Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

American Sniper Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize. Almost.

By Matt Taibbi

I saw American Sniper last night, and hated it slightly less than I expected to. Like most Clint Eastwood movies – and I like Clint Eastwood movies for the most part – it's a simple, well-lit little fairy tale with the nutritional value of a fortune cookie that serves up a neatly-arranged helping of cheers and tears for target audiences, and panics at the thought of embracing more than one or two ideas at any time.

It's usually silly to get upset about the self-righteous way Hollywood moviemakers routinely turn serious subjects into baby food. Film-industry people angrily reject the notion that their movies have to be about anything (except things like "character" and "narrative" and "arc," subjects they can talk about endlessly).

This is the same Hollywood culture that turned the horror and divisiveness of the Vietnam War era into a movie about a platitude-spewing doofus with leg braces who in the face of terrible moral choices eats chocolates and plays Ping-Pong. The message of Forrest Gump was that if you think about the hard stuff too much, you'll either get AIDS or lose your legs. Meanwhile, the hero is the idiot who just shrugs and says "Whatever!" whenever his country asks him to do something crazy.

Forrest Gump pulled in over half a billion and won Best Picture. So what exactly should we have expected from American Sniper?

Not much. But even by the low low standards of this business, it still manages to sink to a new depth or two.

The thing is, the mere act of trying to make a typically Hollywoodian one-note fairy tale set in the middle of the insane moral morass that is/was the Iraq occupation is both dumber and more arrogant than anything George Bush or even Dick Cheney ever tried.

No one expected 20 minutes of backstory about the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib, or the myriad other American atrocities and quick-trigger bombings that helped fuel the rise of ISIL and other groups.

But to turn the Iraq war into a saccharine, almost PG-rated two-hour cinematic diversion about a killing machine with a heart of gold (is there any film theme more perfectly 2015-America than that?) who slowly, very slowly, starts to feel bad after shooting enough women and children – Gump notwithstanding, that was a hard one to see coming.

Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question.

It's the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that's the problem. "American Sniper has the look of a bona fide cultural phenomenon!" gushed Brandon Griggs of CNN, noting the film's record $105 million opening-week box office.

Griggs added, in a review that must make Eastwood swell with pride, that the root of the film's success is that "it's about a real person," and "it's a human story, not a political one."

Well done, Clint! You made a movie about mass-bloodshed in Iraq that critics pronounced not political! That's as Hollywood as Hollywood gets.

The characters in Eastwood's movies almost always wear white and black hats or their equivalents, so you know at all times who's the good guy on the one hand, and whose exploding head we're to applaud on the other.

In this case that effect is often literal, with "hero" sniper Chris Kyle's "sinister" opposite Mustafa permanently dressed in black (with accompanying evil black pirate-stubble) throughout.

Eastwood, who surely knows better, indulges in countless crass stupidities in the movie. There's the obligatory somber scene of shirtless buffed-up SEAL Kyle and his heartthrob wife Sienna Miller gasping at the televised horror of the 9/11 attacks. Next thing you know, Kyle is in Iraq actually fighting al-Qaeda – as if there was some logical connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 60May 3, 2020 12:03 PM

Which of course there had not been, until we invaded and bombed the wrong country and turned its moonscaped cities into a recruitment breeding ground for… you guessed it, al-Qaeda. They skipped that chicken-egg dilemma in the film, though, because it would detract from the "human story."

Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards when one of Kyle's officers suggests that they could "win the war" by taking out the evil sniper who is upsetting America's peaceful occupation of Sadr City.

When hunky Bradley Cooper's Kyle character subsequently takes out Mustafa with Skywalkerian long-distance panache – "Aim small, hit small," he whispers, prior to executing an impossible mile-plus shot – even the audiences in the liberal-ass Jersey City theater where I watched the movie stood up and cheered. I can only imagine the response this scene scored in Soldier of Fortune country.

To Eastwood, this was probably just good moviemaking, a scene designed to evoke the same response he got in Trouble With the Curve when his undiscovered Latin Koufax character, Rigoberto Sanchez, strikes out the evil Bonus Baby Bo Gentry (even I cheered at that scene).

The problem of course is that there's no such thing as "winning" the War on Terror militarily. In fact the occupation led to mass destruction, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a choleric lack of real sanitation, epidemic unemployment and political radicalization that continues to this day to spread beyond Iraq's borders.

Yet the movie glosses over all of this, and makes us think that killing Mustafa was some kind of decisive accomplishment – the single shot that kept terrorists out of the coffee shops of San Francisco or whatever. It's a scene that ratified every idiot fantasy of every yahoo with a target rifle from Seattle to Savannah.

The really dangerous part of this film is that it turns into a referendum on the character of a single soldier. It's an unwinnable argument in either direction. We end up talking about Chris Kyle and his dilemmas, and not about the Rumsfelds and Cheneys and other officials up the chain who put Kyle and his high-powered rifle on rooftops in Iraq and asked him to shoot women and children.

