Forum menu
and seemed to have quite a deep hatred for the people he was killing.
You won't find many who don't/didn't certainly in that type of role. I haven't read the book, a friend told me I wouldn't like it (too gung ho) but you are right; it didn't make him look like he was having fun at all. In fact, it didn't seem like he knew what fun was.
vorlich - Member
Eastwood is pretty patchy as a Director, some of his stuff is pure snoozefest.
Definitely. Unforgiven-great; Gran Torino-Garbage.
Might still go to see American Sniper though, cos I enjoyed Fury and someone up there hated both.
Saw it last night. Wasn't expecting much and didn't get much. Another simplistic childish effort from Eastwood. Almost as bad as Gran Torino but not quite. If nothing else Eastwood knows how to patronise his audience.
Approach both book and film with caution.
At best Chris Kyle was a damaged man with hero fantasies and probably a case of severe PTSD. At worst he was an out and out liar who embellished freely and made money out of it. Personally, I tend towards the latter.
I think Eastwood has probably made the film he wanted to, telling the story of a damaged man trying to reconcile what he's done, it's not the story of Chris Kyle per se, but a story about what intense conflict can do to a person and his family.
Landis Wins.
Wait, don't tell me. Someone gets shot.
telling the story of a damaged man trying to reconcile what he's done, it's not the story of Chris Kyle per se, but a story about what intense conflict can do to a person and his family.
If that had been the film Eastwood had made then it wouldn't have been bad. AS had none of that nuance, detail or depth.
P-Jay - Member
I see a few Hollywood people have dared to question the merits of celebrating killing at it's a bit of a flag waving propaganda thing - and been firmly put back in their box.
He killed a lot of people, said he enjoyed it, said he wished he'd killed more, and referred to Iraqis as savages. Those aren't rumours or out of context: they're recorded facts and his own words, but I guess he and his reputation are largely untouchable due to
I see I'm not the only person who could hear Trey Parker singing "America: **** yeah!" throughout.
Saw it thought it was pretty average. Lots of America ..... Yeah stuff which can be typical. Not read the book so am wondering if the battle between the two snipers is factual or just an enemy at the gates rip off?
I reckon a movie of Dan Mill's sniper one might make a better film. Certainly for British audiences.
I saw it last night and enjoyed it in a thoughtful way, made me think about war and it's many victims on all sides.
I saw Fury last year, a Hollywoodised depiction of life in a tank crew, but again from the human angle, crew interaction as well as the blood and guts of battle.
I reckon a movie of Dan Mill's sniper one might make a better film. Certainly for British audiences.
Average book though.
[url= http://www.clickhole.com/article/confused-about-how-youre-supposed-feel-about-ameri-1771 ]Good old Onion[/url].
[img] 
[/img]
[url= https://storify.com/RaniaKhalek/american-sniper-chris-kyle-in-his-own-words ]This is another spoiler[/url]
The film left a very bad taste in the mouth, apparently for good reason (see link)
Disclaimer - This doesn't make me a potential terrorist, beard or no.
I was looking forward to seeing this film..... but am full of disappoint that it sounds like this is just a vanilla, US hero-worship type deal.
I was hoping to understand whether CK had psychopathic tendencies before he joined-up, or whether his job made him that way. The guy was clearly damaged goods - but the army were happy to have him in-role because he was killing for them etc etc.
Will probably give it a miss
hels - Member
I'm reserving my decision on this film until I have seem chewkw's analysis of the weaponry used.
I haven't seen any film for a long time so cannot make any comment about the film but if there are plenty of sniping with some serious talking then back to sniping I am all for it. I just hope the conversation is not boring ...
Apparently in real life Kyle used TAC-338 rifle a bit like this one but custom to his liking ...
[img] 
[/img]
I am sold ... I want one ... 😆
A good rifle is a must but the person who shoots it is much more important. As the saying goes guns don't kill people do, you need a good shooter to be able to get the maximum potential out of the gun/rifle.
Liked the onion article! Worth reading for anyone who's slogged through this thread, without having seen the film, read the book or wanting to do either
Finally, some common ground everyone can agree on. Chris Kyle was extremely competent at doing shooting.
Eastwood is being obviously manipulative in pitching for the "human" side of the story instead of following the book's description of a man who just wants to, for America, go back to Iraq and shoot lots more zombie maggots.
Sexy-looking gun though.
I'd imagine hating the people you're being paid to kill makes it a great deal easier to do your job and keep doing it. Dehumanising the enemy in the minds of your soldiers is a big part of effective military operations, from what I gather. Depending on your definition of effective military operations, obviously.
Oh, there are rumors in the camp about our enemy.
They say that when you see him he looks just like you and me.
But you deny it, Sergeant, and you are a man of war,
So you must give me lessons, for I've never killed before.
Naming of Parts.
To-day we have naming of parts. Yesterday,
We had daily cleaning. And to-morrow morning,
We shall have what to do after firing. But to-day,
To-day we have naming of parts. Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighboring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.
This is the lower sling swivel. And this
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see,
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel,
Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures,
Which in our case we have not got.
This is the safety-catch, which is always released
With an easy flick of the thumb. And please do not let me
See anyone using his finger. You can do it quite easy
If you have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms
Are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see
Any of them using their finger.
And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
They call it easing the Spring.
They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
For to-day we have naming of parts.
Well I knew the ending as its historical fact and was well publicised at the time.
I am not a fan of Hollywood movies generally but this was OK. I can't really see what all the fuss has been about, Eastwood went out of his way to show only "legitimate kills" and plenty of shots not taken this was all bit Holywood especially with the kid with the rocket launcher.
Watched it last night. It wasn't as bad as Fury ... It was pretty close though.
Expected better from Eastwood.
4/10 ... Bad movie but not quite as cringe worthy as Fury.