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

[ryukage_sama]

Bob's biggest anger towards the film seems to be that it DOESN'T try and have a political point. It just presents Kyle as a Soldier doing his job, but doesn't really delve into whether the job he's doing is part of a justified or unjustified action by the Government he serves.

This is, of course, completely disingenuous on Bob's part. What he's really saying is that he just wants it to have a point...so long as it's a point he agrees with, otherwise it's just jingoistic Military propaganda for Hillbillies and right-wing nutjobs and is terrible.

The film is presented as being true, a recreation of actual events as recounted by Kyle. It IS being interpreted as such by the droves of people going to see it. The fact that the film has been the top movie at the box office for two weeks makes the film significant, and the reason for the film's success relevant.

The issue that Bob is addressing in this video is that the film is NOT an genuine representation of the war while being treated by its fans (and pundits) as such and that the interpretation that viewing this film is an act of patriotism is disingenuous. It's also relevant to Bob's discussion that his expressed distaste for the film has led to him being called (both directly and indirectly) unpatriotic and/or an oppenent of the ideals of freedom by proponents of the film. I've been accused of liking and not linking films for the wrong reasons, but nobody has ever accused me of hurting my country for doing/saying so.

 

[ryukage_sama]

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.

I don't have much appreciation for much of what Kyle had to say about the overall war upon his return, but I wouldn't discredit a sniper for being unsportsmanlike on a battlefield. Valorous isn't the best word to describe every person who volunteers to put themselves in a country where his/her uniform effectively puts a target on his/her back, but its not cowardly either.

 

[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.

 

[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 on that same day.

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

While I agree with you and would like to see a movie about Häyhä (whether or not his kill count has been padded a bit), I must correct you on one thing: nobody surrendered at the end of Winter War. Häyhä woke up on the day the truce was declared.

Oops, fixed the ending bit. As for his kill count, 505 was actually the lowest estimate I found. Other sources credit him with as many as 542 sniper kills; and that's still not counting his approximately 150-200 kills with a submachine gun. Simo Häyhä wasn't just the deadliest sniper ever, he was the deadliest single human being in recorded history.

 

[TaboriHK]

Wasn't going to post because I felt my comment was asinine but it looks like this entire thread is asinine so my two cents: gotta rein in the accent, Bob. When it starts slipping in, you just sound like someone yelling about the Patriots and I completely tune out.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

The issue that Bob is addressing in this video is that the film is NOT an genuine representation of the war while being treated by its fans (and pundits) as such and that the interpretation that viewing this film is an act of patriotism is disingenuous.

Several things here:
1: How would Bob know what was a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War? Was he there? Methinks that Bob will only accept something as a "genuine representation" if it satisfies his political beliefs, but maybe I'm just being cynical.

2: To call anything that follows one man (or even a small group) a "genuine representation" of a war is, in fact, disingenuous by itself. Wars have multiple battlefields, with lots of people doing lots of different things. No one's experience is exactly alike. I could make a war film in which we do nothing but follow the Battle Captain (google it if need be) for his/her entire deployment to Iraq. They never leave the wire, never get shot at, and never shoot at the enemy. Is that a "genuine representation"? For that individual, yes. But you show that to a group of Infantrymen who went on patrol every day and ask them if this is a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War, and they'd say hell no. If someone looks at the experience of one person and declares that it's supposed to represent the entirety of the conflict, that's their problem, not the film's.

3: I've yet to see anyone declare that watching (and liking) this movie instantly makes you a Patriot. Likewise, I've yet to see anyone declare you're un-American for disliking the film. Note that there's an important distinction between just saying "I didn't like the movie", and "I hate Chris Kyle the person", or "anyone who likes this movie is racist", which I have seen.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

I do not understand how in the f*$king hell, you Bob can basically take SUCH a certain and concrete position about something as subjective as the quality and messages in a work of art?
That was just PLAIN UGLY as all hell.

Are you... completely there...? He can take that kind of position because -get this- HE'S A FUCKING MOVIE CRITIC! Analysing a movie and then telling you whether it's good or bad (the "I think" part should be kind of obviously inferred automatically) is kind of HIS JOB. What kind of critic would he be if he said "I think this movie SUCKS... but that's just my opinion, you should go see it anyway and make up your own mind"? About as much use as a hessian condom.

