The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)

[Gorrath]

the best thing about American Sniper is the butthurt it caused first by it's sheer existence and then the even bigger one by it's record breaking success

Seriously, it was extremely satisfying seeing Bob cram Palin in there, his sheer butthurt was the sole reason I watched this review.

If turning a lying racist into a hero is your idea of good time.

One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.

No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.

You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.

I think it's pretty disgusting that you compare the likes of Vasily Zaytsev & Lyudmila Pavlichenko with Chris Kyle. They were defending their country from invasion not invading anthers to shoot women and children.

If you're going to play games here, I don't want any part of it. Your initial complaint was that his hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back is what made him lack valor. I merely pointed out that some very valorous people used those same tactics, so don't come back at me with some righteous indignation over the comparison when it directly addresses the flaw in your own point. I have no interest in engaging in conversation if you're going to be disingenuous.

That said, your new point is also vapid. Suggesting that Chris Kyle invaded another country so he could shoot women and children is naive, obnoxious or both. The man earned a lot of criticism through his post-war comments and apparent padding of his biography. That's why I dislike him even though I served in the same dirt with the guy. But to deny that he was valorous under fire and through extreme circumstances while painting him as a mere murderer of women and children demonstrates a total lack of understanding of war or valor. I don't find your opinion to be well informed or even sympathetic. If you've some compelling reasoning behind it, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

If you're going to play games here, I don't want any part of it. Your initial complaint was that his hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back is what made him lack valor. I merely pointed out that some very valorous people used those same tactics, so don't come back at me with some righteous indignation over the comparison when it directly addresses the flaw in your own point. I have no interest in engaging in conversation if you're going to be disingenuous.

That said, your new point is also vapid. Suggesting that Chris Kyle invaded another country so he could shoot women and children is naive, obnoxious or both. The man earned a lot of criticism through his post-war comments and apparent padding of his biography. That's why I dislike him even though I served in the same dirt with the guy. But to deny that he was valorous under fire and through extreme circumstances while painting him as a mere murderer of women and children demonstrates a total lack of understanding of war ore valor. I don't find your opinion to be well informed or even sympathetic. If you've some compelling reasoning behind it, I'd be glad to hear it.

I don't really care what you're here to do. The fact is Chris Kyle was part of an invasion force from a country which outspent it's victim by billions of dollars, there was nothing valorous about that war, not a single thing. Another fact: Chris Kyle did hide on rooftops, this is part of his role as a sniper. Another fact: Chris Kyle shot women and children, he might not have wanted to do this but that's what happened.

I don't have any "righteous indignation", I just think you are missing some context when you compare Chris Kyle to people who were defending their homes. Chris Kyle wasn't defending his home he was invading someone else's. A more apt analogy would be Chris Kyle is like Josef Allerberger.

One last fact for you to chew on. There is nothing valorous about killing people for money. To quote Herbert Spencer: ?When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don?t care if they are shot themselves.?

http://praxeology.net/HS-FC-20.htm

 

[Gorrath]

I don't really care what you're here to do.

You've already made this quite clear. Being disingenuous aptly demonstrates that.

The fact is Chris Kyle was part of an invasion force from a country which outspent it's victim by billions of dollars, there was nothing valorous about that war, not a single thing. Another fact: Chris Kyle did hide on rooftops, this is part of his role as a sniper. Another fact: Chris Kyle shot women and children, he might not have wanted to do this but that's what happened.

War is never valorous, people are. This is why I think your idea of valor is bizarre and absurd. Valor is demonstrated by the actions of individuals under extreme circumstances. How they ended up in those circumstances has little bearing on it and how much money their country spent has none whatsoever. No one said he didn't hide on rooftops or shoot women and children, but that wasn't merely what you asserted either. Chris Kyle didn't invade a country to shoot women and children, which is what you actually accused him of.

I don't have any "righteous indignation", I just think you are missing some context when you compare Chris Kyle to people who were defending their homes. Chris Kyle wasn't defending his home he was invading someone else's. A more apt analogy would be Chris Kyle is like Josef Allerberger.

Saying that a comparison disgusts you demonstrates righteous indignation. Righteous indignation is literally being justifiably annoyed or angered at unfair treatment, in this case the unfair treatment being the comparison that was made. You were obviously annoyed (or worse) at the comparison and you obviously think your reaction is justifiable, so how on Earth is that not righteous indignation?

