Hardly the propaganda piece some are complaining about, some of the sniping scenes were pretty amateurish and simplistic, B movie stuff. Expected more from Eastwood but he is getting on.
We are going to see this on Friday. My girlfriend is absolutely obsessed with Bradley Cooper. I have put up with him on my telly too many times since The Hangover was on the other weekend. I've had Film 4 on (same film TWICE), DVDs of All About Steve and Silver Linings Playbook and I have seen her on the laptop looking up You Tube interviews.
I want to see it for the story of Chris Kyle (I have downloaded his autobiography on Kindle) but she wants to see it for - ahem - "aesthetic reasons" - but from the pictures I have seen she won't get much of that, the bloke is unrecognisable.
I was just coming back to correct that! Anyway I just viewed the interview he gave to Conan. He was talking about how his gun would have a computer on it with everything he needed to make a shot. He also said he and his team would sometimes have to set up in an occupied house where they wouldn't allow the occupants to move and after the shot it would be a defensive position. So when they left what would happen to the family in the house? Would they be seen as collaborators?
Again his attitude was so nonchalant. It looks like this is the way to be if you want to be able to cope with killing people. The young soldier who killed him couldn't cope with it.
That's because he thought killing was 'fun' and regretted that he couldn't kill more of the 'damn savages'
Cooper's good, in that he plays the part well - the problem is the way the part was written. A lot of it doesn't ring true - like there was a whole other layer to him that we never really got to know about.
It's pretty flat. Direction was perfunctory.
Dare I say, almost all Eastwood's films have a very dull, workmanlike directorial style in my opinion. Sometimes it feels like he's just plonking the camera there and waiting for the actors to say what the writers have written, then moving on to the next bit.
Watched it yesterday, and have to say, I was disapointed
I mean it's good, but not quite the war movie I was expecting, can't quite explain it really other than I won't be rushing back to re watch it like other classic war movies. I'm happy I've watched it but I'm thinking it's probably only worth just the one watch imo
Cooper does a good job playing the role of Kyle but I think it's the way the film was made that just doesn't seeme good enough for me
I found the scenes with him at home in between tours completely riveting, and thought Bradley done a great job in those scenes. The action is decent and there's a few brutal scenes too, namely:
the torture and murder of a young child via power drill. Pretty harrowing stuff.
Thing I thought brought the film down:
The final battle, particularly the Matrix inspired bullet time shot, was crap. It all went a bit Expendables by that point and I was completely bored. I didn't know anything about Chris Kyle so the end was a punch in the gut for me.
Americans invade wrong country and are surprised when natives take it badly.:o
Decent action scenes, Bradley Cooper makes a convincing redneck and Sienna Miller steals practically every scene she's in.
It's only the gung ho attitude which spoils it and the allegation that Chris Kyle may have been something of a fantasist.
Watched it yesterday, and have to say, I was disapointed
I mean it's good, but not quite the war movie I was expecting, can't quite explain it really other than I won't be rushing back to re watch it like other classic war movies. I'm happy I've watched it but I'm thinking it's probably only worth just the one watch imo
Cooper does a good job playing the role of Kyle but I think it's the way the film was made that just doesn't seeme good enough for me
I have to agree.
Cooper is great in it, he really transformed himself for the role. Oscar worthy? I don't think so. Rewatchable? I don't think so.
It just felt a bit flat and lifeless. I'm normally a fan of Eastwoods movies, they've really got 'heart'. This one felt like the whole thing was going through the motions. I wont pick at the little things like him breezing through BUDS where it seems you just have to sit in cold water for a while whilst saying "i'm dangerous". It's not about that, I know. It just lacks the heart his other films have.
Dare I say, almost all Eastwood's films have a very dull, workmanlike directorial style in my opinion. Sometimes it feels like he's just plonking the camera there and waiting for the actors to say what the writers have written, then moving on to the next bit.
I actually find that style of directing quite refreshing sometimes, rather than a whole host of flashy camera angles and unnecessary visual effects. It just seems more honest, especially for this sort of film, where those sort of things would have detracted from ther story a bit.
I actually find that style of directing quite refreshing sometimes, rather than a whole host of flashy camera angles and unnecessary visual effects. It just seems more honest, especially for this sort of film, where those sort of things would have detracted from ther story a bit.
I think the problem is the degree to which Eastwood does it, not the principle of non-flashy direction itself. I just didn't have any sense of the scenes flowing at all, quite a few segments could have perhaps done with a bunch more takes. But I gather he doesn't believe in more than a couple of takes for anything.
I dunno, Eastwood will always be a legend. But that legend status is 100% down to his time on screen, not off it in the director's chair. In my opinion.
I think the problem is the degree to which Eastwood does it, not the principle of non-flashy direction itself. I just didn't have any sense of the scenes flowing at all, quite a few segments could have perhaps done with a bunch more takes. But I gather he doesn't believe in more than a couple of takes for anything.
I dunno, Eastwood will always be a legend. But that legend status is 100% down to his time on screen, not off it in the director's chair. In my opinion.
Granted, he is reknowned for his acting...but...when he makes films like Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and Letters From Iwo Jima, personally as a film fan, I want someone like him to keep churning the films out.
