Good movie, but maybe a bit over-rated. I have not seen any other Oscar nominees this year so I don't know where this stands in comparison, but I don't think it deserves a best picture nomination.
American Sniper
- Thread starter SeminoleJM
- Start date
I met my second son when he was almost six months old. He was born three weeks after I deployed. It was terrible.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That is the key, in my case, to the effect the end of the movie has on people. When you see the funeral and all those people lined up on the interstate and in that stadium, that's what got me, much more than the ending scene.
I thought is was great and I am glad I saw it since I don't see many movies in the theater.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Saw it yesterday, and liked it; but I usually go into movies that are 'based on a true story' thinking they will embellish or twist the truth some. And regardless of your political stance, there were a lot of valid points in the article alaskan posted.
I expected the movie to entail more about the difficult decisions these snipers, and other soldiers as well, had to make, and to some degree it did, but to act as though he never got it wrong, or that no other sniper did, is a bit absurd. To me, that's part of the story I wanted to see told; that our troops were put in a very difficult situation, where every choice was life or death, and could rarely be absolutely certain they were making the right one.
The only time Eastwood touched on this was towards the end when the kid picked up the rocket launcher; but I think that pause had more to do with Kyle dealing with his own mental wounds than anything.
Civilians are killed in war, that's just a fact; and to not show that in anyway, I think, takes away from the drama of the film, making it more of a 'rah-rah' type of film than a true depiction.
I knew that he died at the end, and was a little worried they were going to depict it when he was at the range with those two guys, as that would have been fairly brutal to see after 2+ hours of getting to know and like Kyle.
I think Eastwood assumed that everyone would know who Kyle was, and how he died, which is why he didn't go into it more at the end; but I think that was a poor assumption.
I expected the movie to entail more about the difficult decisions these snipers, and other soldiers as well, had to make, and to some degree it did, but to act as though he never got it wrong, or that no other sniper did, is a bit absurd. To me, that's part of the story I wanted to see told; that our troops were put in a very difficult situation, where every choice was life or death, and could rarely be absolutely certain they were making the right one.
The only time Eastwood touched on this was towards the end when the kid picked up the rocket launcher; but I think that pause had more to do with Kyle dealing with his own mental wounds than anything.
Civilians are killed in war, that's just a fact; and to not show that in anyway, I think, takes away from the drama of the film, making it more of a 'rah-rah' type of film than a true depiction.
I knew that he died at the end, and was a little worried they were going to depict it when he was at the range with those two guys, as that would have been fairly brutal to see after 2+ hours of getting to know and like Kyle.
I think Eastwood assumed that everyone would know who Kyle was, and how he died, which is why he didn't go into it more at the end; but I think that was a poor assumption.
I watched it last night and felt this way too. During each scene I knew the outcome so it wasn't as exciting for me.
Still pulling them in......
"American Sniper" has overtaken "Saving Private Ryan" as the top grossing war movie of all time. The Clint Eastwood drama starring Bradley Cooper has so far earned $217.1 million at the box office, surpassing Spielberg's film, which earned $216.5 million in 1998.
The Eastwood drama added 180 theaters in its third week of release, with "American Sniper" now playing in 3,885 theaters. It overtook "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday, and is on track to earn another $35 million to finish No. 1 at the box office for the third week in a row.
"American Sniper," starring Cooper as controversial sniper Chris Kyle, is leading one of the highest-grossing Januarys in box office history, with only the first month of 2010, dominated by James Cameron's "Avatar," finishing higher.
The film is also looking likely to break another record, for the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time. It will have to beat $370 million to surpass the record held by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
"American Sniper" has overtaken "Saving Private Ryan" as the top grossing war movie of all time. The Clint Eastwood drama starring Bradley Cooper has so far earned $217.1 million at the box office, surpassing Spielberg's film, which earned $216.5 million in 1998.
The Eastwood drama added 180 theaters in its third week of release, with "American Sniper" now playing in 3,885 theaters. It overtook "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday, and is on track to earn another $35 million to finish No. 1 at the box office for the third week in a row.
