The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I haven't seen American Sniper. I have no particular interest in seeing American Sniper. I might watch it if I had two hours to kill and it showed up on Netflix; otherwise, I have slightly less interest in seeing American Sniper than I do in Fifty Shades of Grey, which will probably be painfully stupid but may at least have the benefit of featuring some attractive naked people. (And no, that doesn't mean I'm itching to see FSOG.)
...All that said?
American Sniper is at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. The blurbs that favor it say things like "a damn good film", "a smart, complex portrait of a man", and "Eastwood is good at making it seem raw and personal".
I think it is well and good to consider if audiences are picking it up for the curious reasons, if it's become a kind of banner for some perplexing sentiments, if that was the intent of the director or the marketing. I think there are certainly reasonable discussions to be had on such matters, preferably without unnecessarily painting people as jingoistic rednecks or emasculated communist sympathizers.
...But I think Bob needs to consider the possibility that his personal circle of critic friends and associates isn't necessarily indicative of the opinions of either the greater viewing audience or the greater critical audience.
This is not to say that he, or his associates, is wrong. The torch-bearing mob may be the majority, but that doesn't inherently make them noble. But it does mean one has to look askance at presuming to speak for a majority. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and argue on the basis of being right for reasons you're willing to defend, not for having people who agree with you willing to retweet your awesomeness.
...All that said?
American Sniper is at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes. The blurbs that favor it say things like "a damn good film", "a smart, complex portrait of a man", and "Eastwood is good at making it seem raw and personal".
I think it is well and good to consider if audiences are picking it up for the curious reasons, if it's become a kind of banner for some perplexing sentiments, if that was the intent of the director or the marketing. I think there are certainly reasonable discussions to be had on such matters, preferably without unnecessarily painting people as jingoistic rednecks or emasculated communist sympathizers.
...But I think Bob needs to consider the possibility that his personal circle of critic friends and associates isn't necessarily indicative of the opinions of either the greater viewing audience or the greater critical audience.
This is not to say that he, or his associates, is wrong. The torch-bearing mob may be the majority, but that doesn't inherently make them noble. But it does mean one has to look askance at presuming to speak for a majority. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and argue on the basis of being right for reasons you're willing to defend, not for having people who agree with you willing to retweet your awesomeness.
As I walk into this thread and see all of your comments,jacobbanks said:
Why so serious? To the dear veteran who has somehow put himself on to some high platform and look down upon everyone who has not served their country and say their opinions on military matters don't matter at all... enough already. What game are you wishing to play with people here? Superiority? The know it all that has to have the higher ground over the internet? Do you enjoying getting people frustrated and angry? Does it get you off in some way? Or are you just offended that people are challenging and criticizing their government on the international decisions they make than can affect everyone? I could easily call you the "T" word but that is what you want isn't it? To play a card that you know oh so well and make it look like everyone is attacking you cause YOU have the right to do what you feel and others should listen. "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", right? Right.
I could have addressed your quote on Saddam but I just remembered that my views just don't matter to you. Oh heck, anything I say right now means... nothing.
People tend to read messages into movies based on what they want to hear, regardless of the filmmaker's actual intent. Scarface and The Godfather were both intended to be movies about how crime is awful and being a gangster sucks, but most people who saw those movies focused on the positives of the lifestyle (the money, the women, the power, etc) and not the negatives (people's lives being ruined by that lifestyle), which is why you see a distressing number of people trying to emulate people like Vito Corleone and Tony Montana. (See also: Fight Club).Windcaler said:
So, nobody realizes it because they don't want to see an anti-war message, or because you do want to see an anti-war message. Not having seen the film myself, I can't really offer much more than that.
Winter Soldier is CULTURALLY relevant to contemporary Americans. Politicians and public policy in general are (and ought to be) indifferent to it, but the idea of a shadowy militaristic police organization that doesn't answer to any sort of democratically appointed oversight having too much power, that is relevant to the those people with anxieties about domestic spying, which is much of the country across many political demographics.deathbydeath said:
Also, enough people read and enjoyed 50SoG that both of its (similarly bad) sequels were extremely successful. And given people's preference for film over literature, plenty of those who didn't bother finishing the book would still be willing watch the movie version. The film is going to be successful, the question is simply by what margin. And the low budget (of course how expensive could such a movie be to film; it looks like an episode of White Collar) only further lowers the bar for its success.