I think the problem is the degree to which Eastwood does it, not the principle of non-flashy direction itself. I just didn't have any sense of the scenes flowing at all, quite a few segments could have perhaps done with a bunch more takes. But I gather he doesn't believe in more than a couple of takes for anything.
It's hard to tell whether more takes would have helped here. More takes may have got better perfomances from the actors, but I don't think the actor's performances were an issue here. There seems to be pretty much universal agreement that Cooper and Miller performed very well in this, and criticisms are levelled elsewhere, at the story itself, direction, etc.
I dunno, Eastwood will always be a legend. But that legend status is 100% down to his time on screen, not off it in the director's chair. In my opinion.
I agree, he is a legend becauae of his acting career, but he does seem to have made quite a name with his directing over the years too. I don't think he does the kind of films that are going to get him that legendary status either though, he tends to go for "smaller" stories to tell, more personal maybe as opposed to "big" movies. Or maybe I just perceive them that way due to his lack of directing prowess, his films don't seem on any kind of impressive, grand scale. Not that that makes them any less enjoyable, but he just doesn't seem to that kind of director.
Watched this last night and agree with previous posters who were underwhelmed; just felt like a typical, albeit stylish, Hollywood hagiography which is unsurprisingly going down well with the American right wing and will no doubt win some Academy Awards.
I thoroughly enjoyed it. im a fan of eastwood's films but have been disappointed with the last few he has directed. I can't say whether it deserves its nominations or possible awards as i haven't had the chance to seen any of the other nominees yet.
Comments
Bradley Cooper did a very convincing turn.
Only if they are on the other side
I want to see it for the story of Chris Kyle (I have downloaded his autobiography on Kindle) but she wants to see it for - ahem - "aesthetic reasons" - but from the pictures I have seen she won't get much of that, the bloke is unrecognisable.
Which is good for me
There is a bad guy sniper in the movie too.
That's because he thought killing was 'fun' and regretted that he couldn't kill more of the 'damn savages'
Cooper's good, in that he plays the part well - the problem is the way the part was written. A lot of it doesn't ring true - like there was a whole other layer to him that we never really got to know about.
It's pretty flat. Direction was perfunctory.
Dare I say, almost all Eastwood's films have a very dull, workmanlike directorial style in my opinion. Sometimes it feels like he's just plonking the camera there and waiting for the actors to say what the writers have written, then moving on to the next bit.
I found is a bit propaganda-ish with them implying 9/11 and Iraq were directly linked
Hollywood with its own version of history i guess, bit pathetic though
weird i was thinking the same thing earlier today
american history x comes to mind
Did they really? Must have missed that.
Watched it yesterday, and have to say, I was disapointed
I mean it's good, but not quite the war movie I was expecting, can't quite explain it really other than I won't be rushing back to re watch it like other classic war movies. I'm happy I've watched it but I'm thinking it's probably only worth just the one watch imo
Cooper does a good job playing the role of Kyle but I think it's the way the film was made that just doesn't seeme good enough for me
Thing I thought brought the film down:
Decent action scenes, Bradley Cooper makes a convincing redneck and Sienna Miller steals practically every scene she's in.
It's only the gung ho attitude which spoils it and the allegation that Chris Kyle may have been something of a fantasist.
I have to agree.
Cooper is great in it, he really transformed himself for the role. Oscar worthy? I don't think so. Rewatchable? I don't think so.
It just felt a bit flat and lifeless. I'm normally a fan of Eastwoods movies, they've really got 'heart'. This one felt like the whole thing was going through the motions. I wont pick at the little things like him breezing through BUDS where it seems you just have to sit in cold water for a while whilst saying "i'm dangerous". It's not about that, I know. It just lacks the heart his other films have.
Still, very watchable. The once.
I actually find that style of directing quite refreshing sometimes, rather than a whole host of flashy camera angles and unnecessary visual effects. It just seems more honest, especially for this sort of film, where those sort of things would have detracted from ther story a bit.
I dunno, Eastwood will always be a legend. But that legend status is 100% down to his time on screen, not off it in the director's chair. In my opinion.
Granted, he is reknowned for his acting...but...when he makes films like Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and Letters From Iwo Jima, personally as a film fan, I want someone like him to keep churning the films out.
As opposed to Olivier Megaton.
It's hard to tell whether more takes would have helped here. More takes may have got better perfomances from the actors, but I don't think the actor's performances were an issue here. There seems to be pretty much universal agreement that Cooper and Miller performed very well in this, and criticisms are levelled elsewhere, at the story itself, direction, etc.
I agree, he is a legend becauae of his acting career, but he does seem to have made quite a name with his directing over the years too. I don't think he does the kind of films that are going to get him that legendary status either though, he tends to go for "smaller" stories to tell, more personal maybe as opposed to "big" movies. Or maybe I just perceive them that way due to his lack of directing prowess, his films don't seem on any kind of impressive, grand scale. Not that that makes them any less enjoyable, but he just doesn't seem to that kind of director.
Guess we shouldn't expect too much from a movie in which Eastwood attempts to get away with using a fake baby though
American Sniper: the fake baby, Sarah Palin defends film | Den of Geek
David Simon' HBO mini-series, Generation Kill remains the best drama based upon American troops' experiences in the Gulf Wars that I've watched.