All the partisan crap about 'American Sniper'.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

You would be incorrect, good sir. Maybenot has it correct. Baby #1 was unavailable. Backup baby was also unavailable. Clint doesn't wait for anybody, so he used the doll because he's Clint, and he can do things like that. And reasons.

As for the movie: "based on a true story" is code for "we took some real stuff and then spiced it up to make more money." Why anybody watches a movie like this and somehow forgets that it's a MOVIE boggles my mind.

That being said, it's semi entertaining watching all the panties get in a twist.

Great review. I have family on both sides of the b.s. from super liberal to ultra conservative. One side calls him a murderer, the other calls him a hero. I call him an outstanding soldier with outstanding skills and followed his orders. He definitely saved more lives than he took. I don't have much to add besides the very brief tid bit of propaganda I caught while watching the movie. While he is at home on 9/11 the news is on. The camera cuts from the T.V. to the actors and in the background you hear the reporter say "There is no way this could be a controlled demolition." Out of the thousand upon thousands of soundbites from news sources that day, they chose that. It is still kind of bothering me.

a reply to: 1MrMarc

I agree with your thoughts ... it's not as bad as the far left is making it out to be and it's not as amazing as the far right thinks. I don't remember the 'not a controlled demolition' being reported on the TV screen during the movie ... If I ever watch the flick again I'll listen more carefully.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Much of the criticism seemed reflexive and were from persons and organizations that simply oppose a war started by the other party.

I've seen write ups from some on the far left saying that they are miserably unhappy about this movie making Kyle out to be a hero, and these people think he isn't one. That it leaves out some alleged negative events in his life.

I say ... so what?

same/same example - There are tons of movies and magazines and books and documentaries that were done about Martin Luther King Jr. They all focused on the good things he did and left out the fact that the 'good reverend' was a notorious womanizer and adulterer. MLK jr and his buddies were into white hookers and they'd slap them around. This is all documented much better than the alleged allegations against Chris Kyle, but the documentaries and books (etc) about MLK jr. all leave out the serial adultery and beaten up hookers.

The left never complains about the MLK jr documentaries not being complete.
But they whine about American Sniper not discussing the Kyle allegations.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
The baby scene makes me wonder, because Eastwood is clearly very experienced and put the scene in the movie. I highly doubt it was simply 'the best we can do' in such a big budget movie. I personally think he was making a statement about the connection between father and baby. Eastwood was trying to convey the fact that he is so far away from being present the baby could be a plastic doll and he wouldn't notice.

There is no doubt it was a statement by Eastwood. The scene was so obviously poor and not realistic whatsoever.

Nope no grand statement just a minor screw up.
Eastwood is famous for shooting fast on set.
Meaning he will do a few takes of a shot.
If they actors can't hit their marks in that time too bad.
Client is moving on to the next shot.

It's just a movie.

Every other hollywood flick ends up being "controversial" for some stupid reason or the other.

Feel it isn't accurate? Raise the damn $$$'s and produce and direct your own damn movie.

stupid # like this makes me wish yellowstone goes off so people have something real to fuss over.

originally posted by: rokkuman
It's just a movie.

There ya' go.
People are interjecting their own partisan nonsense into just a movie.

a reply to: FlyersFan


If it is just a movie then why do you have such a problem with people claiming things about it ??


So what should we conclude from this movie ??

That soldiers sent to a war that is not for the people have problems in their lives ??

What to do about it ? Nothing just feel bad for everyone !!

This movie does nothing to address the causes of any of it, and therefore becomes quite irrelevant.

And it shows in the throngs flocking to see it, in the end it is a polarizing film, as we can see by no one agreeing overall.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
If it is just a movie then why do you have such a problem with people claiming things about it ??

I don't like lies and manipulations. People are running around saying untruths about this film (both pro and con) and since we deny ignorance here, I'm posting the facts instead of emotional filled partisan rhetoric.

Just think if it was your autobiography, you might be rolling in your grave.

Enemy At The Gates was a better sniper movie. Also based on a true story. Made back when people still had what remotely resembled a brain for directing.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I wanted to hate this movie. I haven't seen it yet - all I've done is read about it - both pro and con

I read one review the other day that said some things pretty close to what you're saying here. That one review made me remember that the only way a person can determine what messages are waiting for them in art is to experience the art themselves personally

Reading other people's take on it is always fascinating. I love reading reviews and analysis of all things creative. I live to hear what other people are thinking

Guess I'm going to have to see this one now :-)

Don't actually want to - I'm getting too soft for war movies anymore. I don't shake them off as well as I used to

But, I'd like to determine for myself what the hell Eastwood is up to

a reply to: rokkuman

It's just a movie

This is definitely not true. It might be brilliant - it might suck, but it's touched a few nerves - and that makes it provocative

There aren't too many movies that provoke the kinds of conversations I've been seeing all over the internet lately

A shat movie is a shat movie & Americans havent seen a good movie in 15 years.

Good rant, OP

a reply to: Eunuchorn

And which one would that have been out of curiosity?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Great film! Loved it.

Particularly enjoyed seeing the irony of comments condemning a guy for killing people he professed to hate. If only he'd had some angst and guilt about their deaths, the detractors would have been happy. A sob scene would have placated them

Dead is dead and it hardly matters what sentiments are held by snipers. The dead don't care and war is defined by death.

Great acting and direction made a mundane plot trajectory easy to overlook.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

This is definitely not true. It might be brilliant - it might suck, but it's touched a few nerves - and that makes it provocative

It touches the nerves of people who don't have real things to worry about.

But then again, since America is a lovely perfect problem-free place its only normal that Americans have their nerves touched by something like, say, a movie.

a reply to: rokkuman

But then again, since America is a lovely perfect problem-free place its only normal that Americans have their nerves touched by something like, say, a movie.

What's the movie about?