Having worked the screening of American Sniper last night, I think my favorite quote ever was from some little old lady who was listening in on two guys discuss if this was a good movie or an Oscar bait movie. Her response was "If you hate this movie, you hate America." which is what all of my Facebook friends have pretty much feeding since this movie came out.
For me this was a 3.5/5 stars sort of movie. It was okay. I didn't say that to the old lady though, really hate getting lectured by customers when I don't like movies as well as they do.
I meant 3/5, guess I'm used to giving movies .5 scores xP
i HIGHLY praise you for actually being polite towards the U.S. appreciated.
I may not be an America, but you don't have to like this movie to like America. America is a very diverse place, and the wars that Chris Kyle fought in have done very little to achieve stability or end the endless cycle of wars in that area, and at least some of the fault unfortunately is at America's table. Not to disparage America, but some of the worst events in history come from some of the best intentions and that can be argued in the case of the Second Gulf War.
Let the shitstorm commence.
That is one of the most polite ways to make the point you are making and I congratulate you. I really dislike how people are framing this like "you have to like this movie to support your country/military" Because liking or not liking a movie does not mean that at all.
Good point, just because the film didn't blow you away doesn't mean you hate America- BUT at the same time I sure as fuck don't want a bunch of left wingers calling me racist just because I hated "Selma" and "12 Years a Slave" and think that they do not deserve Oscar nods (which they don't). In the end you like what you like and I'll like what I like just don't be an asshole and we'll get along just find... Unless you are a tumbler activist-- then you deserve to be drawn and quartered
god you're a pretty awful person to cap your pretty alright post with that last statement. And yes, before you reply I do infact know you don't care what you say or who you offend.
You're the reason those tumblr activists exist, and they will out live you. Think about that when you're on your deathbed - I'll lay on mine knowing people like you died angry the world got better around them.
The Left thinks American Sniper is the most vile, pro-Bush propaganda movie ever.
The Right thinks it's the most patriotic movie ever for our modern times and you're an America hating asshole if you don't like movie.
As you said Brad, as the trailer showed, and as Clint Eastwood intended, it's about a soldier's mental anguish.
I'm not all that interested in seeing American Sniper. The last Clint Eastwood movie I saw was Changeling. I think he's become dreary old man and is about cheerful as a Goth teen girl who cuts herself. Are all of these grim penance for Every Which Way But Loose and Any Which Way You Can? (I like both of those, by the way.) Good heavens.
"I think he's become dreary old man and is about cheerful as a Goth teen girl who cuts herself."
Well...what did you think of "Jersey Boys?"
Hey, I like some of Eastwood's films. I liked "Gran Torino" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" is my favorite war film. And I'm about as right-wing as an Aaron Sorkin character.
Actually, most of the people on the "The Right" I've heard discussing this film (including people on Fox News) seem to think it's not a patriotic film at all, and certainly not a pro-war flick, but rather an examination of one man's personal experience in war. They applaud it for showing the individual costs of warfare, but conclude that anyone who assumes it's "pro-war" or "pro-America" didn't actually see it. But that might be because those on "The Right" spend a lot of time worrying about veterans these days.
Your representation of what people on "The Left" have been saying, though, is spot on from what I've seen/heard.
This is one of those weird moments where the points for nuanced and thoughtful film criticism have to go to those on "The Right." Mostly because they seem to be the only ones who've actually SEEN the film. I haven't, but everything they say lines up with the book.
"But that might be because those on 'The Right' spend a lot of time worrying about veterans these days."
No, they spend a lot of time TALKING about how much they worry about vets, which is not the same thing.
All you have to do is look at their voting record to know the war-hawk right-wingers don't REALLY give a tinker's damn about vets (i.e. Bernie Sanders bill) .... but feeding the military contractors....oh, yeah they're ALL about THAT.
ooo battery space what is this marvelous new invention :P
no worries not everything needs to be a midnighter. What i want to see is more big group midnight videos where you have 4 people at once on the same video. they were more energetic and humorous instead of the contemplated duos
Usually that'll happen when there's only 1 movie.
Hope you're having fun at MAGFest Brad!