Saddam was a menace but a limited one, he was almost spent after Western nations stopped supporting his efforts against Iran and the first Gulf War completely ended any ambition to cause trouble beyond his own borders the man had. Worse dictators around the world are left alone, there are always going to be dictators and deliberately toppling a bad but stabilising influence and eventually creating a far greater global threat has made the world far less safe.jacobbanks said:
Saddam would never have been a threat as great as that, even at the height of the Iran-Iraq war and his massacre of the Kurds didn't cause as many casualties as the US-UK campaign in Iraq and the subsequent explosion of Jihadist activity.
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter
Spoken like a true nobility of the sword wanabe
***
Just a question but I don't understand the "Iraq was a mistake" opinion, I mean, Saddam Hussein wasn't known as a really nice person with things like Halabja chemical attack or financing terrorists. It might not be the big bad monster thought originally but people paint it as an utopia invaded by americans for profit.
Iraq was a "mistake" insofar that all the reasons invoked to justify the invasion were lies:
Saddam had no WMD
Saddam was never allied with Al Quaeda
The Bush administration never intended to replace his dictatorship with a democracy: any malleable authoritarian regime would do.
And because the aftermath was catastrophic
Al Quaeda gained a foothold in Iraq
The Iran-backed revanchist Shiite regime which followed Saddam's dictatorship allowed the iraqi shiite to bloodily retaliate against the sunni population, causing among other things ethnic cleansing in Bagdad.
The Sunnis in turn radicalized and many eventually started supporting Daesh: an organization ruled by a guy who had been excommunicated by Al Quaeda: that's as close as voting for Red Skull as you can get in real life.
Daesh's expansion eventually drove the US back into the region: the good news is that western involvement is slowly but surely destroying the organization, the bad news is that its erstwhile victims are themselves starting to indulge in bloody revanchism [http://www.niqash.org/articles/?id=3613]
Spoken like a true nobility of the sword wanabe
***
Just a question but I don't understand the "Iraq was a mistake" opinion, I mean, Saddam Hussein wasn't known as a really nice person with things like Halabja chemical attack or financing terrorists. It might not be the big bad monster thought originally but people paint it as an utopia invaded by americans for profit.
Iraq was a "mistake" insofar that all the reasons invoked to justify the invasion were lies:
Saddam had no WMD
Saddam was never allied with Al Quaeda
The Bush administration never intended to replace his dictatorship with a democracy: any malleable authoritarian regime would do.
And because the aftermath was catastrophic
Al Quaeda gained a foothold in Iraq
The Iran-backed revanchist Shiite regime which followed Saddam's dictatorship allowed the iraqi shiite to bloodily retaliate against the sunni population, causing among other things ethnic cleansing in Bagdad.
The Sunnis in turn radicalized and many eventually started supporting Daesh: an organization ruled by a guy who had been excommunicated by Al Quaeda: that's as close as voting for Red Skull as you can get in real life.
Daesh's expansion eventually drove the US back into the region: the good news is that western involvement is slowly but surely destroying the organization, the bad news is that its erstwhile victims are themselves starting to indulge in bloody revanchism [http://www.niqash.org/articles/?id=3613]
I don't mind US soldiers and people who support US soldiers disagreeing with anti-war sentiment- I'm mean it's pretty expected- but I have never understood the "if they weren't out there fighting you wouldn't be free to say that/enjoy the free speech we got for you asshole" sentiment. None of the US's recent wars have had anything to do with freedom of speech. If the soldiers weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ability of Americans to practice free speech wouldn't change in the slightest. In fact I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with *any* war that literally involved soldiers defending free speech, apart from parts of World War II in the sense that the allies were fighting a regime that was fond of squashing the free press and dissenting opinion in countries it conquered.
