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

[Baresark]

The amount of emotional attachment this film has received is truly mind boggling. You can be attached to the guys story, you can feel that what he did was super important, that is fine, but the fact that this movie was about that man does not make it a good movie at all.

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.

I actually dare say that no one makes movies that are aimed specifically at Veterans. That is not the sole way people who are veterans identify themselves. Not all of them are from the same branch of the military or have even had similar jobs in the military or have even seen active duty. I know people from all branches and one thing they don't do is see eye to eye. Oh, and none of them are so self important as you.

As I said, a bad movie is a bad movie. You can love the guy, you can love the movie, you can love the book, you can love the service. No one is saying that you can't or even that you shouldn't. But to say that this movie was made for veterans actually does a disservice to veterans. You should expect better, not make excuses for the bad bits. When someone says it's not a good movie, they are not indicting the US military, not saying your service isn't respected, not saying that you don't matter, but they can still say it's a bad movie. It's not them taking for granted their freedom of speech or saying that what you did doesn't matter. It's just them giving their opinion, and while you may not like it, it carries as much weight as your own.

 

[Evonisia]

I think Fury, aside from letting the wet blanket live at the end, did a better job.

I'm honestly surprised that Fury basically got ignored, especially when compared to the post-release buzz of American Sniper. I mean, ignore it having one of the most stupid deaths I've seen in a war film (second to last death, the turret one for the record) and it was pretty damn good.

On a barely related note: Fury actually humanises Nazis. American Sniper couldn't even do that to the terrorists (besides giving the secondary villain a wife we see for three frames). It gave me the thought that the director wanted to show that the world's greatest villains are, after all is said in done, just like us civil folk but in a different uniform. It's not original by any means, but it's something I honestly wished American Sniper would try to do rather than having the terrorists just be cartoonishly evil so the audience knows to hate them. They're terrorists, we don't need to see a child's skull get drilled off-screen.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Then Clint Eastwood's "opinion" on war and the effects of it, presented in this movie don't matter either. Seeing as he never served in the military. So by your very stupid logic, stating that the opinion of anyone who didn't serve doesn't matter, this movie doesn't matter either. Congratulations, you've rendered the movie irrelevant in your patriotic mumbo jumbo.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The idea of patronizing a movie, or buying a game, or buying a book or whatever simply as a show of support seems to be a fairly recent one, and it seems to have stemmed from the pro-piracy culture that emerged in the early 2000s. People who had gotten used to cheating their way to free entertainment started feeling bad that certain people they liked and wanted to be successful were being potentially deprived of their livelihoods, and started advocating paying for some of their entertainment as a way of "voting with your wallets". It came to be applied to entertainment that was willfully provided for free, as well, from PayPal "tip jars" on creators' home pages to the recent emergence of crowdfunding sites and Patreon.

And there are problematic aspects to that mentality. For one thing, so far it only really applies to one type of product. You can't pirate food, or electronics. If you want to protest the way Altria or Apple do business by not buying their products, you don't have the option of doing that without also depriving yourself of those products. There's a certain degree of sacrifice involved. But on the other hand we're definitely starting to see more and more people at least consider the implications of buying from certain companies beyond whether or not they want what they're selling. And ultimately, that's a positive.

Where it can potentially go wrong is people using it as a way to support people whose opinions they already agree with and punish those they don't. I'm very much against this idea. People need to be more indiscriminate in what media they consume, in order to become more well-rounded people. The webcomic Unshelved has a slogan that I think fits well here: "Read irresponsibly." I'm not saying everyone has a responsibility to go out and buy a copy of Hatred just to show support for free speech, or something. But if you're not actually going to get anything out of watching a movie, or playing a game, besides a warm fuzzy feeling from having your own opinions "validated" by a single person who happens to know how to make a movie or a game, have they really earned your money? The mark of a good creator is the ability to make people think, to challenge people's ideas about the world. I never felt compelled to buy Spec Ops: The Line, for example, because by all accounts it sounded like it would be really unfun to play, even if I agreed with the ideas behind it and thought Yager were mighty brave for making it. Never bothered to get Gone Home either, since I gleaned everything I could have gotten out of playing it from reading about it.