 

[tzimize]

A movie about domination and submissiveness (fifty shades of gray)is forcing MovieBob to watch and work with it for months.. I find that to be irony on a entire different level!

Haaaaaaaaaah! Now thats downright juicy.

OT: I dont think Clint will ever outdo Gran Torino. At least not for me.

 

[Haerthan]

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?

Sure for the Kurds Saddam was a tyrant. But guess what: ISIS is worse than Saddam for both the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. ISIS is actively engaged in a war with the Kurds of Iraq and Syria. And if they get the power in Iraq they will do worse than the Halabja chemical attack, just ask the Yazidis and Christians there. So yea Saddam was a tyrant, not doubt about it, a bad person through and through. But at least Iraq didn't have to deal with the shit under his regime that they deal with nowadays.

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Everybody with a knowledge of Eastern European history knows that. Saddam is nowhere near Stalin, so please stop bringing that analogy in the conversation because it doesn't work. A thief, a murderer, a genocidal maniac, manipulator and Christ knows what else.

Also funny how nobody asks the people of what they want, no matter where they are from. Nobody asked the Iraqis what they wanted when the US rolled into their country.

 

[Phil the Nervous]

Stalin was significantly worse than Hitler.

Godwin count's up to about 5 by the way.

 

[McElroy]

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 on that same day.

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

While I agree with you and would like to see a movie about Häyhä (whether or not his kill count has been padded a bit), I must correct you on one thing: nobody surrendered at the end of Winter War. Häyhä woke up on the day the truce was declared.

Oops, fixed the ending bit. As for his kill count, 505 was actually the lowest estimate I found. Other sources credit him with as many as 542 sniper kills; and that's still not counting his approximately 150-200 kills with a submachine gun. Simo Häyhä wasn't just the deadliest sniper ever, he was the deadliest single human being in recorded history.

Well, people who actually dug into the original sources (or at least the closest alternatives they could find) have calculated his sniper kills to about 250-300. As seen here (prepare to be able to read Finnish): http://agricola.utu.fi/keskustelu/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4868 One of the main figures used is 219 + about the same with an smg, that got mentioned in an award ceremony for Häyhä's accomplishments some four weeks before he got shot. The figure got bloated with the legend as well as the Soviets' tactics being rushing with the numbers advantage, and during such rushes Häyhä's war buddies "confirmed" loads of kills which all fell behind the enemy line where they couldn't actually be counted.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

 

[The Choke]

I like how people keep trying to say this movie is such an accurate representation of a soldier's life when it's not even an accurate representation of Kyle's life. Others have brought up the "don't speak ill of the dead" reasoning behind leaving out some of the more controversial aspects of the man's life, but if Eastwood wanted to make a movie fully recounting a sniper's career without worrying about insulting his family, he could have gone for the less-polarizing figure of Nicholas Irving, still alive and able to respond to his own critics, and holder of the undeniably-awesome nickname "The Reaper" (also the title of his autobiography). I was disappointed to not hear more from him during his guest spot on The Nightly Show that discussed the movie.

Basically, given Kyle's career-kill-record and then sudden death, I can understand why Eastwood was enamored with telling his story, but I feel like in tip-toeing around the family's feelings, he may have done the story a disservice. It feels like it wants to say more but doesn't want to offend anyone, liberal or conservative, and so carefully avoids the main thrust of it's own argument- making its argument impossible to guess. Why is this movie, basically?

As someone who has never been to war, I went to see the movie with the hope that it would give me some insight into a man who did serve. However, Eastwood's hesitation made me feel like I was only getting half the story. I know some people say that I would hope the other half of the story would be something that spoke to my liberalism, but honestly I'd just like to see the other half of the story, period. Not "the other side" but just the parts that Eastwood felt would be too complicated to deal with while also being respectful of the recently dead. When I think about those things, it's impossible for the movie to not feel incomplete to me.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

Huh, I had no idea Invictus was one of Eastwood's, didn't seem his speed. Well live and learn.


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.

 

[Tojumaru]

Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

The Bridges of Madison County, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Invictus and Letters From Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers would like a word with you.

