The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Very humble of you, Chipman. Veeeery humble stance you took on this issue, o Great and Mighty Emperor of Movie Critique. I shall look forward to your next "I'm right and anyone else is wrong" piece, I'm sure the peasants will be thrilled to hear your judgement.

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

While I'm also annoyed that Bob decided to rant about a movie he doesn't like that he recently reviewed. Well it just seems more like a rehashed rant he could've had about The Expendables.

I find myself more annoyed with your concept of earned. Freedom Of Speech is not something you earn. But it is something you have unless its taken away from you by someone threatening you.

I imagine (jokingly) in some alternate universe Bob posted a rant on how he hated a documentary on trees. And someone told him he didn't earn the right to breathe the air that was thanks to the trees.

....

In either case there are people who would've still found the acting in those movies wooden.

Scorpid:

jacobbanks:

Micalas:
Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?

You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

mjharper:

jacobbanks:

Izanagi009:

done nothing to earn it huh? so by that definition, anyone who does not want to or can't fight in a war have done nothing to earn a right that was granted to us by the Bill of Rights rectified in 1791, well before you and I were born.

Also, this movie was not given a limited release to VA organizations or military camps but to the public. As such, I would think that the public, having been the people who watch it, can have an opinion on it regardless of if it's about a veteran or not?

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

Actually, several hundred MILLION have seen the face of war.
Maybe even a billion.
So it is more like 6/7s of the planet. But not 99%.

jacobbanks:

Westonbirt:

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

What a fucking wonderful sentiment. One of the reason why societies who see the army as something other than a tool in the broader array of government institutions bother me is because when you enshrine something, you make respect to it mandatory, meaning it's going to devolve into a corrupted mess, and you make of its members a clergy whose undue respect makes them lose the sense of their actual mission. The military becomes less the defence of the nation and more a class that it outwardly respected but silently shunned because nobody deals with it as it is, rather as they wish it was. And that's how we get people like you.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

Well isn't that just making my point. Considering your previous record, this is quite an accurate contrast between our answers.

RatGouf:

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

While I'm also annoyed that Bob decided to rant about a movie he doesn't like that he recently reviewed. Well it just seems more like a rehashed rant he could've had about The Expendables.

I find myself more annoyed with your concept of earned. Freedom Of Speech is not something you earn. But it is something you have unless its taken away from you by someone threatening you.

I imagine (jokingly) in some alternate universe Bob posted a rant on how he hated a documentary on trees. And someone told him he didn't earn the right to breathe the air that was thanks to the trees.

....

In either case there are people who would've still found the acting in those movies wooden.

Ahh, let me elaborate... Freedom to speak without fear of reprisal... That good enough? We all have free will in the sense that we can do what our bodies are capable of... doesn't mean you could do it without ramming into someone else's free will.

jacobbanks:

mjharper:

jacobbanks:

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Even if that is true (which I am not convinced of, since there things like logic should be universally applicable, and anyway such an argument leads to a slippery slope where only artists can have an opinion on art, and so on)... even if it is true, isn't the argument undermined in this case by the fact that Eastwood is not a veteran?

If only veterans can have an opinion on veterans, doesn't that only apply to the book, and not to the movie, which is an adaptation by a non-veteran?

Ickabod:
For some reason I just think it's kind of funny that this is turning into a propaganda movie, where you either love it or you're unmerican. Wasn't the propaganda movie in Inglorious Bastards about a sniper too.

There's a second layer to the irony when you also take into account that the movie has a pretty strong anti-war message, which for years has typically been something that, no matter the actual quality of the movie, typically gave it an automatic pass by the left and rejection by the right, which is the exact opposite of what happened with American Sniper.

Sigmund Av Volsung:

Charcharo:

Sigmund Av Volsung:

I think it's less so "American Sniper is just bad, stfu" and more so "please stop using American Sniper as a political weapon".

I'd say it's bad titling at fault here, since the video revolves around how American Sniper is a hit in America because it feeds into the insecurity spurred on by their recent wars by giving them a certain, moral righteousness on the "War on Terror".

I honestly think it is both. That it is just a bad movie, nothing more and what you said.

BTW, my father liked it. We arent American. He was in the military though. Then again he likes such movies :P

I'll admit that MovieBob isn't the best in articulating his points correctly. That said, I'm pretty sure you can still enjoy the movie so long as after watching it you don't un-ironically go "FUCK YEAH AMERICA KILL THEM MUSLIMS THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!11!".