Creators aren't charity cases. (Except when they are, in which case you're welcome to make a donation without actually buying their product, if they're not too proud to give you a way to do that.) Billion-dollar movie companies and the multi-millionaires who work for them are definitely not charity cases. Buy things because you want to have them. See movies because you want to see them. Not just as an excuse to throw your money at people you like. That's something that both sides of a certain current issue in the gaming community can stand to learn.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

?An MLK movie is in theaters for MLK weeknd, but U.S. audiences are turning out in droves for a (lousy) movie about headshotting brown people?
-Bob Chipman, on Twitter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3248210/posts

Got it Bob, so going to see a movie as a "show of support" and giving money to the people who helped make it is wrong and terrible...unless it's a movie you like and starring black people, in which case you should go see it and give them money and show your support.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I didn't see the movie. When I first heard about it I thought it sounded fun. I like snipers--as you can tell by my screen name. But when I heard that it was based on a real person, and one I was even aware of, I quickly lost interest. When I saw trailers for it, I lost even more. It just wasn't what I was expecting. I don't know...maybe it looked too serious? But then again, I bought Fury and I own Band of Brothers, so that kind of throws that reason out the window.

The movie just didn't look appealing to me once I realized what it was about. I'm not sure why.

 

[tippy2k2]

?An MLK movie is in theaters for MLK weeknd, but U.S. audiences are turning out in droves for a (lousy) movie about headshotting brown people?
-Bob Chipman, on Twitter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3248210/posts

Kind of unrelated but kind of related; I find that quote funny because Chris Kyle specifically tells a Marine in the film that the "legendary Syrian sniper" (although I don't think we knew he was Syrian then since it was just into the first tour in the movie but I'm not 100% sure) wouldn't be doing head shots because a true sniper aims for the center mass.

OT: I'm finding myself disagreeing with Bob more and more lately when he put this and "Interstellar" on his "worst movies of the year" list. American Sniper isn't good enough to win Best Picture (personally I think the only award that it is up for that it should have a chance at is Best Actor for Cooper) but it's not a bad movie. Movie Bob is entitled to his opinion obviously but I stopped watching his movie reviews after that "Worst Movie" episode with how off-the-mark I find him.

 

[Haerthan]

its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

So when will they be shooting The US and UK governments then? Because the Iraq War has done nothing but put you, me and the whole region in greater danger than ever.

How so? how are we put in danger from the invasion of Iraq?

Not all that up on current events I take it, the region has become the largest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Far worse than Afghanistan ever was, people have been already been there, radicalised and then taught how to fight by groups that operate in Iraq (amongst other places) and set loose on the streets of Europe where they amassed a tragic body count.

The United States won't be immune from this.

Immune to what? Radicalized Muslims? I see your Charlie guy and raise you one Boston bombing.

Yes, so I'm sure how you can see creating the worst training and creation ground for nutters like this is a very bad thing. There is also the argument the Boston bombers might not have did what they did without the "war on terror" in the first place, hard to say but it seems likely.

You're right, lets go back in time and leave Saddam in power... sounds perfect. He was a shinning beacon of humanity and fair governance. There's always going to be bad guys.

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.

Also guess what: There were no WMDs in Iraq, with the exception of what the US sold him in the 80s. So guess what: The Iraq War was nothing more than a farce. And we are left with the crumbling remains of the place, the fact that we are going to deal with that fallout for a long time.

Also you seem to misunderstand how national security works. It is the NSA that does the protecting nowadays, with the FBI, Homeland Security and police departments that deal with home grown terrorists. Not the army. The army has only one use: Protect from external threats and put down insurrections (if such a thing rears its ugly head in the countries). They are not there to protect your rights. THey are not there to protect and serve. They are not there to spy on people. The army is a tool of the government, to be used by the government. Rarely is the army used against its own citizens.