I enjoyed the movie but maybe a little more than you do. While I thought the dramatic scenes worked the best, I thought the battle scenes were all well-shot and edited. I tend not to notice all that cartoony CGI you were complaining about like the soldiers being shot dead because I thought that was a lot real red colored syrup shooting up into the walls. Plus, the only bit of CGI I could notice was the big sandstorm sequence. Also, I don't mind those cliches you mentioned because I expected those things in modern war movies. At least there isn't too much of it in the movie.
About the baby thing, my eyes were never locked on that baby during the scene when I'm paying attention to the actors more. I may have to see it again for that scene alone. Still enjoyed the movie though!
It's not a bad film, but there were a few problems. The wife character ( I don't remember her name) was underdeveloped. and 90% of her scenes were they argue about the war, She CRIES and CRIES, he says one or two lines- end scene. Over and over again.That's all I knew about her was she made babies and cries. and she's the 2nd lead of the film.
I hope to see you at Magfest Brad. I've made a cd for you and Jake of the soundtrack to Killer Instinct, and also a dvd of Freddy's Nightmares for an possible episode of DVD-R Hell. I hope to also challenge you and/or Phelous to either Mortal Kombat and/or Killer Instinct. you should come and visit Frederick, MD for once since it has plenty of Roy Rogers, and they sell Tab soda at one of the local Giant grocery stores. it would be an interesting topic for a Brad tries video.
my father would be more interested in war films than I am, but I do like certain films from the genre (Saving Private Ryan, U-571, & Fury just to name a few). the movie I wanted to see the most though is Birdman. the trouble is that it's not playing in any of the 2 theaters where I live. the closest I may have to go and see it is in Montgomery County, MD. I have no interest in seeing American Sniper. I wouldn't mind seeing either Seventh Son or the 2nd Spongebob movie, but the 1st movie that I really want to see in 2015 is Chappie.
speaking of Jason Goes To Hell, maybe you should do a review of that movie sometime. I maybe one of the very, very few people who likes that movie and will defend it, but I do understand why people hate it and I can easily see it as a guilty pleasure. it's 90's cheesy horror movies, so it's at least entertainingly dumb. hell, I'd rather watch Jason Goes To Hell then any of the recent horror films that Hollywood keeps farting into movie theaters.
This is the first I've heard of this fake baby, however after the way you described it, I just had to look it up. I especially like the way he tries to make it seem alive by moving the doll's arm using his thumb.
hey brad and bradites.
I normally wouldn't do this cause I don't want to drag on about politics and religion but I just wanted to say that as a muslim I really appreciated your take on this movie, which was obviously comparatively lowkey to the conversation the rest of the internet seems to be having (baby doll jokes aside).
Until I saw this review I wasn't going to see this movie and it wasn't really because I thought it was going to be bad or even offensive. I just got scared off by the internet reaction. It's strange cause I like Clint Eastwood, I really liked Gran Torino, but I guess until I heard you put it into words right here that really all this "anti-muslim" "propaganda" hullabaloo isn't what this film is, it's just what assholes will make out of this film.
Thank you! I for one love a good action drama, and Clint Eastwood is pretty cool. But especially after the whole ordeal in Paris, people have been just looking for an excuse to attack us. I'll watch it in the safety of my own home, I won't go to the theater and watch it "dressed like a terrorist".
Except the film is disengenuous - the man who this film is about was a legit racist who got off on killing muslims and greatest regret in life was not killing more of you. You don't have to quote me on that - the man says it himself in his autobiography.
The movie outright lies about many of the points of his life, mainly that this was about his personal anguish - it was not. In the man's own autobiography he admits he quit war not because of the fatigue of war, but because he finally one day realized he loved murdering muslims and felt he should stop.
See? its not as a heartwarming a story when you know the actual facts about a man who has one of the highest kill counts in american history and was proud of every single one.
Well then..... maybe the people who watch the movie will be motivated to read the book behind it all.... and then maybe some minds might be blown....
I really disliked this film. Now technically it was a well made film with a few fun action scenes. But my issue is it pretty much white washes Kyle's character and didn't have any other strong characters so the film was trying to make us like him and I just couldn't.
I feel if they put more focus on the Iraqi Sniper (like what Spielberg wanted to do) than maybe it could of been more interesting or focus more on the PTSD aspect of the story I'd like this more.