"American Sniper," starring Cooper as controversial sniper Chris Kyle, is leading one of the highest-grossing Januarys in box office history, with only the first month of 2010, dominated by James Cameron's "Avatar," finishing higher.
The film is also looking likely to break another record, for the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time. It will have to beat $370 million to surpass the record held by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
The more and more I think about this movie, the less I like it (in the 'based on a true story' sense).
The conflation of AQ, 9/11, etc to the Iraq War, while omitting any references to WMD or Saddam is about as egregious as it gets. You're telling me not one soldier that Kyle encountered didn't lament 'I thought we were here for WMDs?' Come on man...
Also, the fact that the movie seems to focus on PTSD but makes no mention or even an allusion to the government/military's lack of support for these soldiers post-war? Come on...
Cooper was phenomenal, he acted better than I thought he could; I'm sure Kyle is as much of an American Hero as anyone before him, and his death was tragic, but Eastwood's own personal agenda becomes clearer the more I think about it, and that is sad.
The conflation of AQ, 9/11, etc to the Iraq War, while omitting any references to WMD or Saddam is about as egregious as it gets. You're telling me not one soldier that Kyle encountered didn't lament 'I thought we were here for WMDs?' Come on man...
Also, the fact that the movie seems to focus on PTSD but makes no mention or even an allusion to the government/military's lack of support for these soldiers post-war? Come on...
Cooper was phenomenal, he acted better than I thought he could; I'm sure Kyle is as much of an American Hero as anyone before him, and his death was tragic, but Eastwood's own personal agenda becomes clearer the more I think about it, and that is sad.
Sounds like your personal evaluation of the movie closely mirrors mine. Went through different stages (be it very quickly) when I watched the movie. Gave it a lot of thought, felt like it missed on so many levels (possibly intentionally so).
1. Did ya'll read the book?
2. I'm an educator. It's difficult to discuss education with me because I live it in everyday, and I have very strong views about it that a parent probably couldn't grasp. I have those views, and I have never been shot at, killed someone, or had a friend killed carrying out my profession. I can grasp why a special operator has a view of patriotism that I couldn't understand.
Personally, I feel that Eastwood's political views marked the movie just as the political views of the critics.
2. I'm an educator. It's difficult to discuss education with me because I live it in everyday, and I have very strong views about it that a parent probably couldn't grasp. I have those views, and I have never been shot at, killed someone, or had a friend killed carrying out my profession. I can grasp why a special operator has a view of patriotism that I couldn't understand.
Personally, I feel that Eastwood's political views marked the movie just as the political views of the critics.
Uhhhh... no, if it is good enough of a book, it'll be made into a movie, and I won't have to.
Something strange happened to me after seeing this though, that I thought was interesting/funny. I'm waiting for the wife by the bathrooms, and this lady is about ten feet away from me, I make no eye contact with her, but she just walks right up to me and says "What did you think of the movie?!" I gave her a short answer, and then she proceeded to tell me this was her second time seeing it. Which seemed even more odd to me, as some movies are one shot deals, IMO. Even with my gripes about the movie, it is fairly emotional, and doesn't seem like one you would want to watch over and over; especially not within the course of a couple of weeks.
I just don't know why I get approached by strangers so much. No matter how unapproachable I try to be, strangers always seem to find me and strike up completely unsolicited, odd conversations.
I guess I am just different. It was a movie and entertaining; did not see it for anything more or less. Now I did see it with a bunch of military folks on DVD so maybe the theatre viewing creates some other stuff? Also read the book and felt the same way, just a book about a guy who was very good at what he did. I will say I met and saw his wife speak and she is one tough cookie.
Doubt it... I'd probably get lots of "Did that hurt a lot?"s and "Did you get anything else altered?"s...
Earlier that same day, wife and I are in line at French Pantry, I clear my sinuses kind of loudly and lady turns around and says "Are you sick?" I say no. She then proceeds to spend the remaining time asking me what things are on the menu, and if I had seen the FSU BB game the night before... wishing I would have said yes now...
Saw it today-- thought it was good.
Our military is good at what it does but war sucks.....
This post was edited on 2/21 6:31 PM by GwinnettNole
Our military is good at what it does but war sucks.....