 

[Bizzaro Stormy]

So I've been reading the various posts back and forth and two thoughts occurred to me. The first was that left-wingers keep pitching hissy fits that result in me becoming interested in movies, books, and games that I would normally ignore. Thankfully I usually repress the urge to go get whatever they hate. I'm not made of money so impulse buying is a poor idea. The second is that multiple people have mentioned the movie Fury and I kept misreading it. I was wondering for several minutes why people were talking about a movie called Furry in a war movie discussion. Third thought I should go to bed now.

 

[zinho73]

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.

done nothing to earn it huh? so by that definition, anyone who does not want to or can't fight in a war have done nothing to earn a right that was granted to us by the Bill of Rights rectified in 1791, well before you and I were born.

Also, this movie was not given a limited release to VA organizations or military camps but to the public. As such, I would think that the public, having been the people who watch it, can have an opinion on it regardless of if it's about a veteran or not?

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

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.

Without getting into too much into your general opinion, the insight of a third, non-related, party is often necessary to brake paradigms and bring positive change:

If science did not contested religion, we would still think the world is flat. If religion did not influenced politics, some social safeguards would never be implemented in some countries, if civilians dis not contested the military, a lot of countries would be living in a dictatorial regimen and so on.

You don't have to agree with the opinion of everyone, but simply dismissing them will only leave you with tunnel vision.

Bob is criticizing the movie, but he made clear he respects many ideas and ideals attached to it. He says that the movie is an empty template in which people are projecting their ideals. With each of your posts you are just proving him right.

 

[zinho73]

Did I watch a different movie from everyone else? What I saw was a movie with a clear anti-war sentiment buried inside the narrative. Seriously if you put yourself in the shoes of this admitadly romanticized soldier does this honestly make you say "America, fuck yeah!"? Would you want to leave your wife and kid alone over and over and over again to see humanity at its very worst and do some question stuff in the process? Do you feel the desire to slowly have your sanity slip away as you deal with the horrors of war that dont stay on the battlefield and chase you home to invade your dreams and your very soul, putting yourself and your loved ones in danger during what seems like an endless struggle in your own mind?

These are serious anti-war messages guys. Why does it seem like nobody realizes that?

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).

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.

Well said - And you cannot create a hero without tragedy, so the message behind the bad stuff happening are often seen as "challenges" and not as consequences.

 

[Zombie Badger]

a

 

[Armadox]

I simply wanted to know what the OP gained from proving Movie Bob wrong.. or right, or how their opinion at all has an effect on the opinion of someone who, quite happily, moved on from that subject weeks ago.

Well, apparently this sentence was incorrect, as this video has completely undone me entirely. Well done, Bob, a stirring of hornets for the sake of embellishing on something you dislike entirely rather then perhaps placing enphasis on that which nurtures you. My hats off to you.

The problem here is this isn't actually anything. It really isn't, as at the end of the day, this rhetoric of "what does it mean?" that comes with this type of discussion never actually accomplishes anything, as there are by no means a point of mutual reference one can put on it. It's raw personal opinion without any reason to accept any other view in debate. Rare is it the post that places light on the why of it, and it's usually spirals into the "us vs. them" mentality that is as useful as beating one's head against the wall.

For those who like the movie. You are right.
For those who didn't. You are right, but you're money is already spent.

Hahahhaha I got a warning for trolling but whats his fuck up there can say racial slurs without reprisal... Hahaha Awesome!!!

*squints a little* I'll be completely honest, I have read everything you've said in this thread. And by and large I have never seen somebody with a hard solid, black and white ideology on who or how people should be heard. Your very standpoint spits in the face of discussion itself, which is absolutely amazing. To hold one's opinion to only that which one knows is to deny innovation, as by opinion and discussion do we ever get anything new. If the old hand are the only ones who matter, then the knowledge that they hold is law, set in stone and dies with them. That no one can question it would simply create castes of elite in which every field would be beholden too.