But I don't fault people for liking it, I get it, but for me it just didn't work for me. Maybe if it didn't get nominated for Best picture it wouldn't have bothered me as much but in that context it made everything in the film worse. Especially with stuff like Gone Girl, Nightcrawler, Snowpiercer, or Into the Woods not getting enough attention. I don't know apart from Cooper this film felt very "meh"
I can't agree more. I liked it less then Brad, but that's OK. I feel like it was very Oscar-baity especially with the advertisement campaign. It was technically well-constructed, it had some good action scenes. But ultimately it felt like someone had made Modern Warfare: The Movie. It was just eh.
The film tries *very* hard to get us to like Kyle, but in the context of the story they focused on AND the lack of any strong characters that could challenge him or act as a foil. It makes him feel one-dimensional. Like the director is desperately trying to shove the character in your face and scream "SEE?! HE'S A HERO! AMERICA! LOVE HIM!" Doubly so if you know anything about the character in real life.
If they'd made the film more about PTSD, how soldiers struggle with the things they've done and the lack of medical/psychological support they get. The brutal toll that war has on people. The price of following orders vs your conscious. The potential and personal consequences of actions and how a soldier has to reconcile. Any of that, and I'd have been all over this film.
But this movie focuses instead on all the tropes we've seen a thousand times in almost every American war movie. It's Our Hero, the big strong soldier going out to war to fight for apple pie, eagles and Merica against mustache-twirling-evil bad guys. If the larger context (which yes, context matters), ethics or conscious are brought up, it's shot down because Merica.
That story might have worked 40, 30, maaaaybe even 20 years ago. But I think many of us have reached the point where we realize that the world is a lot more gray then it is black and white. Especially when this is a war we're still involved in.
I feel similar. I don't want to criticize people for liking it, but I just can't get behind a movie that so venerates a person who was, at best, a naíf with a busted moral compass. And it probably doesn't help that I find Cooper really off-putting in general.
I wish more people would have seen 2009's "The Messenger." That's a much more honest and nuanced story about the personal toll of war.
"But my issue is it pretty much white washes Kyle's character and didn't have any other strong characters so the film was trying to make us like him and I just couldn't."
That's my biggest problem with the movie as well. I could get behind a movie about a sniper and coming to terms with PTSD if it weren't about Chris Kyle, who was a thug, a racist, a liar, and a general piece of shit in many regards. I personally know stories from the war that are every bit as compelling and don't lionize such a terrible person. This film really just seems like a missed opportunity.
I had the same thought about the fake dead baby in Exodus. I pretty much burst out laughing at what was supposed to be a serious scene
Did you see and/or are you going to do reviews of the other movies nominated for "best movie" you haven't done yet?
Selma, Whiplash, Theory of Everything.
I've got a friend who hasn't seen this movie but he's already mad that it got an Oscar. I kind of want to see it with him if only for the discussion it will provide, but he's saying that it would be the same as Triumph Of The Will.
He says he's objective about films but he goes to them with a lot of biases.
Anyone else going to tell him its *meem* not *me-me*?
Sorry. That was a mistake. I have bad hearing. I didn't know he said baby.
Sounds like you need more people if you want to review every movie that comes out. I'll volunteer if you'll pay for my movie tickets.
I am patiently waiting for the worst list to come out, and the nut job better be on there, the only thing that would make it not be on there was that you were having fun while watching it,so you might not know how truly awful it is. If jake saw it, it would be on his list.
Jake will get another chance in 2016, when The Nut Job 2 comes out.
I have the feeling it will be horrible. Which is good news for us.
I had to see the Nut Job while working, and while it certainly wasn't good I wouldn't say it deserves to be on the worst list. It was bland and inoffensive, like plain oatmeal.
I liked this movie a little less than Brad, but I agree with most of what he said. Bradley Cooper's performance was phenomenal, and I liked the PTSD aspect of the film, but overall I consider it just "okay." The CGI, as Brad said, was distractingly bad, and there was so little character development for anyone other than Chris Kyle that I had no idea what anyone's name was, and resorted to thinking of them as "mustache guy," "Zales guy," (the one that alked about buying an engagement ring and then immediately got shot), "that other guy," etc. As for the wife, like one of the posters above already pointed out, she's basically there to cry and produce plastic babies.
