American Sniper (Clint Eastwood) [Archive]

Ezee E

01-18-2015, 03:24 AM

Huge line for me too.

So this is good. Cooper's role is the standout here, as Eastwood doesn't have the war scene chops to compare with Spielberg, Scott, or even last year's Peter Berg. What IS cool about the movie is that there's antagonists that never even speak to Kyle, but they resonate as good as any other villain. The Olympic Sniper, in particular, is always interesting to see on screen.

The movie is on the verge of something great with the rising PTSD that Kyle simply ignores. It just never commits to it. As a reader of the book, I was never in suspense, and I'm curious if viewers who don't know Kyle's history, view it the same way.

It certainly doesn't tap into the insanity that Kyle had as a soldier. It pawns that off on others really, and humanizes Kyle in a way that his autobiography doesn't. That's lying to the movie audience, but I suppose that simply couldn't work either.

Irish

01-18-2015, 03:29 PM

556847826899324929

Pop Trash

01-18-2015, 07:41 PM

556847826899324929

Oh, I thought you meant there were more lefty political types freaking out. Right wing media circles have been promoting this hard, so I'm not surprised it made as much money as it did. I can't help but feel sorry for Selma right now, esp. given this holiday weekend.

Ezee E

01-18-2015, 08:16 PM

Selma producers have done a HORRIBLE job promoting this. On top of not getting screeners out, there's hardly ANY actual promotion of this.

Pop Trash

01-18-2015, 08:31 PM

Selma producers have done a HORRIBLE job promoting this. On top of not getting screeners out, there's hardly ANY actual promotion of this.

It's hard for me to judge mainstream marketing of movies since most of the 'marketing' towards me comes from various articles and thinkpieces on movie blogs. There were a lot of them about Selma's Oscar snubs so maybe I think Selma is more known than it is.

Irish

01-19-2015, 12:43 AM

Oh, I thought you meant there were more lefty political types freaking out.

No, that's what I did mean, Trash. The subsequent post was simply an update on the jump in box office.

transmogrifier

01-19-2015, 05:14 AM

Birdman was great technique wasted on a hollow story, this is the flipside; a potentially affecting, unsettling story hamstrung by some dull at best, groan-worthy at worst (I hated the final scene - not the idea behind it, but it's execution - and the final face off with the enemy sniper ends with a terrible directorial decision) direction. Never really gets into the psychology of the Kyle, and doesn't do all that well at establishing his professed motivations (protecting his comrades and regretting the times he couldn't save them). Instead, it is a string of compelling set pieces glued together by poor old Siena Miller being the stereotypical nagging wife (how hard would it have been to have even just ONE scene where Miller interacts with someone who is not Kyle to show how she reacts to the public perspective of him? Just one....).

Not bad, but slap dash and a bit lazy.

transmogrifier

01-20-2015, 04:20 AM

I never really realized either that I have skipped Eastwood's last four directorial efforts (Invictus, Hereafter, J. Edgar and Jersey Boys). Are they all as lazily directed as this?

It's super weird, the cultural "war" (in quotation marks, because its really just a bunch of journalists sniping at each other) occurring over this movie. I'm not sure how you can argue that it doesn't glorify to some extent Kyle and what he did - the flag waving ending, the hamfisted way the villain sniper is treated (seriously, the way the ominous music swells when he gets a phone call etc), the way it totally avoids Kyle's death, which was a direct result of the damage inflicted by the war on those that returned - but I don't really have a problem with that. It is the film-maker's right to depict their version of the story, and I think all the lefty critics who are getting in a tizz over the lack of what they perceive as "balance" are no better than what Armond White does with his attacks on hipsters. The most valid criticism is to ignore your personal opinion of the Iraq War and analyze the actual film itself; if they did that, they wouldn't lack for things to complain about (seriously, there is some really poor direction in this, and Sienna Miller's character is a total waste).

While I don't like the film that much, I don't mind that it does well because it has struck a chord with a sizeable audience, and no amount of feet stamping by critics will change that.

Irish

01-20-2015, 04:38 AM

It is the film-maker's right to depict their version of the story, and I think all the lefty critics who are getting in a tizz over the lack of what they perceive as "balance" are no better than what Armond White does with his attacks on hipsters.

This x100. I was surprised by how many critics dismissed the movie out of hand, and either (1) used Kyle's memoirs to attack the film or (2) used their review as a chance to rant about politics.

On the bright (?) side, I guess, it makes it easier to spot the supeficial thinkers.

