[Closed] American Sniper. (Spoliers)

Bravo on the spoiler, still time to edit it

Bravo on the spoiler, still time to edit it
Really, tell you what, best not spoil Titanic for you as well.

it's a true story, how do you think the OP should end it? 😀

[i]telling the story of a man who killed 255 people (and by his own admission enjoyed it) who is ultimately [/i] elected the Honourable Member for East Riding in the next UKIP govenrment.

Really, tell you what, best not spoil Titanic for you as well.
POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Stoner - Member
it's a true story, how do you think the OP should end it?

It was a spoiler to me.
I did a project on the Titanic at school though, so I know what happens to the boat.

I did a project on the Titanic at school though, so I know what happens to the boat.

Did it cover whether Rose made it or not?

I thought it was going to be a story of one of the world's top twitchers.

Pook - Member

Bravo on the spoiler, still time to edit it

Seriously?

Did it cover whether Rose made it or not?

Who cares about flowers on a bloody boat.

It was a spoiler to me.

And me. I've edited the OP now, problem solved.

Really, tell you what, best not spoil Titanic for you as well.

Or other historical films, like that one about the American submarine that captured the Enigma Machine in World War 2.

[i]Did it cover whether Rose made it or not?[/i]

I think some dodgy Irish shipbuilders made it.

So far I've been put off watching this.

I don't mind war films, even though deep down I know war is a sort of collective mental illness - but celebrating someone for killing more people than anyone else, well it doesn't really sit well with me.

Plus, well how do you put it - the guy was, at least at times, a total fantasist.

I see a few Hollywood people have dared to question the merits of celebrating killing at it's a bit of a flag waving propaganda thing - and been firmly put back in their box.

I'd read his autobiography (which obviously ends differently it seems from the OP) and was looking forward to the film. I certainly [i]would[/i] have been surprised by the ending

chomp I certainly would have been surprised by the ending

It was international news. Honestly, I'm surprised you would read someones biography, then not know ....how shall I put this....how they made news headlines around the world.

EDIT: I will quickly add for the people who are critical of me adding spoilers, or ruining the film, that "the spoiler" as it's described was something I knew about prior to watching it and it in no way changed my view of the film. It's something I'd wager 99% of Americans will know about when they go to see the film, and it has no influence on, nor does it affect the narrative of the film in any way.

I did a project on the Titanic at school though, so I know what happens to the boat.

But I thought they were going to leave it open for a sequel though, 'Titanic II, the Iceberg Strikes Back' with a global warming theme before intersecting with the long running Hindenberg franchise (Aliens v Predators stylee) for 'Titanic versus Hindenberg - Eau de Humanity'

But I thought they were going to leave it open for a sequel though, 'Titanic II, the Iceberg Strikes Back' with a global warming theme before a intersecting with the long running Hindenberg franchise (Aliens v Preditors style) for 'Titanic versus Hindenberg - Eau de Humanity'

Bin dun, mate.

[img] [/img]

Apologies for spoilers on that one. The film poster is a bit of a giveaway.

I'd read his autobiography (which obviously ends differently...

Autobiographies almost never end with the author being elected the Honourable Member for East Riding in the next UKIP govenrment.

🙂

"I'd read his autobiography (which obviously ends differently it seems from the OP) and was looking forward to the film. I certainly would have been surprised by the ending "

Sorry i really did laugh at that 😀

So you are telling me he didn't die at the end of his autobiography!

Speshpaul
So you are telling me he didn't die at the end of his autobiography!

He had a ghost writer. B'doom Tish!!

"He had a ghost writer. B'doom Tish!!

Jimjam, you've just won the internet for a day..... carry on as you see fit 😀

he killed 160 didnt he, but i agree. was left wondering what all the fuss was about. decent enough film to kill a few hours but never award worthy.

but never award worthy.

The same as 99% of films that get awards then.

jaffejoffer

he killed 160 didnt he

160 confirmed. The other 95 were probable kills, where military eyewitness verified him shooting someone but a kill couldn't be confirmed due to the Iraqi crawling away, or being carried away by his buddies, for example. At least that's my understanding of it.

The same as 99% of films that get awards then

Maybe Sniper only got put on the short list so that Clint could pick up a prize.

asthaggis
Not really,but carry on thinking that

Maybe Sniper only got put on the short list so that Clint could pick up a prize.