This post was edited on 2/21 6:31 PM by GwinnettNole
Come on man! The Vox and its editor Ezra Klein is about as biased a publication as one can imagine. It comes right out of the extreme left who will vilify any suggestion that there is any redeeming value to the military, soldiers or any use of force that is not in support of women, illegal immigration or gender/racial rights. It is an opinion publication that directly tells readers that they see their role as "explaining the news"; not reporting the facts. Did the movie take any creative license? Some for sure. e.g. the "letter" read by parent at the funeral that Kyle tells his wife was the "reason" he writer/seal died is an artistic short cut. But interestingly enough it is portrayed in the movie as an anti war rant. In fact, it was not, as the Seal's widow has explained and published the actual letter that supports the mission.
I'm not sure what the bigger, more meaningful story should have been, but the movie was based on the autobiography of the persons who were there, both in the war zone and in his home. Now there may be a a bigger agenda that someone wants to promote, but if you are going to make a movie based on a book you have paid big buck to secure the rights to produce, you have some obligation to be consistent w/ the book. It is what he says happened and what his widow says happened and my view is it showed nothing to glorify war or exaggerate the behavior of the documented facts surrounding the "butcher" and the terrorists that fought against the US after the defeat of Hussien and the Iraqi armed forces. The severed heads in a freezer were found. The torture chambers were found and they were a precursor to what we've witnessed today.
So you're saying it had to be true to an autobiography but then the director invents a rivalry with an enemy sniper that was not in the book and whom Kyle never said he encountered? To top that, showing that Kyle killed said rival Sniper with a record length shot?
Had they left that embellishment out, I wouldn't have had much issue with the rest. Doing all that makes it seem like Kyle couldn't be seen as a hero with all he did if they didn't go the Hollywood stereotype route and create a single rival.
I didn't dislike the movie, but I still had issues with it.
The bigger issue, in which the article did a good job covering is that this war we are in isn't black and white. The Boston Marathon gets bombed and our country is in outrage, but when one of our drone strikes killed innocent civilians, nobody bats an eye. And movies like this do nothing but perpetuate this idea that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.
The author of the article sums it up better than I ever could-
But pretending that heroic sheepdog warriors never accidentally kill civilians is a dangerous lie about the true nature of combat. In the real world, even well-intentioned soldiers do sometimes kill innocent people, because that is how war works.
Pretending otherwise is an insult to the many American veterans who have to spend the rest of their lives grappling with their actions during the Iraq War, and to the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the conflict began. And it's also dangerous, because it tells Americans not to worry about the harm our wars may do to civilians, who are probably all terrorists anyway. It's bad enough to hide that truth behind euphemisms like "collateral damage," but much worse to write it out of the story completely.
So yes, I think the movie completely missed the mark. Well, actually it hit the mark because the point of a movie is to make money and it made money (a ton of it).
It is an interesting commentary that when a movie is the subject of a controversial social subject like racial history (e.g. The Butler) or assassination of a foreign head of state (e.g. The Interview) the moral elite say, "It is the artistic freedom and freedom of expression found in the movie, not accuracy, that must be honored." But when the topic is legal warfare, it must be about accuracy and staunch adherence to factual detail. The Butler or Selma can't be criticized for their lack of historic accuracy or willingness to take artistic license, but American Sniper is to be disparaged for the same practices. Glorification of war must be avoided at all costs by today's Hollywood (e.g. Saving Private Ryan) but completely inventing characters, anti war actions and fictions about past presidents like Johnson and Reagan (Selma and The Butler) are poorly treated when held to a similar standard of accuracy.
Horseshot.
Horseshot.
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them).
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
Yes, The Butler (Back Stairs At the White House) was and was about as far from consistent w/ that movie as you could get. Invented children and other characters and fictitious events.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them). Because there is a broader point and context to the discussion. Just because you are unfamiliar w/ two examples doesn't make it irrelevant.
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
Selma has been discussed nationally on TV and print about the film's inaccurate portrayal of the events with President Johnson.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Ok time for me to get "familiar". Google search is a wonderful thing. I had no intention of going there in this thread, but you decided to fork.Originally posted by seminole72:
Yes, The Butler (Back Stairs At the White House) was and was about as far from consistent w/ that movie as you could get. Invented children and other characters and fictitious events.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them). Because there is a broader point and context to the discussion. Just because you are unfamiliar w/ two examples doesn't make it irrelevant.