Also, "redneck" is not a racial slur. There is, in fact, no island of Redneck where the Redneck people live. Who join together to make more native Redneckians. Redneck is at best a cultural slur (starting as a economical one against those of poverty in the South), and one that by and wide has been turned into it's own counter-culture. It can be used as an insult in the same way you can insult the Goth or Emo. A set of specific but diverse people, who happen to have the same stereotypical mentality on culture and society by which you do not agree with.

 

[Storm Dragon]

I'd much rather see a movie about the deadliest sniper in all history: Simo Hayha. He was a Finnish farmer who enlisted during the Winter War and made at least 505 confirmed sniper kills over less than 100 days, all using an old bolt-action hunting rifle without a scope. The Soviet Union nicknamed him "The White Death" and launched entire missions just to kill this one man, up to and including artillery bombardments of areas where they thought he might be. Eventually, a Soviet sniper shot him in the lower jaw and took off half of his face. Simo responded by giving the Soviet sniper a first-hand demonstration of proper headshot technique. He then managed to return to base before succumbing to unconsciousness. Simo recovered and woke up a few days later, and the Soviets surrendered war ended on that same day.

Seriously, this already sounds more like an action movie than real life.

EDIT: Fact-checking turns out to be important.

 

[Torque2100]

I can understand if someone does not understand what others see in something or someone. We all have that friend who's a diehard rightist or leftist and whose views leave us flabbergasted every time. I will never understand the fascination many people have with 50 Shades of Grey.

I can understand and respect that MovieBob doesn't understand what I see in films like The Interview, Interstellar or yes, American Sniper. I will never understand how MovieBob is able to keep his job while being such a transparent Hack.

That said, I think anyone saying that MovieBob's politics aren't clouding his judgement most of the time are being EXTREMELY disingenuous. Go back and watch the sumptuous, slobbering blowjobs that MovieBob has given to Leftist propaganda pieces like Elysium or Avatar then tell me politics don't play a role in MovieBob's opinion of a film.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

This is a movie with a heavy and politically biased narrative. People who agree with that narrative, like Sarah Palin, will automatically love it and people who disagree with that narrative, like Bob, will automatically hate it, and pretend its only about the acting/directing.

People who aren't "warriors" in the crazy right-bad left-good or vice verse crusade will probably just find it boring and empty, which is why I haven't watched it.

 

[Qizx]

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.

done nothing to earn it huh? so by that definition, anyone who does not want to or can't fight in a war have done nothing to earn a right that was granted to us by the Bill of Rights rectified in 1791, well before you and I were born.

Also, this movie was not given a limited release to VA organizations or military camps but to the public. As such, I would think that the public, having been the people who watch it, can have an opinion on it regardless of if it's about a veteran or not?

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

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.

Just like my opinion of Good Will Hunting didn't matter because I'm not a janitor/professor.
Just like my opinion of the Matrix didn't matter because I'm not "The One."
Just like my opinion of The Lord of the Rings didn't matter because I wasn't a ring bearer.

Yeah, I hope you see how silly your point is now.

 

[Redd the Sock]

It's not difficult to understand the movie's popularity, if it's unpleasant to admit if you're a leftist ideologue: There's a very sizable portion of the country that live and vote right wing, and those people will line up for this they way we will for Age of Ultron. Much as I hate admitting Palin's right (hey, broken clocks and whatnot) come election time a large area of the map is bright red, the Democrats got trounced in the last couple of midterms, and most preidential elections don't have a wide margin between the two candidates at the popular vote level. There are a lot of right wingers that aren't dying out and were happy to have a movie not quite so overwrought in a "war is bad and people die" theme.

 

[XavierPrice]

I'm not going to rant about anything, just say...

Please go back to the funny videos.

 

[DerangedHobo]

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.

Man this is some fucking *powerful* stupid. Since when was killing brown people in another backwater country thousands of miles away fighting for *your* freedom again? And let's say, for a moment, that soldiers weren't just doing a job: surely the voicing of that opinion and questioning the validity of the wars is more respective of that right that they 'fought and died for' instead of silencing it and saying it doesn't matter?

Pretty sure Bob pays his taxes, pretty sure he funds the wars whether he likes it or not and he funds their paychecks.