American Sniper - Bradley Cooper - Clint Eastwood Dir

Otacon

Looper007 wrote: »

To anyone who has seen American Sniper with some of the reviews on here a bit sniffy. Do you think this could have been a better film in the hands of a younger director rather that of Clint Eastwood?

I don't think his age has anything to do with it.

I do believe that someone with a different set of political views would have been more critical of Kyle and the US in general though. Whether that would have made for a better film is anyone's guess.

I enjoyed it myself.

ktulu123

errlloyd wrote: »

In the book he describes it completely differently. It's not a kill against his Major Koenig style arch enemy sniper, he was just taking down a random guy with an rpg.

You are correct, sorry! His longest kill was actually the RPG guy that was apparently going to shoot it at a US convoy.

Shiraz 4.99

It was OK, I can see the Hurt Locker, Green Zone Comparisons.
What all these movies do is reinforce what a great movie Black Hawk Down was & has sadly been overlooked in this genre.

errlloyd

Looper007 wrote: »

To anyone who has seen American Sniper with some of the reviews on here a bit sniffy. Do you think this could have been a better film in the hands of a younger director rather that of Clint Eastwood?

In as much as age influences politics and a younger director would probably have been less "murica" yeah it would have made a little bit of a difference.

The actual movie I guess has an old style to it, Eastwood isn't trying anything new, again a young director might have. Maybe other posters disagree but to me the movie was paced a lot like enemy at the gates. Obviously enemy at the gates had no background story really.

I guess it should be described as a pure war movie. Like the before mentioned black hawk down (although certainly not as good).

dreamers75

Looper007 wrote: »

To anyone who has seen American Sniper with some of the reviews on here a bit sniffy. Do you think this could have been a better film in the hands of a younger director rather that of Clint Eastwood?

I think an unbiased movie on his life rather than the book being a movie would have been much better.

antodeco

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was quite good. Some nice cinema scenes and I think if you are a COD/Batllefield gamer, you will appreciate it!

I felt the end of it was a little abrupt. It just kinda went nowhere. I dont know if that was done purposely based on what happened or not.

Ole Rodrigo

Taken on its own terms its a good film. Everything you would expect of Eastwood. Bradley Coopers performance is quite good too.

However it doesn't satisfactorily broach on the nature of Kyles bloodthirstiness . Where is the line between a heroic patriot and a reviled serial killer? Can there be an overlap ? This is something that occurred to me and most have occurred to Clint Eastwood at some point, although his politics might have made it easy to resolve. Having a stern father teach you to protect what you hold dear at all costs is a weak explanation for such guilt free wholesale killing. Its interesting that in the film his PTSD is centered around being attacked rather than any acts he committed himself. A few hundred kills and not a blip on his conscience.

Honey Monster

I think a lot of people are confusing a good story with a good movie. The story of this guy is a great one, a controversial one...the movie however plainly taken as a movie is terrible. It's all over the place. The action just doesn't grip you. The whole thing is just...Murica, guns, USA USA USA.. Maybe because Eastwood directs.

FloatingVoter

It is a movie about a man who was good at shooting things. He did not have deep inner conflicts about America's place in the world. The subject of the movie drew a paycheque for doing what he was good at and justified it by humming the national anthem. While ignoring the humdrum crap that makes heroes of people they'll never make movies about...like fatherhood.
If Clint had made him a Proust reading, poetry spouting intellectual he would have delivered a lie. Like it or lump it, professional killers tend not to come with doctorates in philosophy.
Of all directors, I wouldn't throw jingoism at Clint - he did Flags of Our Fathers / Letters From Iwo Jima.....he could have just done the first and made a mint. The man can see both sides of a tale. The western made him and he unmade it with Unforgiven. It would surprise me if the tale of Bradley's alter ego isn't in development. I'm an awkward bastard, so is Clint...that'd be my next move.
It beats talking to empty chairs and screwing with Republicans.

Brien

I don't think anyone mentioned here that Kyle was one of the producers on the film (largely in name only). It was never going to criticise him harshly, or stray from the book it is based on. The book was very 'Murica, fúck yeah. The film took only what was filmable and in my opinion missed all its beats from attitude and reaction that could have been possible by exploring the war further. My biggest criticism is how little the film focused on actual sniping or the "relationship" with his gun, and the thinking and methodology behind shooting.
Cooper is excellent though and it is worth watching for the most part.

thegreengoblin

I thought this was alright but could have been so much better. Cooper's performance is by far the best thing about the film.