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
The Butler is not based on BACK STAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, although, you seem to think it is. It's loosely based on the life of Eugene Allen. The movie is not based on any autobiographical work, as Eugene Allen does not have an autobiography. There was a story about his life,written by Wil Haygood, but that's about it. The work you refer to (Back Stairs at the White House) was a mini series in 1979 based on a book "My 30 Years Back Stairs at the White House" by Lillian Rogers Parks. The butler has no direct relation with either of those works. May have drawn inspiration, but is certainly not based on any autobiographical work.
I only hone in on that work "autobiography" because you yourself used it in your response to my earlier question.
The other works that you mention (The Interview, Saving Private Ryan, The Butler) are fictionalized history. Selma is a newer movie that I have not seen, nor do I have any motivation to watch it so I cannot speak to that at all.
If I wanted to have a discussion about why other movies not related to this post about the film The American Sniper, then I'd look for a thread about them or start one (as I've done with other shows and movies).
There may be many out there with underlying motivations for wanting to criticize the film "American Sniper", but saying something could be better isn't all that critical. Taking issue with embellishment (I reiterate that the sniper Mustafa really had no business being in the film in the manner which they presented it) does not mean that party has an agenda at hand.
You can't take the position of defending a film for being a certain way because it's based on an autobiography, then overlook some obvious large deviations from the original work itself. Then, almost in the same breath, get defensive over why other completely or largely fictional works that are not based on autobiographies are not as criticized in the same light as you perceive American Sniper to be.
This post was edited on 2/23 11:17 AM by dmm5157
Your getting silly. Go back and read. I didn't defend the film as being without historical inaccuracies. I specifically noted one that is in the movie, but ironically serves to challenge the war and the role of the soldiers there. The reference I used to autobiography is that the guy who was there and his wife who served as a consultant to the movie were eye witnesses and it would only make sense to use their experience as the basis for the movie as opposed to "making a broader" statement.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Ok time for me to get "familiar". Google search is a wonderful thing. I had no intention of going there in this thread, but you decided to fork.Originally posted by seminole72:
Yes, The Butler (Back Stairs At the White House) was and was about as far from consistent w/ that movie as you could get. Invented children and other characters and fictitious events.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them). Because there is a broader point and context to the discussion. Just because you are unfamiliar w/ two examples doesn't make it irrelevant.
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
The Butler is not based on BACK STAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, although, you seem to think it is. It's loosely based on the life of Eugene Allen. The movie is not based on any autobiographical work, as Eugene Allen does not have an autobiography. There was a story about his life,written by Wil Haygood, but that's about it. The work you refer to (Back Stairs at the White House) was a mini series in 1979 based on a book "My 30 Years Back Stairs at the White House" by Lillian Rogers Parks. The butler has no direct relation with either of those works. May have drawn inspiration, but is certainly not based on any autobiographical work.
I only hone in on that work "autobiography" because you yourself used it in your response to my earlier question.
The other works that you mention (The Interview, Saving Private Ryan, The Butler) are fictionalized history. Selma is a newer movie that I have not seen, nor do I have any motivation to watch it so I cannot speak to that at all.
If I wanted to have a discussion about why other movies not related to this post about the film The American Sniper, then I'd look for a thread about them or start one (as I've done with other shows and movies).
There may be many out there with underlying motivations for wanting to criticize the film "American Sniper", but saying something could be better isn't all that critical. Taking issue with embellishment (I reiterate that the sniper Mustafa really had no business being in the film in the manner which they presented it) does not mean that party has an agenda at hand.
You can't take the position of defending a film for being a certain way because it's based on an autobiography, then overlook some obvious large deviations from the original work itself. Then, almost in the same breath, get defensive over why other completely or largely fictional works that are not based on autobiographies are not as criticized in the same light as you perceive American Sniper to be.