As for American Sniper, it seems that almost everyone who reviews it is projecting their political views onto it, whether they're left or right wing. I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD and make up my own mind.

Don't leave out Changeling which features Angelina Jolie's best performance(and a claustrophobic execution scene, I was hyperventilating through that whole thing), Space Cowboys(which kind of kickstarted the "old guys kick ass" trend) and Hereafter(which while not great was very interesting visually, and featured great acting from Matt Damon and Cecile de France). I might be the only guy who liked J. Edgar for that very last bit, where the shadow of doubt is cast on the whole affair by Armie Hammer's character calling Hoover a liar.

Also, is the tone of condescension really necessary Bob? "Hey, I told you not to pay to watch this film because I think it sucks, good for me, I am sooooo col, thank me!!!"

 

[Souther Thorn]

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.

Your point is a fallacy for the same reason your other examples are fallacies. It is the same as saying only someone with experience with developing games can have an opinion on games, or only a movie director can have an opinion on movies and/or directing.

But let me put it this way, since I can find testimonials and opinions of veterans that disagree with the narrative you built on the movie, I guess your opinion is just as unimportant...

I would love to discuss this with other veterans... So with that... I guess I will have to get out of this forum hahaha.

Right here Chum. Former CTM/NO.IT, Chief USN. I can see you've got quite the opinion on you so I'll keep this as brief as I can.
You're comporting yourself like an idiot and you are shaming your service by belitteling the civilians that you served here. You do not ask for thanks, you do not say that they have no opinion or one that does not matter. They were your employer, your charge, your duty. They can kick us, beat us, scream and spit at us. The second you strike back or otherwise decide to throw that 'I'm a vet, bruh' demeanor around, you destroy the spirit of the service you did. Carry on with your civilian existence with some dignity man, instead of being another pup with more balls than brains.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

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.

 

[DayDark]

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.

okay i have to ask, do you actually believe what you just wrote? That chris kyle went down there to shoot women and children? Do you believe anyone at all went to war at any point, simply to shoot women and children? I mean i can't understand how someone with that kind of reasoning can exist. i mean i don't even care that much about american sniper, but this is just amazing.

 

[Dave Baker]

There a few users here and there who complain about leftist-propaganda, but what difference does Bob's views make? Don't some of you dislike it when shows or movies you like are accused of being rightist-propaganda? This video barely even constitutes as propaganda: propaganda usually doesn't isn't concerned with painting the big picture of an issue.

Anyway, even though Bob is opposed to the wars and recent Republican-Conservative politics, that's not his complaint. From Bob's point of view, the film would have benefited by being more daring and insightful about the subject on which it is about. Personally, I think that after all these years, there hasn't been a definitive film or movie which stands as an effective commentary upon the post-9/11 period and the two wars. When are we going to see our modern equivalent of Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove?

I want to see a film which gets right into the heart of darkness of the period we live in, but not a strictly serious and idealized melodrama. I want to see everyone covered: the nationalists, the soldiers, the innocent bystanders, the not-so innocent bystanders, the demagogues, the fanatics, the practitioners of total warfare, the leaders, and the few people who try to make things better. I want to see Full Metal Jacket crossed with the morality fables of Arabian Nights and Kipling, and combined with the archetypes of Gilgamesh. An existentialist and naturalist response to Lawrence of Arabia whose goals or ethics or not clear.

I want to something based on the wars that unlike any other before, and it still has yet to be made

P.S. I'm rather confused why Bob thinks that the King's Speech is a bad movie. It came out of nowhere, but I guess this goes to show that I can get confused by some of Bob's opinions too.

Jesus Christ, if that movie ever gets made, that would be so amazing. But considering we are living in the Golden Age of Television, an HBO drama like Generation Kill might be more feasible and make more of an impact. This is based on seeing how Game of Thrones takes a similar approach in a fantasy environment and is a veritable pop culture juggernaut.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

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.

Comparing "evils" is quite silly. What can be said though is that the US invasion of Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS and if the US never invaded Iraq then a lot more people would still be alive today and the region would be a lot more peaceful and secure.

Simply put, no US invasion equals no ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story