American Sniper (2014)

[CoolioD1]

Realization: "American Sniper" begins with Chris Kyle's dad giving him the "dicks/pussies/assholes" speech from "Team America."

— ToddInTheShadows (@ShadowTodd)

January 24, 2015

[DeeCee]

since when did jesse ventura not come off as a bit of a dick?

He continued a defamation lawsuit against Kyle's estate which basically meant he was suing a widow and her 2 kids. He's now launched another lawsuit against the publishing company for more money because he says the movie has brought everything up again.

None of this is in the movie.

Clearly for some reason Kyle came up with a lot of tall tales. Who knows why? Maybe it was some kind coping mechanism or he was just messed up.

[Alpha]

It was good, but it needed more 360 noscope.

[Jessie]

We can shit talk the hurt locker but it's the movie this movie wants to be but is too afraid to go the distance.

That's a load of crap, hurt Locker was a fucking bore, AS was the film they wanted it to be and it's most certainly paid off given the success. Hurt Locker made other countries military look bad in comparison to the US. A bunch if bomb disposal experts showing the SAS (the most well trained soldiers on the planet) how it's done lol.

There was nothing ballsy about that movie.

Edited January 25, 2015 by jessie

[mattmav45]

I've been a bit back and forth with this one, but a night of sleep has ultimately allowed me to come to a conclusion on this one.

 

The story here is of course focused on the "deadliest sniper in US history."  You know a film has reached hyperbolic status when the mere tagline is synonymous with the film itself.  A great amount of attention has been centered on the individual of Chris Kyle, and perhaps even a great amount has been put on the manner in which his story is told.  After a viewing, I have to say, at least in my opinion, the attention is misguided here.

 

I tend to try my best to put any biases behind me when I go into a viewing.  After all, it's always not about the story itself, but instead the way in which the story is told.  As such, my problems here aren't ultimately tied to any kind of controversial root, but rather simply think the story was downright bland in the manner in which it told the story of this individual.

 

I do not think Eastwood was trying to convey any kind of motive or internal biases here.  On the contrary, I think he told the story in a very neutral way.  There is a very distant and fact-based approach taken here regarding the life of Chris Kyle.  The positives that come with an approach like this is that the viewer can go in whatever direction they see fit as their interpretation.  My problem isn't this approach so much as it is the way the approach is handled.  It's not near controversial as some may make you believe, but is rather too ordinary to even warrant much, if any deep thought.

 

I appreciate the open-ended approach regarding the story, but I can't help but feel that the story itself is simply bland.  It is one thing to tell a story in this way, but it is quite another to not inject any personality and style to it.  Sure, a viewer can go in many different directions with this, but to me it's just not interesting enough to want to go down any particular path here.  It's told in such a bland and somewhat safe manner that my inner psyche followed suite in regard to the path I wanted to take with this.

 

After a viewing of a film, I always try to imagine what my thoughts may be in one year's time.  Unfortunately I have a hard time seeing this hold up much, if at all, during that time frame.

[luna]

I tend to try my best to put any biases behind me when I go into a viewing.

 

of course it reflects my political leanings. if anyone imagines they watch a film without any preconceived bias, they're deluding themselves. there is no such thing as 'neutral' or 'unbiased'.

[mattmav45]

I'm not simply "anyone" honey.

IMO.

Edited January 26, 2015 by mattmav45

[Leyla]

And that has a name, it's called "propaganda" wherein glossing over the troubling and negative aspects of the subject at hand to portray an imaginary version of reality in order to create or fuel into some collective ideal's cliche narrative (the sanctification of a heroic martyr fighting evil at the gates) relating to US geopolitical history.

 

What I think is that Eastwood and especially Bradley Cooper didn't really care about depicting the real Chris Kyle-the man in all his shades. No, they cherrypicked what they want (the sniper's mythical legend, the family man) and left all the controversial aspects in the proceedings to fit a classic Hollywood narrative in terms of biopic and american war movies specifically "the tough killing machine with a heart of gold torn between heroic duty and the burden of life far from his loved ones".

 

The rumors about Cooper crafting himself the movie in editing room don't surprise me. He wanted that juicy Oscar-bait role and from the sound of it, he tooled Chris Kyle into Tom Hanks in SPR, the humble ole all-american hero doing the job while missing homeland. No wonder everybody loves him in that movie as it fuels that fantasy.

if they dared to depict him like he is there wont be anything close to the highest grossing movie of 2014!

I really started to wonder how much a realistic movie abut that person would have grossed ... 

 

 

anyone who calls this antiwar needs to fuck off and watch COME AND SEE. honestly. now that's a movie without any bullshit heroism or vile racism.

im glad someone mentioned this/watched this. Should be more ppl

 

 

I guess I didn't get it or got it wrong.