He's already won best picture twice, and best director for Unforgiven.

Doug Stanhope linked a story on Facebook recently that seemed to prove an awful lot of the book was fabrication (by testimony of others, not identified in the book, breaking silence and putting their side of the story). Couldn't really be bothered to watch it after reading that.

EDIT: Found a link [url= http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle ]HERE[/url]

jaffejoffer - Member

he killed 160 didnt he, but i agree. was left wondering what all the fuss was about. decent enough film to kill a few hours but never award worthy.

I believe he had 160 kills which were confirmed - as in someone else saw whoever he shot actually die, or found dead later - obviously during battles and whatnot it's not always possible to do all that and I suppose it's a bit of a dickhead move to go about putting yourself in harms way to count corpses - actually I'm not sure if anyone of authority has ever confirmed them - it's the number he gave in his book for confirmed kills - 'actual' figures of people he killed if you include the probably (and believe him) are nearer 300. It's sickening number really, but I concide in times of war it's "him or me" or in his case "him or my mate".

As far as I've read all that is legit - and his real life actions weren't as bad/ heart wrenching as the film portrays - I'll avoid spoilers - but in the trailer it shows him scoping a child carrying a bomb of some type and hints that he may or may not have shot him - it didn't happen like that in real life, but he never claimed it did.

It's what happened afterwards that hurts his credibility - he claims he once punched out Jessie 'the body' Ventura - the bloke from Predator who carried the mini-gun thing - who was it seems a real life special forces type when he was young over some slur or other - didn't happen. He also claimed he was a victim of a attempted pick-up jacking whereby two armed men attacked him, he disarmed and killed them both - didn't happen and most chilling I think he claimed that during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina he travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Super Dome and killed dozens of looters and other wrong 'uns. Also didn't happen.

I suppose he might have just been unable to handle the fame and BS a lot when he was under pressure, or it was a kind of PDST or maybe he just wanted to be the 'all American bad ass' some people seem to love. They certainly gushed over him on 'Sons of Guns'.

It's something I'd wager 99% of Americans will know about

I'd wager that 99% of our readership isn't American.

I'm not about to spend the entire day redacting spoilers, so I'll stick a warning in the title instead.

1 - not seen it
2 - not read the book
3 - not aware of the story
4 - not one of 99% of Americans
5 - not one of 1% of remaining Americans
6 - was going to see it
7 - now might not bother
8 - it's not much to ask to take out the spoiler

Pook - Member

1 - not seen it
2 - not read the book
3 - not aware of the story
4 - not one of 99% of Americans
5 - not one of 1% of remaining Americans
6 - was going to see it
7 - now might not bother
8 - it's not much to ask to take out the spoiler

Well Pook, I am sorry if I've inadvertently spoiled your experience of going to see a film about someone you've never heard of, based on a book you've not read, which was a biography of someone you know nothing about. Obviously it's a subject you're very interested in, so your disappointment is understandable.
For what it's worth, I did know the whole story, and since the film is based on his exploits during the war, not after it, my knowledge of the outcome had no bearing on my enjoyment (or lack of ) of the film at all. So please, don't let the fact that you know know something about the man portrayed in the film put you off going to see the film. It's not an M. Night Shymalan film where there is some unexpected twist, or mcguffin. simply googling the man's name results in instantaneous, obvious spoilers.

brassneck

EDIT: Found a link HERE

Your link contains spoilers 😐

I like Clint Eastwood as both an actor and director but I've heard this latest one is similar to that awful Bin Laden Zero Dildo Twenty propaganda film in a very "'Murica hell yeah" kind of way.

Eastwood is pretty patchy as a Director, some of his stuff is pure snoozefest.

Saw it at the weekend, very much worth watching Team America afterwards to put it into perspective / context.

agree with op, terrible film.

Also watched Fury last night, equally awful for similar reasons.

I think generally I'm more frightened of Americans/America, than Islamists.

I think generally, I'm more frightened of Americans/America, then Islamists.

I've just imagined Piers Morgan's suicide.

Watching it made me hate it.

I'm reserving my decision on this film until I have seem chewkw's analysis of the weaponry used.

Saw it last week.

Didn't want to as I don't normally like jingoistic type films, but my son wanted to see it.

Thought it was a well made film and probably the first time I've been to the cinema that when the lights came on and the credits started to roll, no one stood up - the cortege footage.