The most valid criticism is to ignore your personal opinion of the Iraq War and analyze the actual film itself; if they did that, they wouldn't lack for things to complain about (seriously, there is some really poor direction in this, and Sienna Miller's character is a total waste.

Maybe. I'm just as disappointed that these same critics are incapable of offering insight or any real analysis. Instead, they yell FAKE BABY until their heads pop off.

The other thing: I've seen just as many reviews that call Eastwood's direction of the action scenes "inspired," especially the final one in the dust storm. Others single out that same scene and call it nothing special.

Which makes me think the whole thing is a wash and nobody knows what they are talking about.

Ezee E

01-20-2015, 11:21 PM

Ha, Irish pretty much nails it.

The good thing is, you can get an idea if the review is worth reading in the first paragraph. If there's any mention of politics outside of the movie, the 'Academy,' or the people who will herald the movie, then it isn't worth your time.

Although the Applebee's/American Sniper twitter search is hilarious.

TGM

01-20-2015, 11:47 PM

Truth be told, I probably enjoyed Jersey Boys more than this, though it does suffer from the same "broad and generalized" biopic approach that plagued J. Edgar. Really just loved the style and the music in that one though, but thinking on it now, American Sniper really is quite a bit more focused in comparison to those two...

Dukefrukem

01-23-2015, 01:06 AM

Yeh this isn't anywhere near Eastwood's best. It's not even that great of an adaptation. Cooper got a nomination for this? Boy that's generous. Lots of accurate depictions of sniper kills. And lots of made up ones, like the boy with the RPG. The sniper vs sniper story was part of the book, but a lot less dramatic.

The most accurate thing from the book was when Biggles got shot. That's page to page.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2015, 01:09 AM

Scar

01-23-2015, 01:14 AM

Yeah, his 2000m shot was against someone with an RPG.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2015, 01:17 AM

Yeah, his 2000m shot was against someone with an RPG.

And the way he described it in the book was they were taunting him from a distance and he took one of them out and the rest ran away.

Neclord

01-23-2015, 02:06 AM

Made up sniper kills sounds pretty faithful to me.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2015, 12:09 PM

Made up sniper kills sounds pretty faithful to me.

Weird comment.

number8

01-23-2015, 05:20 PM

It's interesting to me that, I was ready to basically dismiss the movie and guiltlessly throw cheap shots at it since I expected it to come and go as forgettably as previous Eastwood films, but because it's become such a huge box office and drew this much heated critical discussion, I feel like now I can't do that anymore until I see it.

Irish

01-23-2015, 05:42 PM

Yeh this isn't anywhere near Eastwood's best. It's not even that great of an adaptation. Cooper got a nomination for this? Boy that's generous.

I think it works as an adaptation because Eastwood & his screenwriter took exactly what they wanted from the book to present a specific version of Kyle for specific reasons. Everything that didn't serve that purpose was ignored.

As for Cooper's performance... Really? I liked the way his choices were so pared down and so minimal. Cooper counters his last three or four roles in this movie. He displays versatility. He pretty much disappears into Kyle. That's worth a great deal of critical praise.

Dukefrukem

01-23-2015, 05:53 PM

I think it works as an adaptation because Eastwood & his screenwriter took exactly what they wanted from the book to present a specific version of Kyle for specific reasons. Everything that didn't serve that purpose was ignored.

As for Cooper's performance... Really? I liked the way his choices were so pared down and so minimal. Cooper counters his last three or four roles in this movie. He displays versatility. He pretty much disappears into Kyle. That's worth a great deal of critical praise.

Eastwood totally dumbed up the script though. I thought they were really going to take Kyle's high blood pressure somewhere- add a new element to the story. In the book, it was revealed that he had such high blood pressure when he wasn't in combat, because he was being taken out his element- like muscle memory. When you placed him back in combat, his blood pressure returned to normal. He fought this throughout his entire career. And Eastwood brings it up once at a hospital and then never again. Never really brought up how much it affected him.

Irish

01-23-2015, 06:30 PM

Eastwood totally dumbed up the script though. I thought they were really going to take Kyle's high blood pressure somewhere- add a new element to the story. In the book, it was revealed that he had such high blood pressure when he wasn't in combat, because he was being taken out his element- like muscle memory. When you placed him back in combat, his blood pressure returned to normal. He fought this throughout his entire career. And Eastwood brings it up once at a hospital and then never again. Never really brought up how much it affected him.