That would be a real problem since you're using your own enjoyment of the movie and your patriotism to cannonise it as some sort of symbol of the "war on terror".

*Looks at Movie Bob's opinion of FPS games, his opinion on that which must not be named, his opinion on PC Gaming...

I see what you mean. He really is bad at articulating. So bad that I am unsure whether it is not you and I that are giving his thoughts reasoning ...

Charcharo:

mjharper:

jacobbanks:

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

Actually, several hundred MILLION have seen the face of war.
Maybe even a billion.
So it is more like 6/7s of the planet. But not 99%.

Depends - what qualifies as a veteran ? The western form of it is more military members in arms way, such that logistics personnel is not counted. If you count only people who have fought in a professional capacity, shed civilians and administrative work, it's quite a small minority.

I mean, all my heart to people being shelled, but they're not really "veterans".

Charcharo:

mjharper:

jacobbanks:

Oh you can have an opinion... it just doesn't matter... and yes... compared to the men and women who have died protecting that piece of paper that says you can say what ever you want, Yes! you've done nothing for it.

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

Actually, several hundred MILLION have seen the face of war.
Maybe even a billion.
So it is more like 6/7s of the planet. But not 99%.

I was referring to those who had fought to 'protect that piece of paper'. Only the US military is being referred to, not all those touched by war. You're right, that number would be much higher.

jacobbanks:

Scorpid:

jacobbanks:

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?

You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

As it turns out, physical violence as an answer to criticism... not legal.

mjharper:

jacobbanks:

mjharper:

You signed up just to spark this debate? Well done.

Also, thanks for dismissing 99.9% of the current population of the Earth as having opinions which don't matter. That's cool too.

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Even if that is true (which I am not convinced of, since there things like logic should be universally applicable, and anyway such an argument leads to a slippery slope where only artists can have an opinion on art, and so on)... even if it is true, isn't the argument undermined in this case by the fact that Eastwood is not a veteran?

If only veterans can have an opinion on veterans, doesn't that only apply to the book, and not to the movie, which is an adaptation by a non-veteran?

Now that is a good question... I could find that agreeable... Clint Eastwood's interpretation of the book is lack luster... Yeah, there you go, common ground.

Westonbirt:

jacobbanks:

Scorpid:

Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?

You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

As it turns out, physical violence as an answer to criticism... not legal.

LEGAL? WHAT IS LEGAL? Does committing an action that is illegal prevent one from preforming such action? No? Thought not...

Mortis Nuncius:

Tanklover:
This is a movie I could never stomach, simply because is nothing but simple dick waving american army/patriotism bullshit, basically 'Murica Fuck Yeah: The movie. And yeah I really couldn't bother with something like this. Not that I dislike the US or its culture, but some parts of it are pretty damn stupid and or hypocritical.

I don't see how it could be turned into "Murica Fuck Yeah" sensibly considering, from what I gather, the movie is about how it changes people and often not for the better. He pushes his family away time and time again because he's become addicted to war and it tears him apart, only to end in him being killed back home in a shooting range by another man whose mind has been lost to war. That doesn't paint war in a pretty picture for me. That doesn't seem like something that people would strive to re-create for themselves, personally.

Making icons is rarely ever about what things actually are, it's more about the zeitgeist and the way people chose to remember it. If a whole wing of the American society chooses to canonize AS as a celebration of military bravery, you can't do anything to stop them. Chris Kyle is an icon, and icons are like statues, they don't say anything, they embody what people want them to.

oh wow, that Sarah Palin clip was ridiculous. At first I thought it was a parody and someone mocking her....but it was actually her.

jacobbanks:

Micalas:
Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

So you're saying that because of the US Military, I don't have to worry about people punching me in the face when I talk. Oh thank god. That's so much easier than filing a police report and having to take someone to court for battery.

So how does this protection from face punching manifest? If someone throws a punch at me, will a service member materialize in front of me to catch the punch or will they kill me would-be assailant?

jacobbanks:

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Fine. Then as the FOURTH in my line to have served the military, do I get a vote? This movie wasn't the greatest. I didn't think it sucked, but it could have spent more time on what it's really like there, and instead of focusing on "difficult choices made for good reasons" they drudged up a super villain. That trivializes the actual events, to me. Not liking this movie doesn't make you unpatriotic, liking the movie isn't the height of "fight the power", it just happens to entertain some people who enjoy war movies period. Or action.