I know we were always going to be in for the 'USA, USA' thing but some of it was hard to stomach. For example, we see the Twin Tower attacks, Kyle's reaction and before you know it he's off to Iraq to help take out the sunovvabitches who were responsible for the attacks. Except of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So did Chris Kyle just play along with the whole thing and just do his dooty for his country without asking questions or expressing doubts? I'd be interested to hear what he had to say about it in his book.

Eastwood can turn around and say that it's a study of human frailties rather than a war film as such and maybe he would have a point. But I think to ignore the politics when it was so central to it all lets the film down in the end.

TheDoc

Really enjoyed this film. I'm fairly familiar with the individual, reading a lot of stuff about him before I'd heard of the movie going ahead.

There was obviously a very specific reason as to why they omitted the very real character trait this man had. Many would have refered to him as a bit of a lunatic. He had some very contrived and contraversial views. But he had immense pride, a massive sense of patriotic duty, and while millions looked on a terrorist attack as awful, he took it to his very heart and was very much wanting to pay it back. Like so many in fairness.

I think leaving that out kind of ommits the true value as to why he kept going back. From watching the film we get the sense that he is struggling to adapt to civilian life, and you can piece it together. But it never REALLY outlines or explains his reasons for returning tour after tour. Your kinda left assuming why, but by ommiting such a large part of his character and personality, I feel it actually does a diservice.

Overall enjoyed it immensely and thought it was an excellent film. While many would disagree with his opinions and his ideals, and plenty of people would disagree with celebration or popularising soldiers ( or murders if you are on that side of the fence) but I always find the time for, and appreciate, when men and woman who do extraordinary things in war are remembered and their stories are told.

TheDoc

errlloyd wrote: »

I'm holding back from seeing this, because honestly from what I have read the real guy was a murderous thug. A man who seemed to hunt humans as a game and took enjoyment from killing them.

So to people who have seen it, does this movie glamorise and celebrate his life, or is there an element that criticises it?

The film omits that entirely. But then again the screenplay was an adaptation of his book. Kyle's controversial opinions and beliefs arose after this book were published, and were somewhat quashed heavily in the wake of his death as it was viewed as disrespecting someone the military should celebrate, and rightly so.

I don't buy anyone saying this is a big propaganda piece for "Merica". This was a man with an unrelenting sense of patriotism, something to be quit frank most people lack on the most basic of levels. Something for example we simply can't quantify in my opinion.

I'm not a defender of his or anything, but it's worth noting that he was not once sighted for breaking rules of engagement or using excessive or incorrect force.

There is a very brief scene where Cooper is being questioned by what we assume are SEAL officers or Military MP. The scene is very brief in raising a question over a confirmed kill, but ends as quick as it starts in with him being cleared of any wrongdoing.

Significant in that Kyle was interviewed on numerous occasions querying his use of force, and he had frequently dispensed with the opinion at how the military asking him to justify killing targets was the reason this war was taking so long. He felt judgement of dispensing force should be provided by him and him alone, as he's the one looking down the barrel.

TheDoc

thegreengoblin wrote: »

I know we were always going to be in for the 'USA, USA' thing but some of it was hard to stomach. For example, we see the Twin Tower attacks, Kyle's reaction and before you know it he's off to Iraq to help take out the sunovvabitches who were responsible for the attacks. Except of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So did Chris Kyle just play along with the whole thing and just do his dooty for his country without asking questions or expressing doubts? I'd be interested to hear what he had to say about it in his book.

While Afghanistan was the main focus for "retribution" for 9/11, as part of the war on Terror, Hussain and Iraq were targeted on the grounds of "holding weapons of mass destruction" and a preventative measure to ensure a 9/11 never happened again.

I'd imagine that the development of that sequence assumes the viewer understands where Iraq comes into the equation. But it's a fair point, that's not obvious to viewers who might not know that already. Took me a minute or two to register myself.

Wailin

Disappointed I have to say, and was really looking forward to it. But should have known better with Eastwood directing, do not rate him much at all. Lone Survivor and Hurt Locker are far superior films.

Gregk961

I actually found the American propaganda angle to be bearable. Sure it didnt portray any Iraqis in even a slightly sympathetic light, but I dont think it glorified killing either. The film is based on an American soldiers autobiography so was never going to be unbiased by any stretch of the imagination.

My main gripe would be why Clint chose to show off Kyle as an almost shy man who was uneasy with his fame and notoriety and whose legacy was forced on him. In reality nobody promoted Kyle more than himself and we probably wouldn't have a clue who he is if he hadn't bragged about his kill count as he did. It is a shameless tactic to make the man more likable than he was in reality.

