Matt Taibbi watched American Sniper so I don't have to.

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

Sounds like the movie pretty much goes as expected:

Eastwood, who surely knows better, indulges in countless crass stupidities in the movie. There's the obligatory somber scene of shirtless buffed-up SEAL Kyle and his heartthrob wife Sienna Miller gasping at the televised horror of the 9/11 attacks. Next thing you know, Kyle is in Iraq actually fighting al-Qaeda ? as if there was some logical connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Which of course there had not been, until we invaded and bombed the wrong country and turned its moonscaped cities into a recruitment breeding ground for? you guessed it, al-Qaeda. They skipped that chicken-egg dilemma in the film, though, because it would detract from the "human story."

Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards when one of Kyle's officers suggests that they could "win the war" by taking out the evil sniper who is upsetting America's peaceful occupation of Sadr City.

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

That's some weak sauce for Taibbi. You don't think people that ended up in Iraq signed up because of 9/11? If you're telling their story, that seems like an unforced part to tell. To act like it's shoehorned in there to imply there's a connection between 9/11 and Iraq is a bit of a jump if there isn't anything else suggesting that implication.

Seems like you should be able to come up with some more legitimate criticism.

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

Also, if there's going to be an American Sniper thread, we probably need this link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kid-rock-michael-moore-american-sniper-20150122

Kid Rock, Michael Moore, RollingStone...it's got everything

tinselwolverine · Jan 23, 2015

Gulo Blue said:
That's some weak sauce for Taibbi. You don't think people that ended up in Iraq signed up because of 9/11? If you're telling their story, that seems like an unforced part to tell. To act like it's shoehorned in there to imply there's a connection between 9/11 and Iraq is a bit of a jump if there isn't anything else suggesting that implication.

Seems like you should be able to come up with some more legitimate criticism.

Well...the film is based on Kyle's autobiography of the same name; so one would think that the director might have viewed directing the film as being from Kyle's perspective - that said - there was recent thread about the current edition of Men's Journal that I posted because there was an article about mgoblog in it; but I originally picked it up because there was something about Jesse Ventura that looked like might have something to do with Ventura's lawsuit against - which turns out it did - Kyle for what Kyle wrote about a run-in he had with a former Navy Seal; he didn't identify the Seal in the book but in promoting the book Kyle claimed the Seal had been Ventura.

Ventura claimed this never happened.

Ventura sued Kyle and won; and it turns out that many claim that Kyle was guy who was prone to spin a yarn every now and then.

So Eastwood sort of has a directorial dilemma; telling the story from the perspective of a guy who may not have told the truth about everything in his autobiography.

Thumb · Jan 23, 2015

It's not like you were going to watch it anyways though, right?

tinselwolverine · Jan 23, 2015

Moore's uncle was killed by a sniper in World War II and that he was raised to believe snipers were cowards.

I feel bad that Michael Moore's uncle was killed but...I'm assuming that he was in the U.S. Military when he was killed, and he was killed by a German or Japanese sniper...

So I don't know what he's trying to say...that the U.S. shouldn't use snipers in battle because whoever the US in battling has successfully used sniper against the United States, and it seemed cowardly to the families the US military victims that snipers were successfully utilized against?

Does that make any sense?

Whoever the US is battling can lob a grenade at a safe distance and wipe out a lot of US soldiers; should the US forego using grenades because of that?

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

Gulo Blue said:
That's some weak sauce for Taibbi. ...

No it isn't.

you're doing that thing you do sometimes, like with Krugman, where you can't really argue against the premise, so instead you make some circumstantial complaint, just to get a complaint on the record.

"Well, yeah, the movie was dumb, pandering, shitty, and misleading, but I think he could've done a better job saying that."

I enjoyed his comparison to Forrest Gump:

"This is the same Hollywood culture that turned the horror and divisiveness of the Vietnam War era into a movie about a platitude-spewing doofus with leg braces who in the face of terrible moral choices eats chocolates and plays Ping-Pong. The message of Forrest Gump was that if you think about the hard stuff too much, you'll either get AIDS or lose your legs. Meanwhile, the hero is the idiot who just shrugs and says "Whatever!" whenever his country asks him to do something crazy."

spot on.

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

tinselwolverine said:
Well...the film is based on Kyle's autobiography of the same name; so one would think that the director might have viewed directing the film as being from Kyle's perspective - that said - there was recent thread about the current edition of Men's Journal that I posted because there was an article about mgoblog in it; but I originally picked it up because there was something about Jesse Ventura that looked like might have something to do with Ventura's lawsuit against - which turns out it did - Kyle for what Kyle wrote about a run-in he had with a former Navy Seal; he didn't identify the Seal in the book but in promoting the book Kyle claimed the Seal had been Ventura.

Ventura claimed this never happened.

Ventura sued Kyle and won; and it turns out that many claim that Kyle was guy who was prone to spin a yarn every now and then.

So Eastwood sort of has a directorial dilemma; telling the story from the perspective of a guy who may not have told the truth about everything in his autobiography.

Stop trying to imply there's a link between Jesse Ventura and MGoBlog.

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

Thumb said:
It's not like you were going to watch it anyways though, right?

tinselwolverine · Jan 23, 2015

Gulo Blue said:
Stop trying to imply there's a link between Jesse Ventura and MGoBlog.

Well there is.

There is an article on both in the current edition of Men's Journal.

Thumb · Jan 23, 2015

Anyone posting in this thread actually see the movie besides me?

