to make us ask ourselves whether or not Kyle is right. (btw, I think Eastwood himself, based on his comments at the Repuublican National Convention in 2012, is far from in favor of the Iraq War, and I think that those comments by Kyle are NOT supposed to be taken as a good thing.)
The movie certainly treats Kyle as a hero who is pretecting his country, but he's not infallible and it sure as hell is not racist. The enemy we are fighting are Arabs. The fact that we also have Arab allies is beyond the scope of the movie. The fact that most of the Arabs shown in the movie are bad people isn't saying most Arabs in the world are bad people. (It's not NOT saying that, either. It's not addressing that point.) But to try to look at it as objectively as I can, I will say that if I was a flaming liberal who hated the war, I can see how I wouldn't be able to see past that in judging the movie. I am not blaming you for your reaction. I just feel it's a shame that a good guy like you can't enjoy a good movie like this ;)
-
(btw, I think Eastwood himself, based on his comments at the Repuublican National Convention in 2012,
Nope. Never happened. Blondie never lost a debate against a chair. You're making things up.
-
American Sniper has made the most money in the USA of any 2014 release
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/american-sniper-passes-hunger-games-as-top-grossing-2014-release-1201448459/
‘American Sniper’ Passes ‘Hunger Games’ as Top Grossing 2014 Release
By Brent Lang
“American Sniper” is the highest-grossing 2014 domestic release.
The R-rated drama has made $337.2 million since debuting in a handful of theaters last December. That puts it ahead of “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1″ and its $336.8 million haul as the top film to debut last year.
With a budget of $58.8 million, the biopic of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle represents a substantial return on Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow’s investment.
“The heroic story of Chris Kyle just hit the zeitgeist,” said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros. distribution executive vice president. “It doesn’t matter your politics — it’s a story that just touched everybody personally.”
Globally, “American Sniper” won’t be able to match the $1.1 billion that “Transformers: Age of Extinction” pulled in, but it has been a robust performer, particularly given that films with patriotic subject matter don’t tend to travel well abroad. It has made more than $140 million in foreign markets.
“American Sniper” easily outstrips director Clint Eastwood’s previous releases, giving the 84-year-old the biggest hit of his career. It’s also star Bradley Cooper’s highest-grossing domestic release.
“American Sniper” is an unlikely blockbuster — there are no fantastical elements, and the film deals with the unpopular Iraq War, something that has been box office poison for pictures like “Rendition” and “In the Valley of Elah.” It also marks the first time since 1998’s “Saving Private Ryan” that a realistic drama and a R-rated film has been the top domestic release.
The film had its detractors, with some critics decrying the picture for whitewashing the life story of Kyle and for lionizing sharpshooters. However, the film played well in both red and blue states, with audience members responding to the film’s depiction of Kyle as a dedicated serviceman and hero.
“American Sniper” hadn’t even been scheduled for release last year. It was originally slated to debut in Christmas of 2015, but Eastwood finished editing the picture early.
“It was a brilliant film from a brilliant director,” said Goldstein. “All the stars aligned perfectly.”
-
Interesting point in the article in the previous post about AMERICAN SNIPER being the first realistic drama since SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to lead the domestic box office.
It's getting harder and harder to find realistic dramas. These days, whenever I go to the theater, it's all sci-fi/fantasy/post-apocalyptic stuff, or animated films. I don't watch any of that stuff.
A couple of years ago, I walked into the AMC in Times Square - a 25-screen multiplex - and couldn't find a single film that interested me. It was all that sci-fi or animated stuff, and a couple of comedies. I asked the girl behind the counter, "Are there any dramas?" to which she replied, "Do they make those anymore?"
(But Oscar winner are usually dramas (or "Drama/Comedies" like BIRDMAN) ).
Btw, while we are on the subject, what did y'all think of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? I saw it like 5 times (none in the past ten years), I thought it was a great movie. (Greatest WWII movie I have seen - unless you count CASABLANCA - though I can't say I have seen a ton of WWII movies. I am not counting SCHINDLER'S LIST, cuz although I have seen the whole thing in bits and pieces onn tv over the years, I never actually watched it straight, beginning to end. And I am not counting SHOAH, which is a whole different category; I could never compare a dramatization to a movie like SHOAH, a documentary which literally left me unable to sleep normally for a month and which haunted me for many many months after I saw it.)