I think the action scenes were excellent and cant understand an earlier poster who didnt feel the tension, a few sequences had my heart on the brink of failure.

Overall as an Action/War film it delivers, probably fails to as a character study or a realistic recreation of the war in iraq. Obvious comparisons with the Hurt Locker but it does fall quite a bit short as a story, which in fairness had the huge advantage of a womans touch for a fresh angle.

UrbanFret

Hard to believe that the man who was supposed to be watching over his unit would suddenly decide fcuk this I'm going down to do a bit of door to door with them.:eek:

CatFromHue

If you block out the truth (i.e. you accept that all Iraqi's are bad guys) it's a pretty good film.

A simple story but very watchable all the same.

MightyMandarin

Good film. I thought Kyle was portrayed in a very good light as a modest hero infatuated by his love for America, which by many accounts was not entirely true. Having read some reviews before, I expected a blaze of glory, 'ooh rah 'Merica' feeling. I was quite surprised however as I found it quite the opposite. While Kyle seemed to evoke this type of feeling, it seemed as though everybody else, especially his family, did not see things like this. I also liked the honesty shown in portraying Kyle's struggles to adjust back to society and problems at home. Although there was some bullsh*t, I thought the film was a good military film; although I would've liked to see more about Kyle's role as a sniper. Maybe not as good as the hurt locker, but Bradley Cooper's performance alone made it worthy of good reviews.

Value Hunter

Whatever you'll say about the film, I think walking out after 20 minutes is completely ridiculous.

FloatingVoter

Value Hunter wrote: »

Whatever you'll say about the film, I think walking out after 20 minutes is completely ridiculous.

I think he meant he hit the pause button and walked out to have a calming cup of tea.

lukin

Saw this last night. Like others I expected it to be "Americuh F### yeah!" and there was a bit of that in it but not too much. I don't know a lot about Kyle, I hadn't actually heard of him until this movie but he seemed to be quite a conflicted individual. He knew he was saving the lives of his fellow soldiers by doing what he was doing but he still had moments of guilt

(like at the start when he said "get your hands off of me" when his friend congratulated him after he shot the kid with the grenade)

Also he didn't like the attention as he got embarrassed when that guy in the garage came up to him and thanked him. The "duel" he had with the Syrian guy was too much of a rip-off of "Enemy At The Gates" (a far superior sniper film but one with a lot of fictional stuff). In fact this part of American Sniper was fictional too. In reality Kyle only mentioned that sniper once in the book and he never had a rivalry with him. He was eventually killed by another American sniper, not Kyle.
I found the lovey-dovey scenes with him and Sienna Miller quite boring and switched off during them. I understand why Eastwood had to put them in though. The PTSD stuff Kyle had while at home was what we've seen in other war films too so it was a bit meh.
It was a bit of cross between Black Hawk Down and The Hurt Locker (two films I really like). I still enjoyed it though as the scenes in Iraq were brilliantly done.
As an aside, I liked the part in the Irish bar at the start of the movie (where Kyle met his wife) where there were GAA jersey's on the wall behind Bradley Cooper (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205641024495963&set=p.10205641024495963&type=1). Great to see the Cork jersey there.

Psychedelic

Soldier does soldier stuff, I didn't really get anything beyond that. A soldier goes to Iraq a few times, kills lots of people, has the usual marriage problems, some mildly tense scenes, he comes home and then at the end

we get a fade to black with a note that he was killed.

Not a bad film but it just felt very plain and without any depth.

errlloyd

I kinda decided I wouldn't post here again. But Seth Rogen (of all people) tweeted that the movie reminded him of the Nazi propaganda film in Inglorious Basterds. That is exactly how I feel.

CatFromHue

errlloyd wrote: »

I kinda decided I wouldn't post here again. But Seth Rogen (of all people) tweeted that the movie reminded him of the Nazi propaganda film in Inglorious Basterds. That is exactly how I feel.

That's a very ballsy thing to do for an American!

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

That's a very ballsy thing to do for an American!

Nonsense, absolutely nothing ballsy about what Rogan said and he's not even the first person to make the comparison.

Rented Mule

CatFromHue wrote: »

That's a very ballsy thing to do for an American!

Even if they're Canadian ?

Burgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwAcU0bYl0

nyarlothothep

I thought the politics of the film were ambivalent in the sense that in certain scenes, whether by accident or design the Americans appeared like an occupying colonial force. For example, when they raid the family's home I thought the overuse of force and shouting was redolent of that case about 15 years ago with the Swat team, Emile Gonzalez I think. Another scene would be where the townsfolk come out onto the streets and they retreat, they are shown to be a foreign, occupying force, not liberators or spreaders of democracy by any means. Also the film does a good job of showing that war sucks, it's not glorious at all, this would be apparent when Kyle's brother says f this place or when Kyle himself returns after the fourth tour. I think the standout scene is when he's at the barbeque and goes mental, that was a perfect demonstration as to how war can dehumanise people, he was still in that zone of kill or be killed, not in the nice, gentle surroundings where he was out place due to the effects of combat stress.

That being said I can definitely see how it could be regarded as propaganda, though it was relatively subtle rather than overt. It wasn't exactly legitimising the war in Iraq, if anything it was showing how it's unnecessary given the fallout it leads to. I thought the battle scenes were really well done, it was a fairly grinding film compared to something like Fury which for all its gore/violence was an adventure yarn.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I just seen the movie this evening.. From my perspective, as a soldier with 30 yrs (and counting) service and a number of tours of duty in Lebanon I can honestly say this is one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time.

Fantastic, I loved it. Highly recommended, I'll almost certainly watch it again.

cloud493

I didn't... get it really. Like in Iraq, the whole thing was '**** yeah America' but then when he got home, he had PTSD. The theme seemed to be pro war.

GBXI

Excellent film.

Gimme this over Boyhood or Foxcatcher any day!

e_e

I try to see the best picture nominees ever year but absolutely nothing about this film is enticing me to go see it. Eastwood for me is a workmanlike director at best and I'm still not certain he's capable of tackling this subject in any thoughtful, challenging or at least interesting way. I'd like to be convinced otherwise.

TheDoc

e_e wrote: »

I try to see the best picture nominees ever year but absolutely nothing about this film is enticing me to go see it. Eastwood for me is a workmanlike director at best and I'm still not certain he's capable of tackling this subject in any thoughtful, challenging or at least interesting way. I'd like to be convinced otherwise.

Unfortunately being a modern war film, there is a lot of unfair critique from sectors that simply put have agendas with this theater of war.

I really struggle to see how people describe it as being propaganda and the likes.

Unbiased critics that I tend to lean towards( and I don't normally head critics) have labelled this one of his best works, and I kinda appreciate why.

This film doesn't try justify the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't try explain why America went there, or any macro level stuff. This is very simply a film about the unwanted propulsion of a solider to legendary status, his dedication to his brother in arms, and unwavering patriotism.

And I guess for the military enthusiasts, is an insight into one of the most lethal infantry personal since the second world war.

unfortunately too many of these films get unfair/biased critique from quarters who go into these films with a preconception and prejudice against the theater of war in question.

Corholio

TheDoc wrote: »

Unfortunately being a modern war film, there is a lot of unfair critique from sectors that simply put have agendas with this theater of war.

I really struggle to see how people describe it as being propaganda and the likes.

Unbiased critics that I tend to lean towards( and I don't normally head critics) have labelled this one of his best works, and I kinda appreciate why.

This film doesn't try justify the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't try explain why America went there, or any macro level stuff. This is very simply a film about the unwanted propulsion of a solider to legendary status, his dedication to his brother in arms, and unwavering patriotism.

And I guess for the military enthusiasts, is an insight into one of the most lethal infantry personal since the second world war.

unfortunately too many of these films get unfair/biased critique from quarters who go into these films with a preconception and prejudice against the theater of war in question.

I'd be of the opinion that if you are going to tell a story about specific person then you need to tell everything that's core to the character involved, the amount that the film leaves out is unforgivable to be honest. The film itself isn't bad but at times it does throw on the stars and stripes cape. I think criticism of the film doesn't have to be just about whether they agree with war etc, I have seen quite a few reviews that don't even mention that. I wouldn't call it propaganda as such, just bubblegum over the top Americanism at times.

The film is doing unbelievable numbers in the US. Make of that what you will.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

I try to see the best picture nominees ever year but absolutely nothing about this film is enticing me to go see it. Eastwood for me is a workmanlike director at best and I'm still not certain he's capable of tackling this subject in any thoughtful, challenging or at least interesting way. I'd like to be convinced otherwise.

Calling eastwood workmanlike is a bit harsh. I like his style of directing, its like a no frills, clean style of filmmaking. Same thing comes across in the music he writes too.

I feel like he is just trying to tell simple stories, as he values the simple emotions and straightforward familiar scenarios as the most intriguing. I think it mirrors a lot of his acting performances. He likes a mans man, and the black and white things a man deals with much of his filmmaking is about the old fashioned man (mentality) and how he deals with the more regular stuff in life.