This post was edited on 2/23 11:17 AM by dmm5157
As for Eugene Allen and his recollections of his life in the Whitehouse, my cliff notes reference of Back Stairs was to demonstrate a much more accurate historical treatment of his memoirs than The Butler. The Butler invented characters and events never mentioned by Allen, but it was released as "based on historical events"
You seem to be annoyed that I posted something in this thread that you would rather not consider. Ok. You post what you want and I'll do the same. If you don't want to consider that there is a double standard in the critique of certain movies, don't
There in lies the answer to my stance. I'd rather discuss this movie (the name of the thread, after all) and thoughts on it. You would rather discuss double standards in Hollywood. Gotcha.Originally posted by seminole72:
Your getting silly. Go back and read. I didn't defend the film as being without historical inaccuracies. I specifically noted one that is in the movie, but ironically serves to challenge the war and the role of the soldiers there. The reference I used to autobiography is that the guy who was there and his wife who served as a consultant to the movie were eye witnesses and it would only make sense to use their experience as the basis for the movie as opposed to "making a broader" statement.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Ok time for me to get "familiar". Google search is a wonderful thing. I had no intention of going there in this thread, but you decided to fork.Originally posted by seminole72:
Yes, The Butler (Back Stairs At the White House) was and was about as far from consistent w/ that movie as you could get. Invented children and other characters and fictitious events.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them). Because there is a broader point and context to the discussion. Just because you are unfamiliar w/ two examples doesn't make it irrelevant.
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
The Butler is not based on BACK STAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, although, you seem to think it is. It's loosely based on the life of Eugene Allen. The movie is not based on any autobiographical work, as Eugene Allen does not have an autobiography. There was a story about his life,written by Wil Haygood, but that's about it. The work you refer to (Back Stairs at the White House) was a mini series in 1979 based on a book "My 30 Years Back Stairs at the White House" by Lillian Rogers Parks. The butler has no direct relation with either of those works. May have drawn inspiration, but is certainly not based on any autobiographical work.
I only hone in on that work "autobiography" because you yourself used it in your response to my earlier question.
The other works that you mention (The Interview, Saving Private Ryan, The Butler) are fictionalized history. Selma is a newer movie that I have not seen, nor do I have any motivation to watch it so I cannot speak to that at all.
If I wanted to have a discussion about why other movies not related to this post about the film The American Sniper, then I'd look for a thread about them or start one (as I've done with other shows and movies).
There may be many out there with underlying motivations for wanting to criticize the film "American Sniper", but saying something could be better isn't all that critical. Taking issue with embellishment (I reiterate that the sniper Mustafa really had no business being in the film in the manner which they presented it) does not mean that party has an agenda at hand.
You can't take the position of defending a film for being a certain way because it's based on an autobiography, then overlook some obvious large deviations from the original work itself. Then, almost in the same breath, get defensive over why other completely or largely fictional works that are not based on autobiographies are not as criticized in the same light as you perceive American Sniper to be.
This post was edited on 2/23 11:17 AM by dmm5157
As for Eugene Allen and his recollections of his life in the Whitehouse, my cliff notes reference of Back Stairs was to demonstrate a much more accurate historical treatment of his memoirs than The Butler. The Butler invented characters and events never mentioned by Allen, but it was released as "based on historical events"
You seem to be annoyed that I posted something in this thread that you would rather not consider. Ok. You post what you want and I'll do the same. If you don't want to consider that there is a double standard in the critique of certain movies, don't
Gentlemen, it seems that this post is spinning way out of its intended area. This was simply a movie, a form of entertainment. Nothing more should be taken from it. I have not watched it, nor any other movie about the Teams. I have my reasons which most of you know.
That being said, this movie is the latest in a long line of movies that takes a story and adds things to it in an attempt to make it seem more interesting. Those viewing it will take from it what they will, just like observing works of art, reading a book or listening to music.
Anyone watching this movie should do so in the same frame of mind and expectations as if they were watching Heartbreak Ridge, Schindler's List or any movies "Based on actual events".
That being said, this movie is the latest in a long line of movies that takes a story and adds things to it in an attempt to make it seem more interesting. Those viewing it will take from it what they will, just like observing works of art, reading a book or listening to music.