-
SPR is a great movie. Just throw to the garbage the first and last 5 minutes and you almost get a 9/10.
It's hard to rate it with those really ridiculous scenes though. They're the first and last impressions you get from the movie.
The final battle is a bit of a letdown, also. It's well done and the buildup is great (with a lovely invisible extended shot only Spielberg can pull of) but it's mostly déjà vu at this point of the movie.
It's not in the league of Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now (best war film ever) and Full Metal Jacket (best ending in a war film) though.
-
I don't have a problem with the framing device in SPR. To me, the biggest problem is the PLOT - taking like 7 troops out of battle to trek across Europe looking for one dude, (in Shrek accent, "Like that's ever gonna happen!") that is something you have to be able to laugh at and not let bother you. Otherwise I felt it was basically perfect. (Again, I haven't seen it since high school - aka at the time I saw it, my favorite movie ever was THE PATRIOT :D - so I can't know how I'd feel if I saw it today.
Re: the other war movies you mentioned: I think DEER HUNTER is a 10/10, a great great movie. Maybe the greatest war movie ever. FULL METAL JACKET was very good, as was APOCALYPSE NOW, but I really don't agree with the deification of APOCALYPSE NOW. IMO it's a very good not great movie, and falls apart once Sheen enters Brando's compound. The Dennis Hopper character is so fucking cliche and not interesting; all those scenes at Brando's compound are annoying at worst, not up to par of the first 3/4 of the movie at best. How can the brief framing device on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN irritate you more than the last section of APOCALYPSE NOW, which takes up faaaaar more time? I really, really can't believe anyone who says they honestly feel that the movie doesn't take a serious turn for the worse once Sheen reaches Brando's compound. And no, the Ride of the Valkyries scene doesn't make up for that ;)
-
The ending of Apo Now is as great as the rest. It's simply beautiful. The ending of SPR is a bit idiotic.
Apo is 12/10
SPR is 8/10
Deer Hunter is 10/10
Full Metal Jacket is 8/10
Thin Red Line is 10/10
Come and See is 11/10
War is always fun to watch ... ;)
-
I give Patton a 9/10
But all these war movies we've been discussing are from the 1970's and later. What about the 1940's & 1950's war movies, about WWII and Korea? What do y'all think of movies like They Were Expendable, Battleground, etc.? (I haven't seen The Longest Day or The Sands of Iwo Jima.) I give They Were Expendable a 9/10, and Battleground a 7.5/10.
For purposes of these discussions, a "war movie" has to be largely about the armed forces; we are NOT including films about the civilian population during the war, or about returning soldiers recovering from war like The Best Years of Our Lives. And we are not including Casablanca ;)
-
Isn't there a war film thread?
Patton is 6/10, but only because Scott is really good in the lead.
-
I don't have a problem with the framing device in SPR. To me, the biggest problem is the PLOT - taking like 7 troops out of battle to trek across Europe looking for one dude, (in Shrek accent, "Like that's ever gonna happen!") that is something you have to be able to laugh at and not let bother you. Otherwise I felt it was basically perfect. (Again, I haven't seen it since high schol - aka at the time I saw it, my favorite movie ever was THE PATRIOT :D - so I can't know how I'd feel if I saw it today.
Re: the other war movies you mentioned: I think DEER HUNTER is a 10/10, a great great movie. Maybe the greatest war movie ever. FULL METAL JACKET was very good, as was APOCALYPSE NOW, but I really don't agree with the deification of APOCALYPSE NOW. IMO it's a very good not great movie, and falls apart once Sheen enters Brando's compound. The Dennis Hopper character is so fucking cliche and not interesting; all those scenes at Brando's compound are annoying at worst, not up to par of the first 3/4 of the movie at best. How can the brief framing device on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN irritate you more than the last section of APOCALYPSE NOW, which takes up faaaaar more time? I really, really can't believe anyone who says they honestly feel that the movie doesn't take a serious turn for the worse once Sheen reaches Brando's compound. And no, the Ride of the Valkyries scene doesn't make up for that ;)
SPR is based on the premise you don't like. It's all about finding this little part of humanity buried under all the atrocious things you'll find pain a war. It's the only point of the movie :)
The framing device of SPR isn't what bothers me, it's the way it's done. The cemetery, close up on the flag, bad acting, laughable way the guy falls on his knees... it's really everything the rest of the movie isn't (which means that it's a 1/10). I can forgive a bad scene in a movie, I cannot completely forgive a terrible one, let alone two of them, let alone the two most important scenes of a movie, let alone the fact that having a good opening scene is by far the easiest part of filmmaking.