I also found it irritating that any time someone argued against the war, or thought that SEALs weren't amazing heroes, Kyle always won the argument with some variation of "We're protecting our country. You know, the greatest one on earth. AMERICA." Once he said that, the other person would shut up. I kept feeling like Kyle was being presented as a righteous and selfless hero, without actually being one.
And I'm not sure if it's just because I'm Canadian and not used to guns, but did no one else find it alarming when he playfully pointed a very real gun at his family members, and they all just laughed?
Good point there, Heather. I grew up in a small town, and know how to shoot and hunt. Needless to say, that's the first thing you learn NOT to do. I accidentally pointed a BB gun at my sister as a kid, and my dad almost beat the crap out of me. If you did that at a gun store or shooting range they'd kick you out ASAP.
I haven't seen the film. I'm in the middle. I come from a military family, but Hollywood almost never does it right.
However, if the worst thing about it is a fake baby, then it's probably pretty decent. It can't be anywhere near as bad as Twilight's CGI baby!
I saw the test screenings for the CG baby in twilight. That shit was fuckin' terrifying. More so than the fanbase for those movies...
No, it bugged me too, I'm an American I don't use guns yet i know not to point a gun at people, though it was never explicitly said that it was loaded but still you're not supposed to point a gun at people even playfully.
The fact that this movie has become a political thing is precisely why I've been turned off to it.
Meh. I'll skip it.
I found this movie to be one of the most boring films I've seen in years. It doesn't have a deliberate political stance, but that's more down to the director not giving enough of a fuck or putting enough effort in for there to be one (I haven't seen a film this lazy since Die Another Day). It's not the flag-waving jingoism of Lone Survivor, but it does have all the usual American modern war movie things like never presenting the war in a larger context, not examining why the American troops are there in the first place, and presenting the US troops as nobly heroic and never harming any innocents while presenting the opposition as psychopathic baby killers.
The editing is also incredibly slack, which prevents tension from arising at any point (I should be feeling tension when someone is torturing a child with a drill). The only part Eastwood seemed to care about was the battle scenes, which were half-decent. Largely though, it's just an expensive B-movie: some Texan good 'ol boy goes to Iraq, shoots a bunch of brown people, and comes back periodically so his wife can cry at him.
Are you still sending Irving to review Selma? Or was his review so awful that you couldn't post any of it (if yes, was it because of the shoe polish)?
When is Shot on Shitteo going to be done? I've been waiting so long for it to come out.
He mentioned an update a few weeks ago in one of the videos (might of been a Brad Tries). Basically, he's still working on it. It's taking longer than expected but the shooting got delayed (sickness, other videos that needed to be out sooner took precedent, etc.).
I gave this film 7/10, but I'm starting to wonder if that might be too high.
Note: I've my own opinion on the real-life Chris Kyle, but I tried not to let that colour my personal opinion of the partially fictionalized version shown in this film.
Bradley Cooper is excellent in this. He does a good job at portraying the emotions a sniper is going through when he considers pulling the trigger.
Here's the thing, though: his performance aside, this is mostly a well shot and generally good albeit standard war action movie. That's fine. However, it also has elements of a PTSD subplot, which is honestly far more interesting when it's explored, but it genuinely feels underdeveloped. Given that the film is based on Chris' own memoirs and his murder obviously wouldn't figure into those, I can understand why they tried to fuse the two together. However, this missed a real opportunity to explore the mental recovery many soldiers must go through when returning from a war zone, and given those were the best parts when they were touched on the film left wishing it had better integrated those points.
I'll give the film one final kudos, though: the decision to omit music from the closing text credits was a good one, especially after the closing montage. Whatever I may think of the real man, I can recognize that was the right decision for the film.
Final thing I forgot to mention:
"Lone Survivor" I consider to be the superior film (8/10). It also does a good job portraying what a soldier in the field must go through, but in addition shows that not everyone on the ground is the enemy, which is one area where "American Sniper" sadly fails.
Damn, I forgot about the puppet babies and the CGI deer. :) WAY too obvious.
Jeez, Brad, I think you and some of the commenters kinda missed the movie for the technical details. I wasn't bothered about the CGI, effects, or even the fake baby, or if there was propaganda.