And no, I am not missing any context. Again, you said that he lacked valor because he hid on rooftops and shot people in the back. The other people I compared him to also hid on rooftops and shot people in the back. So either hiding on rooftops and shooting people in the back makes one lack valor or it doesn't. Given that it appears you think Vasily was valorous, you appear to be engaged in special pleading fallacy or else you simply know that your first argument is flat out wrong. You provided no other context for this argument at the time you made it so don't tell me that I am missing context that you didn't provide for your own argument. I am not the one responsible for providing context for your arguments, you are.

One last fact for you to chew on. There is nothing valorous about killing people for money. To quote Herbert Spencer: ?When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don?t care if they are shot themselves.?

http://praxeology.net/HS-FC-20.htm

Are you kidding me? The guy was a Navy Seal, you don't become a Navy Seal for the money! Soldiers get paid like crap! If he was doing it for the money, he would have been over there as a mercenary, not a Seal. And if you think that soldiers don't ask about the justice of their cause, you are once again demonstrating that you've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[xServer]

I sort of figured this is the kind of direction this movie would have to take, seeing as Chris Kyle, in real life, was a pathological liar and actually posthumously lost a huge defamation lawsuit against one of my home state's former governors. The dude wasn't a good man, and while I respect his service and contribution to the US Navy seals, he doesn't deserve the amount of attention, admiration, and fame being thrown at him because of this film. Whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello, fellow Minnesotan!

I can't agree enough. I actually got into an argument with a (now-former) Facebook friend over this sudden case of hero-worship sweeping the US due to this movie. People cannot accept that this is a movie and Chris Kyle the man was not the person Bradley Cooper portrayed in the movie. It's become your duty as an American to blindly support Chris Kyle and go see this movie. Oh, and apparently froth at the mouth any time the lawsuit is mentioned. Well, sorry, my brain still touches my spinal chord and I am able to think and opine for myself. Kyle fulfilled his duty to the Navy and his country and should be honored for that service. But he's not a god and I am not going to worship him as though he were. Particularly since I am an atheist (another strike against me, I suppose).

 

[xServer]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

Ridiculous assertion. You don't have to be a soldier or veteran to watch a movie. And not liking a movie is not an attack on soldiers or veterans. You're looking for insults where none have been given. This knee-jerk reaction is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Also, freedom of speech isn't earned. It's a right granted to us through our Constitution.

I honor all the men and women in military service and appreciate the sacrifices they have made and continue to make. But that doesn't mean that each individual man and woman is a saint without flaws. Chris Kyle the man had flaws galore. Even if he was good with a head-shot. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Gorrath]

I sort of figured this is the kind of direction this movie would have to take, seeing as Chris Kyle, in real life, was a pathological liar and actually posthumously lost a huge defamation lawsuit against one of my home state's former governors. The dude wasn't a good man, and while I respect his service and contribution to the US Navy seals, he doesn't deserve the amount of attention, admiration, and fame being thrown at him because of this film. Whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello, fellow Minnesotan!

I can't agree enough. I actually got into an argument with a (now-former) Facebook friend over this sudden case of hero-worship sweeping the US due to this movie. People cannot accept that this is a movie and Chris Kyle the man was not the person Bradley Cooper portrayed in the movie. It's become your duty as an American to blindly support Chris Kyle and go see this movie. Oh, and apparently froth at the mouth any time the lawsuit is mentioned. Well, sorry, my brain still touches my spinal chord and I am able to think and opine for myself. Kyle fulfilled his duty to the Navy and his country and should be honored for that service. But he's not a god and I am not going to worship him as though he were. Particularly since I am an atheist (another strike against me, I suppose).

I find your well reasoned remarks to be refreshing. The idea that we can respect the man's service while also disliking him as a person seems to be an idea that eludes a great deal of people who either want to enshrine him or make a monster of him. I think people are attracted to simple black and white idealism too much. We are wholly justified in accepting reality and responding accordingly; we need not and should not engage in the pretense that disliking Kyle means you're an unpatriotic leftist or that acknowledging his worthy virtues makes you a howling jingoist. I appreciate your point of view.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to (I've never liked war movies), but it seems like a lot of people are having a knee-jerk reaction an then hopping on the hate and hype trains for completely wrong reasons. Again, I could be wrong since I haven't seen the movie. However, going off of the trailer I saw, it seems to be painting the war in anything but a glorious tone while also showing that it's clearly had a terrible impact on this man's life. The shots don't have a "fuck ya" feel to them at all, and the overall tone seems very somber.