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

michchamp said:
No it isn't.

you're doing that thing you do sometimes, like with Krugman, where you can't really argue against the premise, so instead you make some circumstantial complaint, just to get a complaint on the record.

A lot of my posts are critical of things where I agree with the premise, but think people are just going too far with it. That's fundamentally different from not being able to argue against the premise.

I bet Zyxt is pretty tired of me sniping at his enthusiastic technology posts even though I'm probably right in line behind him in technology optimism.

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

tinselwolverine said:
Moore's uncle was killed by a sniper in World War II and that he was raised to believe snipers were cowards.

I feel bad that Michael Moore's uncle was killed but...I'm assuming that he was in the U.S. Military when he was killed, and he was killed by a German or Japanese sniper...

So I don't know what he's trying to say...that the U.S. shouldn't use snipers in battle because whoever the US in battling has successfully used sniper against the United States, and it seemed cowardly to the families the US military victims that snipers were successfully utilized against?

Does that make any sense?

Whoever the US is battling can lob a grenade at a safe distance and wipe out a lot of US soldiers; should the US forego using grenades because of that?

sort of. He's not the only person - pacifist, or otherwise - who has questioned the use of snipers, although, right now, in this context, I doubt you'll find many service people taking his side.

And your analogy isn't very good. You can't really lob a grenade from a safe distance... I don't think there's any human capable of throwing a grenade farther than a rifle, or even pistol can shoot.

on the other hand, a sniper is usually concealed, attacking persons unaware of his/her presence & totally unable to defend themselves.

Taibbi includes some quotes from Kyle himself that seem to indicate he was pretty broad in his definition of who he would shoot, and shot a lot more people than he otherwise would have, solely to maintain the distinction of being the deadliest sniper. It's crazy that the movie seems to go out of its way to show Kyle had some remorse over blowing away just about anyone who walked through his crosshairs, when in his book he says plainly that he had no remorse, and wished he killed even more people over there. Okaaaaaay...

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

Thumb said:
Anyone posting in this thread actually see the movie besides me?

Probably not. At least until some of the Republitard posters show up.

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

Apparently, Moore also said it has an anti-war sentiment

On the movie's opening weekend, Moore tweeted his comments and added, "Snipers aren't heroes, and invaders are worse." He later claimed that his tweet wasn't about American Sniper in particular and posted a lengthy Facebook missive to clarify his thoughts.

Regarding his own feelings about the movie, he offered, "Awesome performance from Bradley Cooper. One of the best of the year. Great editing. Costumes, hair, makeup superb!" He also praised the film's "anti-war sentiment" and its "touching" ending. Despite those compliments, he criticized the way the movie's characters call Iraqis "savages" and alleges that Clint confused Iraq for Vietnam with his movie.

tinselwolverine · Jan 23, 2015

michchamp said:
And your analogy isn't very good. You can't really lob a grenade from a safe distance... I don't think there's any human capable of throwing a grenade farther than a rifle, or even pistol can shoot.

Well...you're pretty much always going to be at a safer distance than whoever you're throwing at will be.

Gulo Blue · Jan 23, 2015

tinselwolverine said:
Well there is.

There is an article on both in the current edition of Men's Journal.

Yeah, but were they cooperating? I think we all know what you meant to imply. You chose to tell us they were both in the magazine.

tinselwolverine · Jan 23, 2015

Thumb said:
Anyone posting in this thread actually see the movie besides me?

I haven't - wanted to go two weeks ago but it wasn't out in full release and the hike wouldn't have been worth it.

Last weekend I was too jammed up.

Maybe this weekend.

I want to see Bradley Cooper's performance - Gulo quotes Michael Moore in another post praising Cooper's portrayal.

On a post Bob started he said he had gone to the movie; I asked Bob for his reaction but he didn't get back to me.

So what did you think?

Thumb · Jan 23, 2015

michchamp said:
Taibbi includes some quotes from Kyle himself that seem to indicate he was pretty broad in his definition of who he would shoot, and shot a lot more people than he otherwise would have, solely to maintain the distinction of being the deadliest sniper. It's crazy that the movie seems to go out of its way to show Kyle had some remorse over blowing away just about anyone who walked through his crosshairs, when in his book he says plainly that he had no remorse, and wished he killed even more people over there. Okaaaaaay...

See now you have gone off the track. The movie never once implied he had any remorse. In fact, in the movie he makes justification for even his first kill, a 12 year old boy and his mother. And later when questioned by his superiors on the validity of some of his kills he aggressively defends/justifies them.

This is the problem here, you are becoming Joel Seigel. Reviewing a movie you have never seen.

I did see it. It was nothing special. It didn't deserve a best picture nomination IMO.

Michchamp · Jan 23, 2015

Thumb said:
See now you have gone off the track. The movie never once implied he had any remorse. In fact, in the movie he makes justification for even his first kill, a 12 year old boy and his mother. And later when questioned by his superiors on the validity of some of his kills he aggressively defends/justifies them.

This is the problem here, you are becoming Joel Seigel. Reviewing a movie you have never seen.

I did see it. It was nothing special. It didn't deserve a best picture nomination IMO.

I was going off what Taibbi said about it, that at least Cooper winces (so to speak) after killing people, whereas in the book everything seems just peachy.

But if you're saying he's wrong, and that doesn't happen, obviously I can't contradict you because I haven't seen it.

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

Matt Taibbi watched American Sniper so I don't have to.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Senior Member

Well-known member

About Us

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Affiliates