I just thought it was telling a story of why this one talented soldier choose to serve and his experience of it. Granted it's a story told by him, so it is inherently biased, but there it is. I didn't think it was just a PTSD movie, or a 'get that one bad guy' movie - it was a movie about a highly respected soldier and his experience of the war. I doubt there was a 'mustafa' - it probably was several bad guys rolled into one for the sake of the movie and to have a story. But the point is that even when he could have left, he didn't. Even when he came back, he choose to help. That's the story I saw, a man who because of his family upbringing, his culture, was called upon to help, albeit in his 'gung-ho' way.
I admit I did cringe at the use of the word 'savages.' It was unclear if he was referring to the people or just the bad-guys. And I'm not sure why Eastwood left that in, it seemed very distasteful. It made me like the character less for sure.
As far as propaganda - obviously there is some. You don't get use of military stuff without agreeing to a showing a particular perspective - and that certainly weakens the movie. But Eastwood puts in enough horror to compensate. It certainly doesn't support war, but I don't doubt, anyone who put money in this wanted to make sure the movie was undoubtably patriotic. It's so glaring that it's as obvious as the fake baby.
But you look past that and see the man, flawed for sure, but a man who tries to help in his way, from his "southern white guy" point of view. His accomplishments may not be worth much from a grand retrospective view of the wars, but you can certainly say that he saved lives while risking his own - and that means something. This movie is about that - a man who chose to help, in his own way, for his own reasons, who came away damaged but alive, and kept helping in other ways. That was the through-line of the story - to protect, to help. I hope you didn't miss that part.
I admit I haven't read the book, and the Rolling Stones review makes some darn good points. It's last line got to me:
"And filmmakers like Eastwood, who could have cleared things up, only muddy the waters more. Sometimes there's no such thing as "just a human story." Sometimes a story is meaningless or worse without real context, and this is one of them."
It's sad that Eastwood felt he had to cherry pick the guy's life - but then again he only had a couple of hours. But it's seems Chris Kyle wasn't the guy portrayed in the movie...so my previous comment is kinda moot. I wish Eastwood has given us the real guy, flaws and all.
I thought it meh and Bradley Cooper looked like metrosexual playing dress up. The plastic baby was just flat Ed Wood level stupid in something sold as a serious drama, Then again this night just be me. I have a problem with certain kinds of 'serious' drama. Someone once got me to watch Requiem for a Dream and all could think the whole time it was playing was "is it just me or is this basically Reefer Madness".
I think on an overall level the Requiem/Reefer is an accurate comparison, but also missed some of the more subtle things about Requiem. (Also I'm assuming you mean the '30s infogram Reefer Madness not the Showtime Reefer Madness the Movie Musical, which is an amazing lampoon). Requiem is purely a performance movie. I think the cinematography is amazing, and scene transitions are really good as well. Overall plot, bit bland and boring, comparison to Reefer Madness, accurate.
The plastic baby is getting an absolute explosion of publicity. If anything kills it for the academy awards, it's going to be that baby.
I saw this on opening night.
Here's a short, SHORT summery of what I think: it has the potential to become overrated, there are a lot of things that this movie did insanely well (sound, scripting, acting, and realism) there's also a few things that it did badly (directing, producing, and the overall badness of the final battle).
Overall, I think that if i had to rate it, I'd give it an 8/10.
Would I recomend it? Yes, but only to certain people. I think if you've been through a traumatic experience in your life, and you've been having a hard time letting it go, then you will REALLY like American Sniper. Also it's good for both taking a date , and just sitting back and watching with your bros. The romantic scenes in the movie are perfect, and if you take a date to this movie, you will leave the theater holding hands. The action scenes are hardcore and intense, if you want to see some action this movie will satisfy greatly.
I don't recommend this movie to people who hate patriotism with a passion, nor do I recomend it to people who are looking for a movie that will help them forget about life. This movie is like ANTI-escapism. It won't make you forget about life, it will more likely make you even more irritated at life.
Also, one MAJOR problem I have with this movie is that it has no replay value. This movie is long, memorable, and it does such a good job immersing it's audience that you'll come out of this movie feeling like you just read someone's biography; and we all know, once you read someone's biography, you won't want to reread the biography again afterwords. You might read a different biography on the same person, but you won't read the same biography.