It seems to me that a lot of people have missed the point and jumped on the patriotism train while another group of people have missed the point and jumped on the "you must not glorify war" train. It also seems like the hate train is being reactionary towards the hype train. I wonder how many of the haters would have taken the movie the same way if it hadn't been hyped up by the masses as Patriotism and War: The Movie! People see what they want to see. It's the same reason a lot of people thought Birdman was pretentious (so many people throw this word around without having a clue what it means) for talking down on big budget blockbusters whereas I think they were missing the point entirely.

Anyway, I could be wrong. This is just my interpretation of the trailer and the mess that this thread seems to be debating.

 

[xServer]

OT: I'm thinking of buying the guy's book; I hear a good chunk of the change goes to Veteran's Benefits/Charities so it won't be a total waste if I don't like it, and then watching the movie and see how they stack up. Can't offer a fairer chance than that to try and get my head around the guy.

One of the things that has come out in the Ventura trial is how little money is actually donated to the charities listed. Something about paying taxes on the donations...it's actually a mess. You'd be better off just donating directly.

 

[theApoc]

This is a movie I could never stomach, simply because is nothing but simple dick waving american army/patriotism bullshit, basically 'Murica Fuck Yeah: The movie. And yeah I really couldn't bother with something like this. Not that I dislike the US or its culture, but some parts of it are pretty damn stupid and or hypocritical.

My response to Bob and to a comment like this is simply, so what? And I am not being confrontational by saying that.

So what if things like this give demographic A a woody for America. So what if it is fictionalized, I don't here people complaining about how historically accurate Selma portrays MLK. Or how The Butler played fast and loose with the facts. These are movies, and regardless of what narrative people latch on to, they are in the end, just pieces of art.

It is easy to be dismissive of patriotism, doesn't mean that patriotism in and of itself is pointless. It's ok to question the validity of something "based on a true story", doesn't make the feeling evoked(or not evoked) any less relevant. Bottom line. Every time something tries to make a "statement" and it catches on, both supporters and detractors come out in droves to argue, and ultimately none of it means anything. It's still just a movie.

Maybe it is a crappy movie. Maybe not. But that has nothing to do with whatever message people take from it. Like Bob said, lot's of crappy movies get praise and make money, the reason? Because movie quality is about as subjective as you can get in this day and age. Some people love seeing actors on screen, PERIOD. The movie is irrelevant. Some people need a great story to be engaged, the actors are set dressing. Neither point of view is important.

So in the end, it doesn't matter what becomes popular, or what makes money. Some studios will continue to look for the next big thing, while others will try to tell a story as best they can. No amount of American Snipers or 50 Shades is going to change that. THere are 4 Transformers movies because people pay to see them, period. If no more came out, it would not matter one bit, even to the people that like them. If 10 more come out it shouldn't matter to the people that don't.

 

[HBaskerville]

Confused how you should feel about America Sniper? Read this:

http://www.clickhole.com/article/confused-about-how-youre-supposed-feel-about-ameri-1771

Hits the nail on the head. People mapping their politics on any movie/art piece and then telling everyone else what to think of it should be ignored. Bob included. he can't get out of his own way on this one. It's weird and kinda sad.

 

[Dragonbums]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

Then pray tell jacobbanks- what have YOU done to earn your freedom of speech

This also ignores the fact that the movie wasn't meant for war veterans either. Considering how a decent number of them has seen it as wholly unrealistic, propoganda trash, and the Sniper the movie was based off of said that they shorned off much darker and morally questionable parts of the film to make it entirely black and white.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Dude Saddam was an angel compared to what the ISIS is right now. Also I would leave him in power cause he was a counter-balance to Iran. A majority of Iraqis want him back cause guess what: there was order, there was an economy, there was food. Funny how that works. Was he bad? Yea. But there will always be someone worse.

The same way Stalin is an angel compared to hitler?

You know who likes getting rid of Saddam? the Kurds, for example. But if the majority enjoys the tyranny why should anyone stop them?

Stalin is not better then Hitler. In fact... he is probably WORSE.

Hitler is a monster. Stalin... is something even more... I honestly cant say.

