The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
So this movie was made for veterans and not the general public. I didn't know that better tell my friends who have seen it that they shouldn't think about it at all what so ever because it was for the veterans and not them. If non-veterans can't have valid opinions on the film than why was it made by and marketed to non-veterans? While you might have a point that you shouldn't listen to non-veterans about certain things, this movie is not one of them. It isn't a film used by the military to adjust people back into civilian life, it is a movie made to make money from general audiences. It doesn't matter what veterans do, because it is a movie it is not real life. It might depict real life events, but that doesn't change the fact it is a fictional version of them.jacobbanks said:
I think one of the dynamics is that liberals and various other anti-war activists haven't yet had their "Platoon" or "Full Metal Jacket", let alone an "Apocalypse Now". Many of those same people feel vindicated due to how each war played out, and yet it seems even Hollywood seems rather unsure about blatantly waving that fact in front of people, many of who will only begrudgingly accept that the wars (my use of the plural is not a mistake) were a poorly-handled mistake.
This brings us to the sort of "compromise" of the servicemen. We can glorify the servicemen instead of saying anything definitive about the war, that way America can continue to feel proud that we have a competent and very professional military.
I haven't seen the movie and I refuse to make any judgements on a movie I haven't seen positive or negative, however it does seem like this movie is not being judged for what it is but rather what people want it to be based on their politics, and like Patton before it (repeat: I'm not directly comparing the quality of the two movies as I have not seen one), people are projecting whatever message they want it to be about. And in some ways, that could work to be a quality of the movie, more than a detriment. Or maybe not.
This brings us to the sort of "compromise" of the servicemen. We can glorify the servicemen instead of saying anything definitive about the war, that way America can continue to feel proud that we have a competent and very professional military.
I haven't seen the movie and I refuse to make any judgements on a movie I haven't seen positive or negative, however it does seem like this movie is not being judged for what it is but rather what people want it to be based on their politics, and like Patton before it (repeat: I'm not directly comparing the quality of the two movies as I have not seen one), people are projecting whatever message they want it to be about. And in some ways, that could work to be a quality of the movie, more than a detriment. Or maybe not.
It's stupid shit like this that makes me come out of lurking...
As a veteran of the Iraq War (affording me infinite film criticism cred) I still think it's a bad film for some of its messages, but mostly because of the absurdly gung-ho reception it garnered. Clearly, something is wrong. On the other hand, I believe the bulk of other critics are correct in thinking it's a technically good movie.
I think Fury, aside from letting the wet blanket live at the end, did a better job.
As a veteran of the Iraq War (affording me infinite film criticism cred) I still think it's a bad film for some of its messages, but mostly because of the absurdly gung-ho reception it garnered. Clearly, something is wrong. On the other hand, I believe the bulk of other critics are correct in thinking it's a technically good movie.
I think Fury, aside from letting the wet blanket live at the end, did a better job.
I was inordinately amused by Sarah Palin spouting off about the "Hollywood Left" not valuing veterans. I wonder what she had to say about Michele Bachmann's plan to freeze VA health care spending and cut veterans' benefits?
As for the movie's hot performance, I think there's some deep-seated need for some of my fellow Americans to believe that our people in uniform are pure, unsullied heroes- and sadly, they're not. They're human beings doing a difficult job in a harsh environment, and to romanticize them is to do them a serious disservice, because then we treat these soldiers, sailors, Marines and pilots like some kind of untouchable ascended beings rather than people like us, with pains and regrets of their own. And that only adds to the feelings of exclusion and alienation that too many of our servicemen and women suffer from already.
As for the movie's hot performance, I think there's some deep-seated need for some of my fellow Americans to believe that our people in uniform are pure, unsullied heroes- and sadly, they're not. They're human beings doing a difficult job in a harsh environment, and to romanticize them is to do them a serious disservice, because then we treat these soldiers, sailors, Marines and pilots like some kind of untouchable ascended beings rather than people like us, with pains and regrets of their own. And that only adds to the feelings of exclusion and alienation that too many of our servicemen and women suffer from already.
If you ask me, one of the primary reasons the US gov't went after Saddam is because he started trading Iraqi oil for Euros in early 2000, thus challenging the almighty Petrodollar.Nixou said:
The national disaster resulting from the Iraq war sent a pretty clear message to other oil producing nations: trade in another currency and this is what will happen to you.
...or maybe just read the book, which is at least a (probably mostly) true account of Chris Kyle's life (seriously... the book is a good read!) and skip the movie (which is a fictionalized pile of drivel).jacobbanks said:
Veteran or not.
I haven't seen American Sniper, and from what I have heard about it I never will. I'm always on the look out for good military history films, but they are really damn rare. I suppose Fury was half decent, as was Unbroken (not really military history though). I have heard that the Imitation Game is an excellent film, but it is also heavily fictionalized. That was something I picked up from watching the trailer, so I gave that one a miss as well. Oh well...I will hold out for the new Spielberg-Hanks miniseries on the 8th Air Force and Spielberg's new film about the Gary Powers U2 flight.
Oh damn it. See, I bought a car the other day, and I tried turning it on this morning, but it wouldn't start. I checked with my roommate--who is an English instructor--and he said that the battery had been removed. Now that sounded plausible to me, especially considering I definitely saw a gap under the hood where the battery could fit, but I guess I need to talk to an actual mechanic, huh?jacobbanks said:
Look, the idea that the only people who can comment on a field are the ones directly involved in said field is laughably moronic. It flies in the face of just about every form of expression, in fact. For example, why would Clint Eastwood make this movie if only soldiers and veterans are allowed to have opinions on it? Why do artists make art if only artists can comment on it? If my power goes out, do I need to be an electrician to say that the lights won't turn on? Hell, whole fields of marketing are devoted to finding out how other demographics feel about things to improve a product's reach--if anything, feedback from non-veterans is more valuable than feedback from veterans.
And yes, I do enjoy my freedom of speech. It allows me to say that you are not a particularly interesting person, whose worldview is laughably dated and predictable, and who depresses me by reminding me that there is a political majority of people like you across this country. Now, you could punch me in the mouth for saying that, but you won't because 1: you can't find me and 2: if you did, you would be arrested. You see, that's what legal/illegal means. It relies on the individual's restraint to deter crimes. Sure it can't prevent you from punching me in the mouth, but it does ensure that reactionary assholes who lash out with violence at anybody who disagrees with them spend more time in prison, which can only be a good thing.
P.S.--War is nothing to be glorified. Soldiers should be commended for surviving and helping their comrades, but in today's modern battlegrounds, they can hardly be called exemplars of patriotism for fighting politicians' wars.