My recommendation: watch it in theaters, or rent it at home. Do not buy it on DVD, do not buy it on Blue Ray, do not buy a permanent purchase On Demand. Once you see this movie once, you won't want to see it again; you'll love it, but you won't want to see it again, I guarantee it.
I'm just going to point out also, every complaint I've heard about this movie, thus far, have been false:
No... just no. This movie is very balanced when it comes to it's view on war. Heroism aside, there's no propaganda in this film. There's no blaming political figures, there's no anti muslim things, and there's no over-praising the Marine Core that doesn't later end up being disproved by actual events in reality...
2. Bad action scenes.
The only bad battle was the final one...
Only partially true, as a guy who knows a few war veterans, I can say 100% confidence that this movie does a good job emulating the appearance of Iraq. However the final battle does not do a good job representing Navy Seals... it shows them as rag tag, unorganized, and unprofessional.
Overall... my main problem with this movie is that it simply has no rewatchability. It's really good, but dude, I would not watch it again.
I disagree with you Rhody about this not being propaganda. It was a racist movie. And it white washed the main character - this was not a man wracked by ptsd: this is a man who admitted in his own book that he killed as many muslim as he did because he loved murder and it wasn't until he realized he was addicted to killing them that he decided to go home because he knew he'd stay over there and kill as many of them as he could for the rest of his life. This was a deeply, deeply racist man who said heinous, disgusting things in his own book about plenty of groups that didn't even warrant it. The entire movie is a propaganda piece because it brings out the heroism in a story where there was none.
You could of found many, many other soliders to do a piece on and this could of been a very inspiring story. He instead chose the man with the largest kill record in american history, an admitted racist, and a man that admitted to getting off on killing muslims in particular.
As someone who also knows a number of military vets, they have told me the movie is not only highly unrealistic, but insulting to their own experiences in the war and insulting to a man they consider to by a psychopath. And keep in mind those words are from iraq vets who came back recently - this is a man whom is not very respected by people who actually know of him.
The actual events of reality are downplayed or washed out entirely for a story of heroism. That is what propaganda is.
Well, I know a guy who read the biography, and he said that the movie was actually very true to the way the guy wrote his biography, even the delivery was similar; the way he started out establishing his personal values that his father taught him, and how that inspired his attitude towards war.
Does it make him out to be like superman? Flawless? Good? Overpowered? A Hero?
Yeah, it clearly does. But it doesn't do so in the name to praise the US military, because a lot of the things this movie covers are themed towards being very Anti War.
I think this movie tried to glorify the man, not glorify his controversial beliefs.
I think that if you want to call that propoganda, you can. But be prepared to say the same thing about every other biography known to man: whether it's Lincoln, Gandhi, or Catch Me If You Can; all known biographies like to glorify, and bend the truth of history in order to create a kick ass protagonist for the sake of strengthening the movie. And did it work in this movie's favor? I think so.
It's not quite Propaganda, I wouldn't call it that because it fails to try to divert the audience into seeing politics a certain way; it just tries to make them attached to the stories main character.
To be frank, I never heard of this guy until I watched this movie.
But come on, if you've taken any classes in marketing, then you know that the golden rule of writing a biography is to never bring up a person's controversial beliefs. That's rule #1.
And frankly, I'm okay with being lied to, so long as I get what my money paid for. Quality > Honesty in my book.
Im probably one of those guys who praises it as being pro MURRICA because im pretty gun ho john wayne style.
That said i do like this movie REGARDLESS of that side, because its a good character film that shows a real issues a lot of troops have.
And i think in that regard, showing the negative aspect like that without forcing politics or the "hurr durr (americans/non aericans) are the real evil" side and weighing pros and cons equally without being slanderous towards any side is the most patriotic thing is can do.
That said, Michael Moore can suck it.
HEAR, HEAR I agree with you Jegsimmons
Except it didn't fairly balance the issues. It told the white washed story of a real life racist and admitted psychopath through the eyes of a man who wanted to twist away the faults of a man and show a pro american story of heroism. This story in real life is much, much less grey when you read in his book that he loved killing muslims and felt it was his god given gift to wipe every man woman and child who follows that faith off the face of the earth.