I didn't feel like this movie was propaganda at all. It showed the typical life of a US Vet and the effect on his family and personal life. To me it showed the almost ignorance of those guys, where they just dont know any better. I dont mean that in a bad way, because I'm sure its very easy to get patriotic and want to go to war if you believe your country is under threat. Perhaps propaganda if your not the sharpest viewer, and end up believing going to war as a sniper is cool, but for me it just highlighted the divide between the soldier who thinks he's doing the right thing for his people and protecting his country and the people who make the decisions.

When looking at the US army, its hard not to respect those guys who will go to war, are so patriotic, and will put their lives at risk for the good of their country, but there is a certain naivety about it all, and I think Clint delivered this message too in a subtle way.

dashdoll

I really enjoyed this. I can definitely see why people would view it as pro war but I think that it clearly shows the realities of young people going to war and that a lot of young men who enlisted after 9.11 probably didnt realise what they were letting themselves in for and were a little naive about the whole thing.

Thought Bradley Cooper was brilliant in it but I think it might be a little too controversial for the Academy to award him for this film.

Anyway, I saw this in the cinema last night (in Ireland) and when it ended as it shows

the footage from Chris Kyle's funeral

, there was a huge round of applause from the audience. I had never experienced that in a cinema in Ireland before...I assume this is probably happening a lot at screenings in the US for patriotic reasons but was a little stunned to see it happen here.

Harry Palmr

Just looking at the box office reports - its starting to set all sorts of (inflation unadjusted) figures for a R rated film and is really annoying Guardian readers. Looks like Eastwood won't be retiring any time soon.

Copa Mundial

I saw this last night, thought it was absolutely brilliant. It is one of those films that you need to see in a cinema to get the full effect, IMO.

Will almost certainly watch it again at some stage.

stanley1

worst film i have seen in ages, Malpaso Production, typical Clint Eastwood flag waving propaganda.

OldeCinemaSoz

" A good man has always gotta know HIS LIMITATIONS....."

GreNoLi

Don't know why I expected something more subversive, the trailer had the best scene in the film... minus the killing of the loveable scamp with the grenade.

Busted Flat.

John Wayne in the Green Berets, after film was realised, the green berets were disgraced for dropping prisoners of war in Vietnam out of helicopters to their deaths.

Stallone what can anyone say about that clown in Afghanistan.

This murderous spoof will go the same route.

One more point they had Superman when people liked to look at kids movies.

Honey Monster

GBXI wrote: »

Excellent film.

Gimme this over Boyhood or Foxcatcher any day!

Go watch whiplash. Come back.

Amazingfun

dashdoll wrote: »

I really enjoyed this. I can definitely see why people would view it as pro war but I think that it clearly shows the realities of young people going to war and that a lot of young men who enlisted after 9.11 probably didnt realise what they were letting themselves in for and were a little naive about the whole thing.

Thought Bradley Cooper was brilliant in it but I think it might be a little too controversial for the Academy to award him for this film.

Anyway, I saw this in the cinema last night (in Ireland) and when it ended as it shows

the footage from Chris Kyle's funeral

, there was a huge round of applause from the audience. I had never experienced that in a cinema in Ireland before...I assume this is probably happening a lot at screenings in the US for patriotic reasons but was a little stunned to see it happen here.

Glad to hear that...made me happy

arybvtcw0eolkf

dashdoll wrote: »

Anyway, I saw this in the cinema last night (in Ireland) and when it ended as it shows

the footage from Chris Kyle's funeral

, there was a huge round of applause from the audience. I had never experienced that in a cinema in Ireland before...I assume this is probably happening a lot at screenings in the US for patriotic reasons but was a little stunned to see it happen here.

That's interesting.

The only time I seen an audience applaud in Ireland was at the end of Richard Attenborough's Cry Freedom.

Honey Monster

Is this the most polarising movie ever?
I absolutely hated it...detested it...and then I read that people applauded it in the cinema?

SantryRed

I don't see the US propaganda that people talk about this movie showing at all. Just shows the mentality behind war, and the Iraqi war in particular.

MojoRisinnnn

One of the worst films I've seen in a longtime, after also recently watching Nightcrawler, Whiplash and Birdman this doesn't even come close to their level. Garbage

Honey Monster

MojoRisinnnn wrote: »

One of the worst films I've seen in a longtime, after also recently watching Nightcrawler, Whiplash and Birdman this doesn't even come close to their level. Garbage

My thoughts exactly. I can't understand why it's been nominated for best picture. Compared to the films mentioned above its absolute drivel.