If you want to argue that America's recent military efforts have protected national security that's a more sensible (although still muddled) issue to talk about, but even then there is no realistic way any of the belligerents in those conflicts could have actually impacted the American right to free speech- not even more large-scale terrorist attacks would have done it. In case people didn't notice, 9/11 was not exactly followed by a time where people were afraid to express their opinions.
Basically, this is just intended as a way to shut down any conversation critical of the military.
If you want to argue that America's recent military efforts have protected national security that's a more sensible (although still muddled) issue to talk about, but even then there is no realistic way any of the belligerents in those conflicts could have actually impacted the American right to free speech- not even more large-scale terrorist attacks would have done it. In case people didn't notice, 9/11 was not exactly followed by a time where people were afraid to express their opinions.
Basically, this is just intended as a way to shut down any conversation critical of the military.
Except TWS isn't about that; TWS is about Nazis trying to kill a bunch of people so they can rule the world.ryukage_sama said:
Sure, the first half sets up the question of "do the ends* justify the means" fairly well, but once Steve and Scarlet find Zola the entire conversation is dropped. The helicarrier triplets become an undeniably bad thing and it is impossible to argue the merits of a police state making the world better, because the world would no longer be better as it would be Nazi instead.
If you want a modern-day superhero story with legitimate cultural relevance, read Worm [parahumans.wordpress.com]. It's a fine critique of institutionalized morality (among other things), pointing out how it falls apart once you put some stress on it. Plus the main character actually undergoes a character arc unlike Cap, people have superpowers that aren't "punch hard", and the Ethically Dubious Anti-Antagonist doesn't immediately abandon their ideals when threatened.
*- Even though it's never actually specified what the endgame actually is. All they say is that they are making a better world, but that's so vague as to be useless. If they want to make a better world, they could have just as easily eliminated poverty in Africa for a lot less money and ethical qualms than building three micro-Death Stars under the Potomac.
I suppose the movie's success could be some sort of statistical anomaly. Everybody likes a certain percentage of films they see. Maybe the dice fell so that this one is a hit, and there isn't any sort of underlying reason or pattern.ShadowRatchet92 said:
The movie really sent mixed messages to me.
While there were parts where the movie seemed to sincerely push the jingoistic "fuck yeah america" agenda, there we other parts which seemed to inch on self-awareness and acknowledged where the main character's black and white ideology breaks down. But then it oscillated back to pro-Muricanism for a few scenes before showing that doubt again.
I suppose the real success of the movie is that you can glean whatever message you want to see in the movie.
While there were parts where the movie seemed to sincerely push the jingoistic "fuck yeah america" agenda, there we other parts which seemed to inch on self-awareness and acknowledged where the main character's black and white ideology breaks down. But then it oscillated back to pro-Muricanism for a few scenes before showing that doubt again.
I suppose the real success of the movie is that you can glean whatever message you want to see in the movie.
You must not work in an office with many women. I can say, nay, I will bet you Scrooge McDucks vault, that 50 Shades of Abuse will make it's money back plus enough money to drown a small city.deathbydeath said:
OT- I agree. Saw the film, thought it was boring, and forgot about it. Until my Rush Limbaugh listening, Fox News watching dad saw it and declared it the best movie ever.
That's great Bob. Can we now openly admit that the rest of the seasons Oscar Bait movies are utter trash as well? That Selma is an abject failure because it tries to spin a narative rather than focusing on the actual world changing history, and as a result will be relegated to the dustbins and bargain tables alongside any number of Oliver Stone movies that took the same loose disrespectful approach to the historical record, while participants in said record were still alive. And let's not leave the gimmick filming project off the list. What was it? "Watching grass grow? No that would have been more interesting, oh yeah Boyhood. Can we hate that one as well? I would hate on the rest but honestly neither I, nor most consumers of the industry honestly know what they are or have any interest in watching them. Boring pretentious crap across the boards.
American Sniper was an OK 3 out of 5 stars movie.
That's it. It wasn't groundbreaking at all.
