Who Saw AMERICAN SNIPER? Members' Comments (NO SPOILERS, PLEASE)

[-satu-]

We're always the last ones, Hemlock .. At least this one will be in theaters. 😊

[Walt]

Watched this with my son yesterday. Easily one of the best films Clint has directed. I read some criticisms regarding the films perceived failure to tell this from the Iraq point of view but that's not the point. This is Chris Kyles story. Cooper is in every single scene and it really is an Oscar worthy performance. It's a taught, finely produced drama that had me hooked from beginning to end. Glad to see Eastwood still on top form at 84 years of age.
 Oh and the score, whilst subdued, is surprisingly effective.

[The Schofield Kid]

Saw it last night in a fairly full cinema in Honolulu. Actually probably the most people I've seen at an Eastwood film ever.

I thought the film was very well made. Some scenes had my heart rate going. The battle scenes are well created. I actually thought through some of these scenes that it felt like, The Green Zone or The Hurt Locker type of film, not a Clint Eastwood film that we've seen over the past few years.

Although the home front scenes do remind me of the human drama of Mystic River, Gran Torino that Clint has done so well with.

Probably not a film I'll watch repeatedly but certainly a film worth seeing at least once.

After the real life footage of Chris Kyle at the end of the film, the rest of the credits rolled without any music. Is that the way it is? It seemed strange to me to be complete silence and was thinking there might have been some problem in the cinema.

4/5.

[KC]

Yes, I'm sure the silence during the final credits is "the way it is." It struck me also. Far better than having some hokey song playing over the end credits that was obviously shoehorned in solely in the hopes of getting an Oscar nomination.

[exit00]

Yeah, I think first hearing Morricone's haunting The Funeral at the end and then cutting to complete silence during the credits was a master touch.

[KC]

Exactly. "The rest is silence."

[zanderman]

I haven't seen it, but I am sure it is like most of Clint's movies. Long, boring, and depressing. Also, I don't like fake babies in my movies.

[Lucky Punk]

Ah Zandy old bean. Ersatz infants aside I rather enjoyed this film. You however were so irked by a film you have not seen you took the bother of joining a website dedicated to the director's work to pour derision on almost his entire oeuvre. What ever floats your boat dear thing.

By the way, Llamas are dangerous, so if you see one near where people are swimming you should cry out " Danger! There are Llamas."

[KC]

Zanderman has actually been a member since 2003, and he liked Mystic River; disliked Million Dollar Baby; and has had nothing to say about any Clint Eastwood movie, or any other topic, since 2005.

[Gant]

I gotta be honest.... Zandermans  post is the funniest thing I've read on here in ages

[Lucky Punk]

Fair enough.

[Christopher]

I certainly didn't see anything in this worth deleting membership over.

I still haven't seen this movie yet--will probably do so in the next week.

[Perry]

I guess Michael Moore and Seth Rogen pick their spots when they come in here...162 Million @ the Box Office so far with a fake baby that actually had more acting prowess than those two clowns....

[KC]

Lucky Punk, please come back!

[Christopher]

I saw American Sniper yesterday and really enjoyed it. I'd put it as being one of his best in recent years.

[maxweiss]

Thank you. 
Max Weiss, Montana, veteran.

[Conan]

  My favorite Eastwood war flick is still "Letters from Iwo Jima", though I liked "American Sniper" and don't think it makes any serious pro or anti war statements.  I felt this was a character study that focused on the experience of a soldier's life at home and at war.  Its probably not entirely accurate, as it seems Kyle made some boasts that probably didn't happen and this was left out, but in the end this isn't a documentary and I don't think it changes the fact that the guy was a hero.  Bradley Cooper did a great job, and as SK mentions the battle scenes were really well done.  I was also interested in how Kyle dealt with coming home, the impacts on his family, and his discussions about how to handle coming back with other returning vets as I don't usually see this in war movies.  It was surprising to me to hear the level of controversy as this was far from a "Green Berets" or "Gallipoli" in terms of sending any kind of clear political message.

  The fake baby was actually quite funny, and did briefly take me out of the movie in what was supposed to be a tender moment.  How that thing got past Clint's usually exacting eye is beyond me.

[AKA23]

I have to say that I'm pretty surprised that this movie has done as well as it has. If someone would have told me when this film was first discussed that it would be the highest grossing film of Eastwood's career, I wouldn't have believed it, but that's exactly what has happened. As a loyal Eastwood fan, I'm happy that he has such a huge hit on his hands. It seems as if he is as sharp as ever, and that is on display for all to see. Since it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, I was surprised that Eastwood wasn't nominated for director, since I thought his direction was what was most responsible for the look and feel of the film. It's definitely his best directed film in years. 

