American Sniper (2014)

[baumer]

Well, if Tele isn't around and all the poop continues, I'll just shut the thread down until he does get here.

 

This is a thread about how good or bad the movie is.  Not a thread about whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq.

[Phil in the Blank]

This is a political movie, at heart, that takes a specific stance on many things , whether Eastwood admits it or not . It requires political discussion .

As for the "it's not the same thing" when it comes to America's foreign policy and nazis just ask the people in the Middle East, the people in South America that had to endure some of the worst coupes the world has ever known which were funded by the u.s , even the people in Russia where the u.s along with their puppets in the European Union is trying to corner by basically occupating entire countries like Ukraine (I bet the media has convinced you that the people there want that even if the elections tell a different story and that Putin is the bad guy in this story) . Fun fact...at least 500 nazi supporters from Sweden were in the mob that wanted to throw the elected government in Ukraine a few months ago .

 

[Phil in the Blank]

To be fair though, some movies do need to be discussed in a political context. It's just thats impossible when Nazi's are brought up out of the blue.

[Wormhole]

A lot of the dialogue between Kyle and the other SEALs was clunky, and the script could have been a lot tighter. What was the point of the scene where Kyle was yelling at the nurse for not taking care of his daughter? There were a bunch of other little scenes that didn't do anything to develop the characters and/or further the plot.

 

The action is really solid, though. Eastwood does a great job of building tension in every war scene. And the cinematography is beautiful. Cooper deserves every award he's going to get, and the supporting cast wasn't bad. 

 

It does take political stands that I don't think I can get behind, though. I don't see how anyone can view this as an "anti-war" film -- to me, the film was sending a clear message that war is evil but necessary. Kyle's dad's "sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs" speech summed what I perceived to be the message of the film -- that those who are strong enough to protect those who are too naive to sense danger have a duty to do so. It doesn't spend enough time on Kyle's PTSD imo. The consequences of war don't seem to outweigh the benefits here. It felt very imperialist in nature to me.

 

I'll give it a B-. It's a good film. It's not without flaws, but it is a good film. But it's not a film that can be discussed in a vacuum. It is a political film. Too bad both sides go to such extremes with their arguments making civilized discussion pretty much impossible. 

[DAR]

I thought it was great and Cooper was tremendous. A

[DeeCee]

A lot of the dialogue between Kyle and the other SEALs was clunky, and the script could have been a lot tighter. What was the point of the scene where Kyle was yelling at the nurse for not taking care of his daughter? There were a bunch of other little scenes that didn't do anything to develop the characters and/or further the plot.

The action is really solid, though. Eastwood does a great job of building tension in every war scene. And the cinematography is beautiful. Cooper deserves every award he's going to get, and the supporting cast wasn't bad.

It does take political stands that I don't think I can get behind, though. I don't see how anyone can view this as an "anti-war" film -- to me, the film was sending a clear message that war is evil but necessary. Kyle's dad's "sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs" speech summed what I perceived to be the message of the film -- that those who are strong enough to protect those who are too naive to sense danger have a duty to do so. It doesn't spend enough time on Kyle's PTSD imo. The consequences of war don't seem to outweigh the benefits here. It felt very imperialist in nature to me.

I'll give it a B-. It's a good film. It's not without flaws, but it is a good film. But it's not a film that can be discussed in a vacuum. It is a political film. Too bad both sides go to such extremes with their arguments making civilized discussion pretty much impossible.

The yelling at the nurse was his PTSD manifesting. Like the scene with his son at the car place. It was to show his struggle in adapting to life back home. Edited February 8, 2015 by DeeCee

[DeeCee]

How do you know your media isn't feeding you lies ay?

 

And regardless of what you say, or how you spin it, American actions right now are not the same as the Nazi's during WW2. To even suggest that its the same just makes you look like a complete fool. Just give it a rest

He only reads Eleftherotypia.

[Wormhole]

The yelling at the nurse was his PTSD manifesting. Like the scene with his son at the car place. It was to show his struggle in adapting to life back home.

 

I got that message from the other scene you mentioned, but the nurse scene just seemed weird. The nurse did seem to be giving the other baby preferential treatment. At the time I thought that maybe it was meant to show that there are "wolves" everywhere, but the film didn't follow up on that message with anything else so I dropped that idea. It didn't seem all that PTSD-related to me.

[baumer]

It was PTSD.  He was coming undone.  Seemed pretty clear to me.

[Alpha]

[ShouldIBeHere]

I watched this again... if it was really meant to be one of the biggest anti-war movies since Apocalypse Now it failed, imho.

 

I mean, the events shown lead to anti-war conclusions for a lot of people, surely, but the movie doesn't do much to support that and simply doesn't shed enough light on both its protagonist as well as the country he operates in.

 

I am very much looking forward to this documentary:

 

 

Link

 

As one of its protagonists will be killed by an American Sniper by the end of the second part, this movie and the documentary might actually work together as an unconventional trilogy.