That's actually my point, both are evil, you can't quantify evil and say "THAT ONE IS EVILER SO THE OTHER, SO THE OTHER ONE IS GOOD".

You can't honestly say that Saddam is preferable to ISIS, not to mention that it's impossible to know if acting any differently might have prevented ISIS from existing.

Saddam may have been a case of "better the devil you know". I mean he was a heinous tyrant, no argument there but as I understand it, the West more or less had a read on him and it was all very Cold War with him.

 

[LetalisK]

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Fine. Then as the FOURTH in my line to have served the military, do I get a vote? This movie wasn't the greatest. I didn't think it sucked, but it could have spent more time on what it's really like there, and instead of focusing on "difficult choices made for good reasons" they drudged up a super villain. That trivializes the actual events, to me. Not liking this movie doesn't make you unpatriotic, liking the movie isn't the height of "fight the power", it just happens to entertain some people who enjoy war movies period. Or action.

Your idea that these people aren't allowed to speak their opinion because they're not vets is so dumb that it actually hurt my brain. Then why did our forefathers allow ALL to vote instead of simply military minded people? To get the full picture, to be free from exactly those who said if you're not one of these people your opinion doesn't matter. If you want to get up in someone's face about not being 'MURICAN enough to matter, then you've missed the point entirely of what it is WE fight for.

As a service member, I would like to echo this sentiment. People criticizing or even outright insulting the military doesn't offend me a whole lot. However, people using service members' sacrifice as a tool to shout others down offends me more than even if someone pissed on the Unknown Soldier's grave through a mangled American flag. These people are the ones that shit over everything that is sacrificed for.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I'm also in the "US war Wankfest"-movie boat.

From my european prospective that's all it is. And i won't start discussions about the wars or what lead to them. Just that i think it's actual pitiful that the US needs those kinda flicks.
On the otherhand you apparently have a bunch of these christian movies too. I'm just glad all that stuff stays overseas and doesn't show up in my cinemas. Though with the success of the sniper... ugh.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Comparisons between the nazi film in Inglorious Basterds because they saw it on twitter and thought it was smart: 2

Just out of curiosity - and sincerly not lookin' to stir up anything - how can you easily dismiss similarities between both?
A movie about a war hero(sniper) of a country that's currently in an offensive war for propaganda/feel-good/wank-fest/[insert meaning] reasons.

 

[Farther than stars]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

You don't have to earn freedom of speech. It's a right that already exists naturally. And what secures that freedom is using it, i.e. speaking freely, making sure that the freedom is so ubiquitous that even those in power wouldn't dare take it away from you. If you had to earn that right by being a soldier, then, ironically, you wouldn't be living in a democracy. You'd be living in a military dictatorship.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Why was this movie made exactly? More specifically, why this particular soldier? Chris Kyle hardly seemed like someone who deserves the sort of fame he is currently receiving among certain circles in the US. I believe Texas has decided to honour him with a state holiday. In reality, he was a rampant self-promoter and made numerous false claims and slanderous accusations. Many believe he disrespected the entire UDT/SEAL community by carrying out a smear campaign against Jesse Ventura and cozying up to the talking heads on FOX news.

How many soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afganistan have written books? Surely others have equally compelling stories to be told while also demonstrating far less questionable conduct in both service and civilian life.

This all could have been forgiven if the movie addressed these aspects of Chris Kyle. Instead, the narrative opted to whitewash much of his past and portray him as merely a flawed hero with a tragic story. I cannot decide whether Eastwood's overly simplistic tale of service and sacrifice is just an objectionable artistic choice or a conscious effort to disseminate the sort of "ours is not to reason why" patriotism that one sees among this movie's biggest fans.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

I thought that American Sniper was supposed to be a movie about the life of Chris Kyle. I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but based on the reviews that I read online, it's an anti war movie that shows how war affects the mental state of the average soldier. I don't think that it would be wise to focus on the Iraq War as a whole because the topic is too broad and complicated to explain.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Damn people, you forget the cardinal rule of the internet. Don't feed the trolls.

But to the point, I liked the movie. It wasn't a super great movie, but it kept me engaged and it was certainly thrilling.

And forget the baby, did anyone see the bullet holes when they were invading that one guy's house at night? The most fake bullet holes I have ever seen.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

Freedom of speech is not some privilege that must be earned. It is and always should be a basic right.