It wasn't terrible and it certainly doesn't deserve the Oscar nominations it got. I'll be surprised if it gets any Oscars at all.
That being said,
Movie Bob's assertion that is was a terrible movie irks me as I sense some anger about the movie and some political bias. Some of the claims from liberal left (Michael Moore as an example) that the movie "glorifies war" drives me even more crazy. Did they see the same movie I did? It doesn't glorify war at all!!!!
American Sniper is a movie about 1 guy's perspective of the war. Sadly, the story is not cohesive enough to get its' overall point across. The guys that went to Iraq were changed and were never the same again. Period. That is the entire movie right there in a nutshell! It doesn't glorify war or patriotism but gives a perspective of the true costs of war. Chris Kyle suffered from PTSD. Some of the guys he tried to help ALSO suffered from PTSD. Chris Kyle was KILLED by a man who suffered from PTSD.
Seriously, stop talking about how bad the movie is (which it is mediocre in my opinion) but talk about what the movie was trying to convey. Talk about how military service can cause personal problems. Join the military and this sort of thing might happen to you.
I'm also irked by the fact the conservative right is championing this movie as some sort of patriotic flick, standing for moral correctness. It fails completely on that front as well. I'm a conservative but I hate the talking heads over at FOX. They just look stupid every time I see them. Please stop putting Sarah Palin out in front. It's not helping us at all.
That's it. It wasn't groundbreaking at all.
It wasn't terrible and it certainly doesn't deserve the Oscar nominations it got. I'll be surprised if it gets any Oscars at all.
That being said,
Movie Bob's assertion that is was a terrible movie irks me as I sense some anger about the movie and some political bias. Some of the claims from liberal left (Michael Moore as an example) that the movie "glorifies war" drives me even more crazy. Did they see the same movie I did? It doesn't glorify war at all!!!!
American Sniper is a movie about 1 guy's perspective of the war. Sadly, the story is not cohesive enough to get its' overall point across. The guys that went to Iraq were changed and were never the same again. Period. That is the entire movie right there in a nutshell! It doesn't glorify war or patriotism but gives a perspective of the true costs of war. Chris Kyle suffered from PTSD. Some of the guys he tried to help ALSO suffered from PTSD. Chris Kyle was KILLED by a man who suffered from PTSD.
Seriously, stop talking about how bad the movie is (which it is mediocre in my opinion) but talk about what the movie was trying to convey. Talk about how military service can cause personal problems. Join the military and this sort of thing might happen to you.
I'm also irked by the fact the conservative right is championing this movie as some sort of patriotic flick, standing for moral correctness. It fails completely on that front as well. I'm a conservative but I hate the talking heads over at FOX. They just look stupid every time I see them. Please stop putting Sarah Palin out in front. It's not helping us at all.
I won't argue whether the movie was "good" or "bad", but I will vehemently argue with MovieBob that he has completely missed the point of the movie. Growing up in Texas on the largest army base in the nation, I had friends and family doing multiple tours in the Middle East after 9/11; many never returned. Those that did return were changed...and that was the point of the movie to me. It showed war to be what it is: ugly. Visceral and real. In your face and not apologizing for it. The stories that I've heard from guys in Vietnam and even WWII lend me to believe the depiction was as accurate if not more so than Saving Private Ryan. This movie was about how the war changes the soldiers, how families are dealing with their loved ones stricken with PTSD, and how they put the pieces back together again. Even in Texas Kyle wasn't a household name until well after he died. It may be okay for Bob to think this movie sucks, it's also okay to see the parts of the movie that absolutely do not.
Yeah, see, the thing about freedom of speech being a right guaranteed by the constitution is that you don't HAVE to do anything to earn it. You have it by default.jacobbanks said:
Also, the percentage of the population that is a veteran is actually fairly small compared to the broader population to whom movies generally need to appeal, and it also doesn't include the majority of the people who are actually praising the movie. So what you're saying is this movie is for a very small audience that alone probably wouldn't even turn out in the numbers required to make the movie a financial success, and even the majority of its proponents have no valid opinion on it.
Which is bullshit of course.