However, I still remain extremely disturbed by the film that he made. The aspect of the film that I find so disturbing is that it takes Chris Kyle's story as the gospel truth, despite evidence that Chris Kyle's word is seriously questionable. He claimed to have shot looters at the time of Hurricane Katrina. He also claimed to have assaulted Governor Jesse Ventura. Neither appear to be true. We know from his own words that Chris Kyle said some very unkind, and arguably racist, things about the Iraqi people. For example, he said that he wished he could kill everyone who carried a Qur'an, but that the rules wouldn't let him do that. He also suggested that he had no respect or affection for the Iraqi people more generally, and wrote of how much fun he found killing people to be. That doesn't sound to me like somebody who we should be elevating to the status of a hero.

The history that the film depicts also at points is totally inaccurate. The film suggests that Kyle chose to enlist in the military in response to 9/11, but that's actually completely wrong. Chris Kyle joined the military in 1999, well before 9/11 ever happened. By juxtaposing the two, the film suggests that the people that attacked us in 9/11 were the same or similar to the people we were fighting in Iraq, but we know from history that that isn't true either.

I agree with those who have said that the film doesn't take a position on the Iraq war, but by presenting Chris Kyle's version of the events the film depicts with little to no pushback from anyone and little if any other context about the war in which he fought presented, that in many ways provides tacit support for both the war and Chris Kyle's role in it. If I didn't know from previous interviews that Eastwood actually opposed the Iraq war, I would have thought from the film that he fully supported it.

Most disturbing to me was the fact that there were few if any Iraqi characters who were presented in any kind of real way. The only character who seemed supportive of the troops, who invited them to share dinner with him, turned out to be a terrorist. The movie makes little to no attempt to present any three dimensional, fully realized, flesh and blood Iraqi characters. In presenting the Iraqi people as little more than caricatures, it dehumanizes their experiences while elevating the experiences of Chris Kyle, whose sole role in the war was to kill as many of them as possible. Doesn't anybody else find that to be unsettling?

By Eastwood choosing to make a film that is so one-sided, despite facts which strongly suggest that Chris Kyle was at best an incredibly unreliable narrator, the film misses a golden opportunity, and instead presents a completely inaccurate, distorted view of both the conflict and of Chris Kyle's role in it. Coming from the man who made "Letters from Iwo Jima," I found that contrast to be quite jarring. Some have suggested that it would be inappropriate to make a film like "Letters from Iwo Jima" given that this is an ongoing conflict, but I disagree. If anything, I think that's more of a reason to present a more accurate picture. After all, the Japanese government was unambiguously the enemy in World War II. They attacked the homeland. The Iraqi people did not. Iraqis were not involved in 9/11, and did not attack the homeland of the U.S. before the war. Because of that, I think  U.S. filmmakers have a heightened responsibility to do something other than present Chris Kyle's story as the gospel truth of this conflict. Where am I going wrong here? Am I the only one who feels this way about this film?     

[Christopher]

The history that the film depicts also at points is totally inaccurate. The film suggests that Kyle chose to enlist in the military in response to 9/11, but that's actually completely wrong. Chris Kyle joined the military in 1999, well before 9/11 ever happened. By juxtaposing the two, the film suggests that the people that attacked us in 9/11 were the same or similar to the people we were fighting in Iraq, but we know from history that that isn't true either.

I don't think that's true. I think they tied it to another attack in the late '90s that he watches on TV, and then by the time 9/11 happens, Kyle is already with his wife (I don't know if they were married at that point).

[AKA23]

I don't think that's true. I think they tied it to another attack in the late '90s that he watches on TV, and then by the time 9/11 happens, Kyle is already with his wife (I don't know if they were married at that point).

Thanks for your thoughts, Christopher. On this point, I think that you are in fact correct. I think the film does depict 1998 bombings on the U.S. embassy in Tanzania and Kenya, and not 9/11. However, I think my general point is still quite valid. The film links the Iraqi conflict to terrorist attacks against the U.S., when in actual fact no evidence has ever been presented that substantiates that the Iraqis were involved in terrorist attacks against our country. Even if you can question that fact as you rightly did, I think that was only one example of the one-sided and distorted view of the conflict that the film portrays, and that is what I am criticizing.