There are two kinds of people. Those who hate Apocalypse Now ending and those who love it. I think it's ok. Certainly not as good as most of the first 2 thirds of the movie but still above most stuff I'll see on TV.
Still, yes, Apocalypse Now is as close to god as a film can be :) and yes the Walkyries scene would be enough to make up for pretty much anything. It's enough to make up for Coppola's films since 1995.
Stanton: FMJ is flawed enough to deserve the 8/10 you're giving. But the good parts are so good... Very few movies (and I mean less than 30) have achieved what this movie does with the Mickey Mouse song in the end. Very few movies (and I mean less than 15) have become the unbeatable reference for a particular kind of sequence (military training). So yes, it's a 8/10, but in many ways, it's a 20/10.
-
I like SPR, but for WWII films I like others better. The Bridge At Remagen, Sahara, The Train, A Walk in the Sun, Das Boot, and others.
-
I don't have a problem with the framing device in SPR. To me, the biggest problem is the PLOT - taking like 7 troops out of battle to trek across Europe looking for one dude, (in Shrek accent, "Like that's ever gonna happen!") that is something you have to be able to laugh at and not let bother you. Otherwise I felt it was basically perfect. (Again, I haven't seen it since high schol - aka at the time I saw it, my favorite movie ever was THE PATRIOT :D - so I can't know how I'd feel if I saw it today.
I always enjoy watching it with my dad, who points out how stupid everything the main characters do is.
-
I like SPR, but for WWII films I like others better. The Bridge At Remagen, Sahara, The Train, A Walk in the Sun, Das Boot, and others.
I wasn't a big fan of The Bridge at Remagen.
There is a movie called Les Maudits aka The Damned that was just released on BRD, first time it's ever been released on any format, I believe, since the original run in 1947 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039615/ I really love that movie; I don't think anyone else here has seen it besides DJ, who doesn't like it that much
-
Isn't there a war film thread?
I see there is a WWII Films thread http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6450.0
I am not sure if there is a general war films thread
-
Steelbook! http://www.target.com/p/american-sniper-steelbook-blu-ray-dvd-target-exclusive/-/A-17163077?lnk=Rec|pdp|viewed_viewed|pdpv1
-
Steelbook! http://www.target.com/p/american-sniper-steelbook-blu-ray-dvd-target-exclusive/-/A-17163077?lnk=Rec|pdp|viewed_viewed|pdpv1
funny that it's $24.99 – Target now gives free shipping for any order of at least $25 ;)
http://www.startribune.com/business/293682421.html
-
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_67/american_sniper_blu-ray.htm
But remember, this is also being offered as a steelbook (Target exclusive).
-
I hope for Drink's sake DVD Savant stays away from this one. :D
-
I hope for Drink's sake DVD Savant stays away from this one. :D
I never read Savant's page. Read it a few times years ago and never again. He can say whatever he wants and I won't even know it ;)
-
But remember, this is also being offered as a steelbook (Target exclusive).
So both versions are exactly alike except for the Target version being a steelbook and the other version being (to quote Beaver) a "standard Blu-ray case inside cardboard slipcase"? In other words, the physical case is the only difference between the two?
-
I have neither copy before me, but yes, that's my understanding.
-
B.O. data: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=americansniper.htm
-
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/whv-press-release-american-sniper-the-chris-kyle-commemorative-edition-blu-ray.346606/
Now we'll find out who on this board is a real patriot, and who is a French Surrender-Monkey.
-
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/whv-press-release-american-sniper-the-chris-kyle-commemorative-edition-blu-ray.346606/
Now we'll find out who on this board is a real patriot, and who is a French Surrender-Monkey.
I am NOT a patriot (I have no idea what that word means anyway). But I am a fan of good movies, and this is a good movie. And I still don't own any discs of it, so maybe i should get this new one? Does it have everything on the old one plus extras? Then may as well get this one ...
-
I am NOT a patriot (I have no idea what that word means anyway).
If you don't know what the word "patriot" means, how can you know that you are not one? On what do you base your assertion? Did you flip a coin?
-
If you don't know what the word "patriot" means, how can you know that you are not one? On what do you base your assertion? Did you flip a coin?