Didn't make him to be a 'hero' or anything, just a man doing his job as he saw it.

Needed subtitles though when they were in full redneck speak 🙂

I liked it. I liked the way it showed Kyles slow descent as the inevitable concequences of high risk operations took its toll, and also I think it offered a glimpse of how easy it is for these types to become completely immersed in it. I thought that it showed that he knew it was damaging him, but it was like a drug. It seems that, unlike many others he got out (just) before it was too late.
For me, that was the interesting dimension; we have all seen loads of hollywood shooty films and those aspects are the often less depicted ones. Hurt Locker was another which captured this well and won 6 oscars, and AS is just as good as that.

1 - not seen it
2 - not read the book
3 - not aware of the story
4 - not one of 99% of Americans
5 - not one of 1% of remaining Americans
6 - was going to see it
7 - now might not bother
8 - it's not much to ask to take out the spoiler

I think the point the OP went on to make is that the target audience for the film was expected to know the real life story before they saw the film. We (the British), are not the target audience, just a handy little cash cow strap on to make a few quid to pay for the catering truck. I would argue having seen this film that it is [b]better[/b] for knowing the background story before you see it. It's possible the OP has done you a favour!

It is quite funny though that you might not go and see it because you are now aware of a commonly known fact which most folk with a half reasonable knowledge of current affairs already knew, but the OP's review of it saying it was rubbish (it is a bit mediocre - not as good as hurt locker imo) had no influence 🙂

wrecker - Member

I liked it. I liked the way it showed Kyles slow descent as the inevitable concequences of high risk operations took its toll, and also I think it offered a glimpse of how easy it is for these types to become completely immersed in it. I thought that it showed that he knew it was damaging him, but it was like a drug. It seems that, unlike many others he got out (just) before it was too late.
For me, that was the interesting dimension; we have all seen loads of hollywood shooty films and those aspects are the often less depicted ones. Hurt Locker was another which captured this well and won 6 oscars, and AS is just as good as that.

I know where you are coming from with regards to the toll it took on him, but his book seems to paint a different picture. In the film, it's constantly implied that his motivation or compulsion to return to iraq and the killing is based on his need to protect his comrades, and get the bad guys, and how this conflicts massively with his family life.

At no point is it implied that he even remotely enjoyed this, or found satisfaction in it. In the book he openly states that he enjoyed his work and got a buzz from it. He seemed to take great satisfaction from it, and seemed to have quite a deep hatred for the people he was killing.

I'm not saying he was a monster, just that it would have made for a more believable and three dimensional character if it showed some/any duality of motivation. Instead it just paints him as this relentlessly selfless, self sacrificing altruistic hero who does it all for "Murica".

and seemed to have quite a deep hatred for the people he was killing.

vorlich - Member
Eastwood is pretty patchy as a Director, some of his stuff is pure snoozefest.

Definitely. Unforgiven-great; Gran Torino-Garbage.

Might still go to see American Sniper though, cos I enjoyed Fury and someone up there hated both.

Saw it last night. Wasn't expecting much and didn't get much. Another simplistic childish effort from Eastwood. Almost as bad as Gran Torino but not quite. If nothing else Eastwood knows how to patronise his audience.

Approach both book and film with caution.

At best Chris Kyle was a damaged man with hero fantasies and probably a case of severe PTSD. At worst he was an out and out liar who embellished freely and made money out of it. Personally, I tend towards the latter.

I think Eastwood has probably made the film he wanted to, telling the story of a damaged man trying to reconcile what he's done, it's not the story of Chris Kyle per se, but a story about what intense conflict can do to a person and his family.

Landis Wins.

Wait, don't tell me. Someone gets shot.

telling the story of a damaged man trying to reconcile what he's done, it's not the story of Chris Kyle per se, but a story about what intense conflict can do to a person and his family.

If that had been the film Eastwood had made then it wouldn't have been bad. AS had none of that nuance, detail or depth.

P-Jay - Member
I see a few Hollywood people have dared to question the merits of celebrating killing at it's a bit of a flag waving propaganda thing - and been firmly put back in their box.

He killed a lot of people, said he enjoyed it, said he wished he'd killed more, and referred to Iraqis as savages. Those aren't rumours or out of context: they're recorded facts and his own words, but I guess he and his reputation are largely untouchable due to