You cannot tell a story like this without being political, and this is an issue where real life and politics collide that is disingenuous to brush aside. Lying about a mans life to make a more even handed story is propaganda, and putting your fingers in your ears and saying "no politics please!" frankly is an insult to the very reason why these people are sent over in uniform in the first place.
Forcing politics is the reality of war, which this movie twisted into a heroism piece. This man in real life did not have ptsd - he was a man who admitted to walking away from war because he said he enjoyed killing too much and felt his racist tendencies were getting in the way of his work. If you wanted to show real issues of real soliders, then tell the damn truth in your movie or follow a solider you don't have to water down to make likable.
I think the movie might have benefited from being about a fictional character that is still based on Chris Kyle instead of being a straight forward biopic explicitly about him. Since the movie doesn't address the controversial (arguably most interesting) parts of the character. I don't think the controversy it's causing because of it's subject adds anything to the film.
The only negative thing I have to say about the movie is that, like all of Clint Eastwood's recent movies, the colors are so muted. I know that's his style doing a realistic noir thing, but I just don't care for it usually.
I actually disagree... I think if this wasn't a biography, I wouldn't have liked it.
Like... there's so much in this movie that works for a biography really well, but would be just TERRIBLE in a movie of it's own; particularly the beginning where the dad tells them the thing of "There are three types of men in the world, sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs." (which is the overarking theme throughout the entire movie). A blatant theme established in the beginning works well in a nonfictional biography, but looks childish in a fiction piece.
The movie is more of a decent remake of the 1990 Michael Bean and Charlie Sheen action film Navy Seals combined with some biographical drama than an actual complex biopic, but just like Navy Seals, it's a fun sit and even sometimes gets a bit engaging. And you definitely won't want to join the army after this because, in this movie, war is hell.
The whole "fake baby" thing is totally overplayed.
Hey, Brad! Any chance we finally get to see your or your crew thoughts on Whiplash and Selma?
this patreon shit is the worst kind of shit.
suddenly we have all these bloggers wanting moneeeeeyyyyyyy from that shit, and suddenly all the content is patreon only.i hate this commercialistic shit.
this belongs to some big company shit,not bloggers.
piss off i say about patreon.
even alex jewski is suddenly doing it.
i dont know about josh hadley he seem to be the only one that is not using it i think.
Your comment should come with a 'Shit Counter' like in South Park...
A: Brad Tries, Midnight Screenings on Classics Films, Flaming Brian, and the Snobcast are the only main shows that are on Patreon, and they're eventually shown on the site. The rest of the shows are always on the site, so no, not all content is on Patreon. Far from it.
B: As I mentioned many times, the previous 3 videos weren't intended as Patreon videos. I privatized a handful of videos so I could post throughout the week that I'm at Magfest; Patreon people get a minor sneak peak at it, because why not, the videos are already there. I did the same thing last year with a handful of vlogs, only difference was, no one got a sneak peak at them.
C: 75% of what I make on Patreon goes towards Team Snob and the people who have helped me run this site for years, and without their help, it wouldn't be what it is today. It's to support my crew, not myself. People seem to forget that the website is also my job.
D: No one is taking anything away from you. Even if you don't support us on Patreon, you still get to see the videos when they're posted.
Brad I think most of your hardcore fans really don't mind this at all and honestly like having a way to support your content creation.
If I had more money I would definitely join your patreon thing because I, like most people I think understand that what you do costs money.
Don't let it get you down man, you guys do great work.
Oh fuck OFF, you self-absorbed, whiny-ass bastard....
God forbid Brad and his pals try to make a living while putting up all this content. And us 'Regulars' appreciate his labors - he's one of the more prolific posters on the net..
Ten bucks says you're just a one-off troll-baiter here to toss venom and run ....
The only TGWGT producer who can put out a vlog I'd watch in 2015
Yeah it's almost like it's a Hollywood biopic or something.
I agree Brad, but it doesn't make it any less disingenuous when people are using this as a measuring stick of loving America or not when the story itself is almost complete lies but purports itself to be true
If people are using this as some king of patriotism measuring stick, then that's a problem with them and not the movie.
I saw it today, it is a Very Good Movie......Now about the Baby, I was more taken aback by the animatronic version breast feeding on Sienna Miller, you could tell by the way the baby hand toward the camera opened and closed. And yes...it had Real Sucking action.....Lucky little piece of silicone!