 

3/10 D

u got it right

 

 

I did not care for his performance at all. Michael Keaton from Birdman deserves the win much more

well there were lots of better performances this year

safe to say 3 best performances are not even in the Oscar 5 imo - Fieness, Jake & Oyelowo

Edited January 26, 2015 by Lady of Lorien

[Jessie]

Anyone saying this movie isn't anti war is simply a fucking idiot

[JohnnyGossamer]

 

well there were lots of better performances this year

safe to say 3 best performances are not even in the Oscar 5 imo - Fieness, Jake & Oyelowo

 

Yeah... Those three along with Hardy for either Locke/Drop and Keaton for Birdman would make my list.

Edited January 26, 2015 by JohnnyGossamer

[baumer]

Anyone saying this movie isn't anti war is simply a fucking idiot

 

Only liking this post because I know it's in response to Lisa's post telling us that we are fucking idiots for thinking it is an anti war film.

[Jessie]

Only liking this post because I know it's in response to Lisa's post telling us that we are fucking idiots for thinking it is an anti war film.

You got it

[Jessie]

Yeah... Those three along with Hardy for either Locke/Drop and Keaton for Birdman would make my list.

I'm still surprised Hardy has yet to receive an Oscar nomination.

[Phil in the Blank]

of course it reflects my political leanings. if anyone imagines they watch a film without any preconceived bias, they're deluding themselves. there is no such thing as 'neutral' or 'unbiased'.

 

I realise that Lisa and I wasn't implying that anyone watches a film without any preconceived biases. What I attempting to say was that this movie seems to show us what a persons preconceived biases are, rather than expose any particular political leanings of AS. I think its also important to note that good criticism of art also requires reflective thinking about what biases you have that makes you feel the way that you do. 

 

This film makes no statement on the Iraq War. It does not label all Iraqi's as evil. Obviously its anti-war 'kick' comes from only one side. Of course there is no comment on American atrocities. None of that has anything to do with what this film is actually about which is a character study on an American soldier who fights in that war. It would be like if a movie was made of a character study a german soldier around the battlefield in World War 2 and then getting upset that it doesn't portray the suffering of the Jews. That kind of thing just has no place in the film's mission statement and I feel it is ridiculous to expect it to address those concerns. 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I realise that Lisa and I wasn't implying that anyone watches a film without any preconceived biases. What I attempting to say was that this movie seems to show us what a persons preconceived biases are, rather than expose any particular political leanings of AS. I think its also important to note that good criticism of art also requires reflective thinking about what biases you have that makes you feel the way that you do. 

 

This film makes no statement on the Iraq War. It does not label all Iraqi's as evil. Obviously its anti-war 'kick' comes from only one side. Of course there is no comment on American atrocities. None of that has anything to do with what this film is actually about which is a character study on an American soldier who fights in that war. It would be like if a movie was made of a character study a german soldier around the battlefield in World War 2 and then getting upset that it doesn't portray the suffering of the Jews. That kind of thing just has no place in the film's mission statement and I feel it is ridiculous to expect it to address those concerns. 

I agree about biases. That's why a film with little actual controversy in presentation and execution has drummed up so much controversy. The film itself doesn't say much of anything about anything, including the titular sniper. That's why it's so dull for some in this review thread. That's why it offended my film taste. Such a juicy person to make a biopic about... And what I got, aside from the fact that he justifiably executed a woman and a child to save his guys, was pretty dried out trope.

Edited January 26, 2015 by JohnnyGossamer

[Phil in the Blank]

I've thought about it a bit over the past couple of days and I have decided that its not a particularly great film. The editing between home and Iraq is a little bit choppy. It has obvious 'hollywoody' type elements like the phone calls home during sniping or even the rival sniper himself.  Ultimately however it just seemed rather bland and safe. Probably helps explain why this movie has hit such BO numbers.

 

One change to the movie that would have instantly made the film better to me would had been if he had more or less instantly killed the child as soon as he picked up the Rocket Launcher. I think it would had shown a nice progression between when we first saw him as a sniper in Iraq where he waited till the last possible moment to kill women/children, to the battle hardened more 'psychopathic' person that war has made him become. Much like Han shooting first, I think this change would have helped made his character much more interesting to me. 

 

But interesting is not how you make 400M+ I guess.

[DeeCee]

I wonder what kind of movie we would have got if he hadn't have been killed.  We might have had a very different exploration of his character.

[Noctis]

The more I think about the film, the more it bothers me. I'm gonna watch it again soon since I've read the book.

[Jessie]

The more I think about the film, the more it bothers me. I'm gonna watch it again soon since I've read the book.

Haha damn this movie, I need to fund it's success more to truly hate it with a passion

[Noctis]

Clint Eastwood said that it's the most anti-war film ever.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Please, Clint, shut your fucking mouth.