“If you want a picture of the future, imagine an orangutan flipping off a bunch of outlaw bikers — forever.”
Hmmm…I had intended to wait until it came out on Blu Ray, but now I will go see it in the theater just to piss off the OP.
Well, since he’s not a “bloodthirsty murderer”, he has no need to STFU!
I won’t be watching it. Not for any moral or political considerations, or to make a Statement.
I just don’t care for war movies, that’s it. Not my bag.
I, for some reason, always confuse Bradley Cooper with Bradley Whitford. Which always make Cooper’s movies sound a lot more interesting until I remember that I’ve confused them again.
He doesn’t brag about it.
You get a nurse to climb up the flagpole and then sl-i-i-i-i-i-de down. Then climb up again and sl-i-i-i-i-de down again. Repeat until the fly on top is blown away. 
I won’t be watching it, just do not care for the story one way or the other.
I’m simply not drawn to it.
He does to his friends. He’s insufferable.
Chris Kyle was criticized prior to his murder for having significantly lied about his supposed heroics in the book this is based on.
Not watching.
-
The previews in general looked interesting. The movie did not come across as a “Rah, rah, shoot people 'cause 'Merika”.
-
For me, it’s the ending. I admit to being a wuss about these things, but dangitall, I like a happy ending. I’ll read the book, but won’t go to the movie. Life is stressful for a whole variety of reasons and I just don’t need to pile on the unhappy while at the movies.
YMMV, but that’s mine.
The previews look promishing, but I’m just not big on biopics. Maybe some lazy Sunday after it hits Netflix but it’s doubtful. Also on the list…Ray, The Butler…there are others.
Yes, apparently there’s a fair amount of exaggeration and rewrite in the story and movie, but that doesn’t make it any differrent from most biopics.
I’m not much interested, but I’ll be seeing it anyway as part of AMC’s annual Best Picture weekends.
Not watching it. So he apparently lied about shooting rioters in New Orleans after Katrina. So he’s at least a liar. And if he thought it would be a good idea, he’s an asshole. And if he thought it would be a good idea and actually did it, then he’s a murderer. Any way you slice it, he is no hero in the least.
You’ve never watched a movie about someone whom you don’t consider a hero? Or who was a murderer?
I have not done extensive research but all I can find on this is someone saying he told it as a drunken tall tale sometime. Maybe he was trying to pump himself up to whatever group he was drinking with. Maybe he was fucking with them. Or maybe it didn’t happen at all. But no one is refuting that he was screwed up when he came home.
I’m curious about those who are adamant about not seeing it. From what I’ve seen Bradley Cooper was always attached because he bought the rights to the book. But originally Steven Spielberg was attached as director. It he stayed on and directed would your opinion be different?
Subversive? Almost every critically acclaimed war movie ever made is anti-war or examines the detrimental effects that such violence has on the human mind. *All Quiet on the Western Front *was made in 1930.
You know what would be subversive? A straight up “rah rah” war film extolling the virtues of stereotyped masculinity, brotherly camaraderie, the necessity of collective violence, and the elevation of the state’s well being over the interest of the individual.
What do stereotypes subvert?
Sure I have. But in most cases, there isn’t a chorus of patriotic correctness telling us what a wonderful hero the protagonist was. I don’t care if it was drunken boasting, if he told people that he shot citizens in New Orleans, he must have thought it would be a good idea. That’s sick and so was he.
Yeah, we know he lied about punching out Jesse Ventura (as shown in the defamation lawsuite that Ventura won), and it looks like the stories of killing two carjackers and shooting looters in NOLA, post-Katrina are unsubstantiated BS. Also, he and his wife indicated that the proceeds from the book “American Sniper” were to go to fellow servicemembers - turns out they gave some (nice job-seriously), but it was $52K, not the $3mil+ they said they were going to do.
Don’t know what made him lie about his tough guy exploits; PTSD? The need to burnish his image? The need to be the center of attention? Who knows.
I haven’t seen the film or read the book - I’m interested how Eastwood presented this guy who said killing was “fun”, who said that he“hated the damn savages” he was fighting, and in his book, recounts telling an Army colonel, “I don’t shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”
If it’s glossed over or ignored, I would think the film is just a hagiography.