That's sorta what I mean though. The blood pressure thing wasn't meant to be a subplot. Eastwood uses it to establish Kyle's state of mind. How he can look totally calm on the outside but be freaking out on the inside. It's a startling contradiction and one that's not easy to understand. All of the subsequent scenes at home build on that moment.

They could have touched on the blood pressure thing again but it would have been redundant. Eastwood got what he wanted from an autobiographical detail, then moved on.

Morris Schæffer

01-25-2015, 08:50 PM

As for Cooper's performance... Really? I liked the way his choices were so pared down and so minimal. Cooper counters his last three or four roles in this movie. He displays versatility. He pretty much disappears into Kyle. That's worth a great deal of critical praise.

Just saw this movie. My initial reaction to Cooper while watching the movie was that I didn't think there was anything Oscar nomination-worthy about it. He bulked up, which is of course dedication, but most anyone can do that. And yet, I applaud the lack of Oscar-y scenes meant to bait the Academy. I don't of course know the real Kyle, but Cooper's performance seemed right. Restrained, but also vacant, distant when back in the US. His "yeah" when his doctor asked him a question didn't seem at all like a confirmation that he understood or agreed, but more a general feeling that he was supposed to say something. Anything. And that may come across as unremarkable, but it's a very controlled, inwardly directed performance.

As for the movie, I did find it engaging even if I sometimes got the feeling the subject matter didn't necessarily warrant its own movie. Or perhaps not this movie. The action scenes were thrilling enough, but I had seen the likes many times before except now it happened to star someone they refer to as "legend."

Neclord

01-26-2015, 05:09 AM

I thought it was a decently crafted movie with a very fine performance in the lead, but one that could have been much more interesting had it more substantively engaged with the uglier aspects of Kyle alongside his obvious skill and valor. Since it's adapting the book I guess that would be a bit much to expect, the more baldfaced elements were at least gracefully elided.

DavidSeven

01-26-2015, 08:56 PM

Some pretty solid set pieces. Other than that, I think it suffers from the typical biopic limitations. I don't feel like Eastwood brought an interesting perspective to the piece. This is a tough one to do right without offending left/right factions. Not convinced that Eastwood finds the sweet spot. The Sniper vs. Sniper aspect definitely felt like a Hollywood embellishment. It could have been interesting if they explored the idea that these two guys are essentially on the same moral footing. Disappointing oversight.

Cooper is okay, but an actor who does the torchered detachment thing better might've been more interesting. Not sure I can nay or yay yet. Engaging, yes. Resonating, probably not.

Mal

01-31-2015, 08:46 PM

Call of Duty, the movie, with some suffering wife on the side. Cooper was given nothing to do here except marble-mouth his way through the half-assed script. meh.

Grouchy

06-28-2015, 06:30 PM

Well, this is a well made piece of propaganda, I guess, but far from Eastwood at his best. The war scenes were pretty cool, though. I enjoyed the sandstorm one near the end a lot more than the endless domestic drama.

I find it funny that this is a biopic that unfaithfully adapts a book that's already filled with fabrications to begin with.

Pop Trash

07-12-2015, 10:42 PM

The red state red meat didn't really bother me since I expected that (even though boy howdy did this occasionally veer into Nation's Pride territory), but what did bother me is this kept threatening to be a really interesting, ambiguous film, but man did it not stick the landing. First there is the downright bizarre scene where Kyle holds up his wife with a gun...which I guess is supposed to be cute and playful flirting? I almost want to believe that Eastwood meant it as some strange irony but it could just be a weird misstep from a senior citizen director. And then it just cuts to the flag waving documentary footage of Kyle's funeral, which I guess we are supposed to be all tearful about, but there definitely is some good questioning previously in the film of whether or not Kyle is completely FUBAR.

I really liked the sandstorm scene which seemed to be a metaphorical culmination of Kyle's self-righteous morals finally being clouded. Plus Eastwood, for being his age especially, can still knock out a good war setpiece with the best of them. Also, Cooper's performance and trajectory are both really good. I liked his body language as the war drags on and more and more of his buds are killed. He seems to retreat into a self made force field. He turns into a statue anytime anyone tries to broach something resembling "feelings." I liked the dog attack scene too. I'm OK with Cooper's Oscar nod since this is the type of performance that gets neglected often.

But, this movie is way too schizophrenic for me to be completely into it. Too bad since I think Eastwood came really close to making an interesting film.