Anyone watching this movie should do so in the same frame of mind and expectations as if they were watching Heartbreak Ridge, Schindler's List or any movies "Based on actual events".
You got nothinin' The OP contained a link to a Hollywood critique of the movie. The second poster in the thread responded to that critique and I replied to him that the critique is an example of a double standard on this type of movie. Why the OP subsequently deleted the link is a question I can't answer.Originally posted by dmm5157:
There in lies the answer to my stance. I'd rather discuss this movie (the name of the thread, after all) and thoughts on it. You would rather discuss double standards in Hollywood. Gotcha.Originally posted by seminole72:
Your getting silly. Go back and read. I didn't defend the film as being without historical inaccuracies. I specifically noted one that is in the movie, but ironically serves to challenge the war and the role of the soldiers there. The reference I used to autobiography is that the guy who was there and his wife who served as a consultant to the movie were eye witnesses and it would only make sense to use their experience as the basis for the movie as opposed to "making a broader" statement.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Ok time for me to get "familiar". Google search is a wonderful thing. I had no intention of going there in this thread, but you decided to fork.Originally posted by seminole72:
Yes, The Butler (Back Stairs At the White House) was and was about as far from consistent w/ that movie as you could get. Invented children and other characters and fictitious events.Originally posted by dmm5157:
Why not stick to the people in this thread instead of bringing other movies into it? I see no relationship with the film American Sniper to The Butler, The Interview, or Selma (I have not seen the Butler or Selma, not have I read anything about them). Because there is a broader point and context to the discussion. Just because you are unfamiliar w/ two examples doesn't make it irrelevant.
May be confusing critics of the movie all having the same stances.
You pointed out the movie was based on an autobiography. Were any of those other films based on an autobiography? Honest question, as I am not familiar with Selma or the Butler.
The Butler is not based on BACK STAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, although, you seem to think it is. It's loosely based on the life of Eugene Allen. The movie is not based on any autobiographical work, as Eugene Allen does not have an autobiography. There was a story about his life,written by Wil Haygood, but that's about it. The work you refer to (Back Stairs at the White House) was a mini series in 1979 based on a book "My 30 Years Back Stairs at the White House" by Lillian Rogers Parks. The butler has no direct relation with either of those works. May have drawn inspiration, but is certainly not based on any autobiographical work.
I only hone in on that work "autobiography" because you yourself used it in your response to my earlier question.
The other works that you mention (The Interview, Saving Private Ryan, The Butler) are fictionalized history. Selma is a newer movie that I have not seen, nor do I have any motivation to watch it so I cannot speak to that at all.
If I wanted to have a discussion about why other movies not related to this post about the film The American Sniper, then I'd look for a thread about them or start one (as I've done with other shows and movies).
There may be many out there with underlying motivations for wanting to criticize the film "American Sniper", but saying something could be better isn't all that critical. Taking issue with embellishment (I reiterate that the sniper Mustafa really had no business being in the film in the manner which they presented it) does not mean that party has an agenda at hand.
You can't take the position of defending a film for being a certain way because it's based on an autobiography, then overlook some obvious large deviations from the original work itself. Then, almost in the same breath, get defensive over why other completely or largely fictional works that are not based on autobiographies are not as criticized in the same light as you perceive American Sniper to be.
This post was edited on 2/23 11:17 AM by dmm5157
As for Eugene Allen and his recollections of his life in the Whitehouse, my cliff notes reference of Back Stairs was to demonstrate a much more accurate historical treatment of his memoirs than The Butler. The Butler invented characters and events never mentioned by Allen, but it was released as "based on historical events"
You seem to be annoyed that I posted something in this thread that you would rather not consider. Ok. You post what you want and I'll do the same. If you don't want to consider that there is a double standard in the critique of certain movies, don't
smh, if you're going to reply to a post a week later, at least get your facts straight.
The link to that Vox story was posted by AlaskanSeminole (not the OP) and that link is still there, unmodified, on Page 2 of the thread. Your response to my comment (which was in response to Alaskan posting that link) doesn't show until Page 3. That had nothing to do with the original post or poster in this thread.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
FSU 76 Louisville 90 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
- Latest: Bill From Tampa