Your idea that these people aren't allowed to speak their opinion because they're not vets is so dumb that it actually hurt my brain. Then why did our forefathers allow ALL to vote instead of simply military minded people? To get the full picture, to be free from exactly those who said if you're not one of these people your opinion doesn't matter. If you want to get up in someone's face about not being 'MURICAN enough to matter, then you've missed the point entirely of what it is WE fight for.

PetiteMoogle:

jacobbanks:

I actually did... And oh no, you misunderstand. When it comes to things that are about the effects of coming back from war and the effects of war. Non war veterans and their opinion of said portrayals don't matter. I'm sure if we we're talking about fixing a car or preforming lab research you wouldn't care about the opinion of a non mechanic or non scientist.

Fine. Then as the FOURTH in my line to have served the military, do I get a vote? This movie wasn't the greatest. I didn't think it sucked, but it could have spent more time on what it's really like there, and instead of focusing on "difficult choices made for good reasons" they drudged up a super villain. That trivializes the actual events, to me. Not liking this movie doesn't make you unpatriotic, liking the movie isn't the height of "fight the power", it just happens to entertain some people who enjoy war movies period. Or action.

Your idea that these people aren't allowed to speak their opinion because they're not vets is so dumb that it actually hurt my brain. Then why did our forefathers allow ALL to vote instead of simply military minded people? To get the full picture, to be free from exactly those who said if you're not one of these people your opinion doesn't matter. If you want to get up in someone's face about not being 'MURICAN enough to matter, then you've missed the point entirely of what it is WE fight for.

As a veteran, your opinion on veteran related things counts :)

however, our forefathers allowed all land owning white men to vote... That said, you can have an opinion on any number of things... Just things your are not familiar with or have no knowledge are things in which your opinion hold no weight.

Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.

Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.

Westonbirt:

Making icons is rarely ever about what things actually are, it's more about the zeitgeist and the way people chose to remember it. If a whole wing of the American society chooses to canonize AS as a celebration of military bravery, you can't do anything to stop them. Chris Kyle is an icon, and icons are like statues, they don't say anything, they embody what people want them to.

Wonderfully expressed, my friend. I agree.

daxterx2005:
oh wow, that Sarah Palin clip was ridiculous. At first I thought it was a parody and someone mocking her....but it was actually her.

Eh, for Palin, that really wasn't that bad. Try this one.

Micalas:

jacobbanks:

Micalas:
Haven't seen the movie, don't care to.

This is ridiclous. I'm a huge supporter of the military and even work for the DoD, but I'm tired of this line. The last vets that fought for our freedoms were from WW2. And the freedoms "protected" in that war for the US was tenuous at best. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor was bombed, which wasn't much worse than a modern terrorist attack.

You're out of your mind if you think any of the people in the middle east are threatening our freedoms. You can definitely say that troops right now are working to ensure that we don't get attacked in a large scale way again. But what you can't say that our "freedoms" are being defended.

Until we get invaded, there are very few things that will be classified as protecting our freedoms when it comes to armed response.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

So you're saying that because of the US Military, I don't have to worry about people punching me in the face when I talk. Oh thank god. That's so much easier than filing a police report and having to take someone to court for battery.

So how does this protection from face punching manifest? If someone throws a punch at me, will a service member materialize in front of me to catch the punch or will they kill me would-be assailant?

oh no, because of people willing to defend others, not exclusively the military... if you're capable of defending yourself, why worry about people who disagree with you.

Christopher Scott "Chris" Kyle was a racist prick and a terrible human being. That ignorant Americans jizz in their pants over this drivel of a movie which was never in the same vicinity as the real story make the entire circus even more offensive.

Hebby:
Christopher Scott "Chris" Kyle was a racist prick and a terrible human being. That ignorant Americans jizz in their pants over this drivel of a move which was never in the same vicinity as the real story make the entire circus even more offensive.

It's not illegal to be racist. Good thing too, everyone is racist.

jacobbanks:

That said, you can have an opinion on any number of things... Just things your are not familiar with or have no knowledge are things in which your opinion hold no weight.

Oh how I wish this was true..

On the subject of superheroes as modern allegory of current events:

I'd actually really appreciate it if many of them took more of a stand on these kinds of things or at least had more of a point and I find it ironic that Bob points out the Avengers (together and individually) as having nothing to do with reality when:

-Iron Man 3 deals with war veterans and the Iron Patriot as a symbol of global policing and failed foreign policy.