I know what people say the word means ("love of country," whatever the hell that means); but practically speaking, it's lately come to be a word seized by the right to mean "warmonger." Now some on the left are seizing it for their own purposes (Joe Biden infamously said that giving money you earn to the government to redistribute is "patriotic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc and the term "economic patriotism" has been used in trying to block corporate inversions).
So, no, I have no idea what the word really means, as it has come to mean nothing at all. But, whatever it does mean - if it means anything - it's probably not something I support.
Even if I do agree with using military force in a particular instance, it scares me how some on the Right question the patriotism of those who oppose a war, like they are "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican."
So the word means shit to me.
On the other hand, Chris Kyle was a great sniper, and Clint Eastwood made a great movie about his life, and it is great fun to watch, and I will probably buy what I hope is a great BRD ;)
-
So if I were to use "patriot" in a sentence--no matter what that sentence was--you'd immediately gainsay it?
Jenkins: "Movie-goers are economic patriots."
Drink: "The hell you say!"
Jenkins: "Assume that it's true."
Drink: "I'm never paying to see a movie again!"
OR
Jenkins: "Patriots get more pussy."
Drink: "The hell you say!"
Jenkins: "Assume that it's true."
Drink: [loud singing voice] "Ohhh, say can you see . . . ?"
-
I hope you buy the new Patriot version of American Sniper. Then maybe I'll get your unpatriotic hand-me-down. ;)
-
No, because I never bought the first one. I was waiting to get the special edition from Target which was a steelbook but I never found it in stores and I refused to pay what the scalpers wanted for it. So I was waiting for the price to drop. So now I don't have to. Yeah, I'll probably pick this new one up.
-
I hope you buy the new Patriot version of American Sniper. Then maybe I'll get your unpatriotic hand-me-down. ;)
I hope you buy the (ineluctably upcoming) Patriot version of The Patriot.
-
I hope you buy the (ineluctably upcoming) Patriot version of The Patriot.
I was waiting and waiting and waiting for that .... finally, you didn't disappoint me O0
-
So if I were to use "patriot" in a sentence--no matter what that sentence was--you'd immediately gainsay it?
Jenkins: "Patriots get more pussy."
Drink: "The hell you say!"
Jenkins: "Assume that it's true."
Drink: [loud singing voice] "Ohhh, say can you see . . . ?"
I was gonna say, "Then Patriots get pussy wearing MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" baseball caps, but thought better of it. And just now, she got ridda my ass - too many comments about Trump and herself being ignoramuses. Aren't I a charmer? ;)
hey, I knew from the first minute we were all wrong for each other. Anyone who can stand to be with me for a night, there's gotta be something wrong with. So, you make a notch in your belt and move on >:D
-
Next time we get together, I'll be sure to wear a Hazmat suit.
-
Oh well, she agreed to have drinks tonight.
Do me a favor, send me a text every hour to remind me, No Politics. :D
-
No politics, just sex.
(http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1455667872136/sites/telesur/img/news/2016/02/16/no_gaysx_no_muslims_in_us_in_trump_voters_dream_world.jpg_1810791533.jpg)
-
I brought her flowers, everything is smoothed over. Girls are such suckers. ^-^
On the train heading over to her, I saw a lesbian wearing a baseball cap that said MAKE AMERICA GAY AGAIN ;D
-
Dumb propaganda film with strong racist undertones. The directing of the individual scenes is not bad, but as a a whole it is also a dramaturgical mess. It was quite funny when 10 min before the end Kyle had out of nowhere suddenly a "problem" with his heroic killings. Cooper was quite good in the lead. All in all it was mostly entertaining. 5/10
-
The point of Hollywood movies is to entertain and make a show of the protagonist specialty. That this movie does. In fact the best part is the first scenes when we see how the sniper's job works, although I doubt that they wait for the Central (or whatever the name is) okays the killing of civilians (women, children) carrying a grenade. Then there's the confrontation with the Syrian sniper and the Butcher: some good scenes (but why they should wait for the guy who invites them to dinner to start fighting in the restaurant where the villains is unclear). And then there are the familiy scenes between tours which slows down the narrative. It is Hollywood's trick to give apparently depth to the story and I couldn't care less. Exactly as I don't care about why there's a war there: all I care about is the action, a particular type of it, and that should have the story concentrate itself on. So I give the movie a 7/10. BTW, the Malpaso touch is visible in the so fake belly of the pregnant wife: really a two-bit prop.