 

 

 

D

Edited February 17, 2015 by ShouldIBeHere

[Mulder]

8.5/10

 

I personally liked it. Not the best of the Oscar runners, but Bradley Cooper did a really good job and I liked the editing and pacing. I could easily see why someone wouldn't like this though.

[Jessie]

I watched this again... if it was really meant to be one of the biggest anti-war movies since Apocalypse Now it failed, imho.

 

I mean, the events shown lead to anti-war conclusions for a lot of people, surely, but the movie doesn't do much to support that and simply doesn't shed enough light on both its protagonist as well as the country he operates in.

 

I am very much looking forward to this documentary:

 

 

Link

 

As one of its protagonists will be killed by an American Sniper by the end of the second part, this movie and the documentary might actually work together as an unconventional trilogy.

 

 

 

D

 

No-one said it was the most anti war movie since Apocalypse Now, people just argued that it isn't 'pro war'

[ShouldIBeHere]

No-one said it was the most anti war movie since Apocalypse Now, people just argued that it isn't 'pro war'

 

Ah, yes. Several people read it as such. Google it.

[Jessie]

Ah, yes. Several people read it as such. Google it.

 

But did the film makers specifically say it was the most anti war movie since Apocalypse Now? Or is it just a bunch of random viewers that described the movie as that?

[terrestrial]

But did the film makers specifically say it was the most anti war movie since Apocalypse Now? Or is it just a bunch of random viewers that described the movie as that?

 

Not always it is the most important what the film makers said or not.

 

There are movies out there, where the common interpretation is the opposite of what the film makers meant to do with the material.

IMHO it is way too early after the release date to dismiss both, the film makers and the just beginning to form public opinion.... in different countries / cultures. See cult movies or opinions after some time ( 1 year to over 20 years later) changing. Or to dismiss a minority or....

[ShouldIBeHere]

But did the film makers specifically say it was the most anti war movie since Apocalypse Now? Or is it just a bunch of random viewers that described the movie as that?

 

 

 

“The biggest antiwar statement any film” can make is to show “the fact of what [war] does to the family and the people who have to go back into civilian life like Chris Kyle did,” Eastwood said during the Producers Guild Award Nominees Breakfast on Saturday.

 

“The cost is man, the toll is man, and it’s this man and every other soldier that fights,” Hall says. “If we understand that, maybe we won’t be so hasty into jumping into war, and if we understand that, maybe we’ll find a way of welcoming [veterans] home better.”

 

 

 

And other than that I agree with terrestrial. 

 

Furthermore, my criticism is not focused on whether it was meant to be "the biggest anti-war movie since AN" by the film-makers, I simply commeted on the recent discussions on several websites and magazines where the movie was sometimes called just that (or anti-war in general). 

 

Whether the biggest anti-war movie since AN, a mildly anti-war movie or an anti-war anything - it fails - IMHO - on all these levels by neither exploring Kyle enough, nor his "victims" (let alone the war itself). And because of that the movie just does not work for me and is - to say it mildly - problematic in its depiction of his protagonist.

Edited February 18, 2015 by ShouldIBeHere

[Jessie]

Going by what Eastwood said, it would seem that he set out to make an anti war movie. I don't see the need in twisting his words, he didn't say he was going to make the 'most anti war movie since AN' and imo he succeeded in making one. After all its not exactly hard to make an anti war movie.

To me American Sniper is an anti war movie shown through the eyes of a soldier who's grown up believing war is necessary. His family is what eventually make him back out and we follow him through the true horrors of war whilst he barely flinches due to his life experiences or his up bringing whilst the audiences (well me) feel very uneasy watching certain scenes.

Chris Kyle may have been portrayed to be slightly pro war imo but clearly the films message was entirely the opposite. It may not have been the most pro war movie ever lol, but it never said it was either.

[AniNate]

Well, if Tele isn't around and all the poop continues, I'll just shut the thread down until he does get here.

 

This is a thread about how good or bad the movie is.  Not a thread about whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq.

 

They're connected. It's a futile exercise to try to separate political discussion from that of a film that blatantly raises such debate. We ought to take it as a testament to the very real influence movies have on our culture and worldviews

[Blankments]

Yeah, this was easily the worst Best Picture nominee for me. Cooper is the sole good quality of the movie, but really, he’s just okay. The war scenes can be exciting, but 75% of the time they’re super dull and boring, but they’re still better than the hackneyed scenes at home which are absolutely terrible. Another thing the film does poorly is try to show Chris become more of an asshole when he goes to war, but he starts the movie off as that big of an asshole. In fact, he really only becomes likable in a few of the war scenes and the final ten minutes of the movie. Speaking of which, the final ten minutes of the movie are the only part that’s actively good, and someone deserves big money for deciding to have the end credits be absolutely silent. Otherwise, this was close to Unbroken shitty qualities for me. C