-Winter Soldier inherently urges audiences to question the government and at least begins talking about "the world as it should be versus the world as it is" (before the Nazis take over the 3rd act).

-The Avengers spitting in the face of dour, dreary action trends by focusing not on Loki's destruction of New York but on the stand-up group of people who, amid chaos and war, went out of their way to rescue civilians because that's the main and now seemingly forgotten point of superheroes.

jacobbanks:

Westonbirt:

jacobbanks:
If you're not a veteran, then this movie wasn't for you and your opinion of it doesn't matter. Enjoy the freedom of speech for which you've done nothing to earn.

What a fucking wonderful sentiment. One of the reason why societies who see the army as something other than a tool in the broader array of government institutions bother me is because when you enshrine something, you make respect to it mandatory, meaning it's going to devolve into a corrupted mess, and you make of its members a clergy whose undue respect makes them lose the sense of their actual mission. The military becomes less the defence of the nation and more a class that it outwardly respected but silently shunned because nobody deals with it as it is, rather as they wish it was. And that's how we get people like you.

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

You don't have to EARN Freedom of speech. The idea that people have to earn their rights and freedom, blindly glorifying the military, and disrespecting people's civil liberty are the philosophises of a fascist state.
More over in resent years the military and the institutions around it has be a greater TREAT to the freedoms U.S. Freedoms and Rights then any terrorist.

Being English I can say with some assurance that this film isn't a thing over here, although I havn't seen any actual numbers on what the movie's grossed so I might be wrong.

We do have these sorts of debates here in England but a lot of it is so isolated that no one really gives it any attention, is this a big thing in America?

jacobbanks:

Scorpid:

jacobbanks:

Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensive :)

Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?

You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

Hmm so you just don't know. Alright. The 1st amendment is not freedom from reprisals for speech, it is not protected by soldiers. Its a contract between the government and the governed on the limits of the government, that limit being that the government cannot prosecute you if you safely voice your opinion no matter what that opinion is. It has since been adopted by other world organizations as a basic human right. The British government (which has no constitution) even holds it as that. It doesn't protect you from repercussions from other citizens which includes being punched in the face, which other other laws do protect you from that. What protects the 1st amendment is lawyers and organizations like the ACLU as well lawmakers themselves. The 1st amendment and the bill of rights does need to be protected but its not from terrorists on the otherside of the world. Soldiers do not protect people from the fear of violence that repeatedly allows the government violate the first amendment, and they do not prosecute the government when it does over step its constitutional limits. Soldiers do perform a service but protection of the bill of rights isn't it and there is no scenario that isn't simply fantasy in which they do.

Hmmmm...I wonder if it's because of the fact that this movie is "based on a true story" that Bob doesn't like the fact that people are attaching their ideologies to this film. That's the only thing I can think of considering he sung the praises of movies such as Elysium and White House Down almost specifically for the political commentary contained there-in. Or perhaps it's because American Sniper has people "imprinting" their views on the movie while the other two I mentioned are stuffing their views down the audience's throat (specifically "The Man" wants to keep health care from the poor masses for Elysium and anyone claiming to be a conservative is a racist nazi terrorist for White House Down).

It's reasons like this that I hate all movies that have a political tilt, even if that tilt is in my favor. I don't watch movies because I want people to tell me how they think the world is, I watch them to be entertained...and I find absolutely nothing entertaining about political propaganda. I can get enough of that by turning on the news if I so desire.

This is also why I don't watch very many movies these days. :P

jacobbanks:
You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.

That's not true at all. The Bill of Rights only protects the right to free speech insofar as it prohibits the federal government from passing laws restricting it. Originally that didn't even apply to state level governments, but there have been subsequent additions to the governing body of laws and rulings that enforce it from the top down. Nothing, at any point, prevents reprisal by private citizens as long as they don't violate other laws which prohibit things like assault, hacking etc. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and there are some restrictions on freedom of speech like when it endanger public safety (shouting fire in a theater) or the applicable slander and libel laws. I've not seen the movie, and I've mostly avoided the fuss, but to say that there is a protection from the consequences of your actions or speech is ignorant at best. Not to mention the idea that the only valid opinion is that of veterans. It's like saying that only the opinions of hardcore gamers matter in these forums.

EDIT

Scorpid:
-Snip-

Aww man, you beat me to it, but good to see someone else with a firm grasp of US law, and I'll stick to my point on the validity of opinions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.