They're the real villains in this movie, but the controversy has mostly been over just how much of a "hero" Chris Kyle really was. One Academy member wondered to a reporter if Kyle (who in real life was killed by a fellow troubled vet in an eerie commentary on the violence in our society that might have made a more interesting movie) was a "psychopath." Michael Moore absorbed a ton of criticism when he tweeted that "My uncle [was] killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards …"

And plenty of other commentators, comparing Kyle's book (where he remorselessly brags about killing "savages") to the film (where he is portrayed as a more rounded figure who struggled, if not verbally then at least visually, with the nature of his work), have pointed out that real-life Kyle was kind of a dick compared to movie-Kyle.

(The most disturbing passage in the book to me was the one where Kyle talked about being competitive with other snipers, and how when one in particular began to threaten his "legendary" number, Kyle "all of the sudden" seemed to have "every stinkin' bad guy in the city running across my scope." As in, wink wink, my luck suddenly changed when the sniper-race got close, get it? It's super-ugly stuff).

The thing is, it always looks bad when you criticize a soldier for doing what he's told. It's equally dangerous to be seduced by the pathos and drama of the individual solider's experience, because most wars are about something much larger than that, too.

They did this after Vietnam, when America spent decades watching movies like Deer Hunter and First Blood and Coming Home about vets struggling to reassimilate after the madness of the jungles. So we came to think of the "tragedy" of Vietnam as something primarily experienced by our guys, and not by the millions of Indochinese we killed.

by Anonymousreply 1January 22, 2015 3:51 AM

That doesn't mean Vietnam Veterans didn't suffer: they did, often terribly. But making entertainment out of their dilemmas helped Americans turn their eyes from their political choices. The movies used the struggles of soldiers as a kind of human shield protecting us from thinking too much about what we'd done in places like Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.

This is going to start happening now with the War-on-Terror movies. As CNN's Griggs writes, "We're finally ready for a movie about the Iraq War." Meaning: we're ready to be entertained by stories about how hard it was for our guys. And it might have been. But that's not the whole story and never will be.

We'll make movies about the Chris Kyles of the world and argue about whether they were heroes or not. Some were, some weren't. But in public relations as in war, it'll be the soldiers taking the bullets, not the suits in the Beltway who blithely sent them into lethal missions they were never supposed to understand.

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.

by Anonymousreply 2January 22, 2015 3:52 AM

TL / DR

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

by Anonymousreply 3January 22, 2015 3:54 AM

Well it took a couple of posts for the film but as the "R1" of this thread, you are right in character!

by Anonymousreply 4January 22, 2015 4:01 AM

So, it's a spaghetti western for clueless cunts.

I'll see for myself when it's free. Can't just take someone's word for it.

by Anonymousreply 5January 22, 2015 4:01 AM

Fake baby in American Sniper

Bradley Cooper hugging a doll

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6January 22, 2015 4:04 AM

I liked it...a lot.

by Anonymousreply 7January 22, 2015 4:06 AM

Fake, fake. Fake! Fake! Fake!

by Anonymousreply 8January 22, 2015 4:07 AM

Seriously, r9 what did you like about it? I will most likely see it too.

just a few sentences, please? Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 9January 22, 2015 4:13 AM

Yeah, it sounds really disgusting. Insulting too.

I want to know more about the writer who adopted the book. CIA? Douchebag?

by Anonymousreply 10January 22, 2015 4:14 AM

R7, seriously why did you like the film?

by Anonymousreply 11January 22, 2015 4:14 AM

Yoo hoo! Mr. Seven? r7

by Anonymousreply 12January 22, 2015 4:24 AM

r7 Should I spend $10 on it and why? Matt here makes a strong case against spending my money.

by Anonymousreply 13January 22, 2015 5:39 AM

Taibbi suffers from Earnest Young Writer syndrome. He always comes off smug and sanctimonious, even when he makes good points. He's the kind of argumentative jerk in college you eventually want to strangle.

by Anonymousreply 14January 22, 2015 5:59 AM

I'd still do him, lol.

by Anonymousreply 15January 22, 2015 6:10 AM

And? The movie? what say you?

by Anonymousreply 16January 22, 2015 6:11 AM

It's a fascinating war movie.

A regular guy gets lured into something much larger than himself. He excels at the one thing he knows he's talented at, but divorces it from the humanity involved, and basically loses himself and his "soul", I guess you could say.

It's shot beautifully, is incredibly well directed, is exciting in its action sequences, and through that allows us into our hero's head.

I knew it was based on the guy I heard about in the news and that made it even more interesting.

Bradley Cooper's performance is very, very good. It highlights the sad folly of war, and the incredibly brave and skilled people in it whose lives are altered, ruined, or ended in this pursuit.

I think it asks the fascinating question "What if a patriotic, well-meaning man discovers that his only real skill is war?"

It's of the "decent into madness" film genre while also an occasionally standard "war movie".

I found it nothing like I thought, nor anything like those who haven't seen it declare it to be. I like Taibbi, but that endless review was dull so I didn't finish it, plus I've already seen it and have my own review.

by Anonymousreply 17January 22, 2015 6:15 AM

[quote]When hunky Bradley Cooper's Kyle character subsequently takes out Mustafa with Skywalkerian long-distance panache – "Aim small, hit small," he whispers, prior to executing an impossible mile-plus shot – even the audiences in the liberal-ass Jersey City theater where I watched the movie stood up and cheered. I can only imagine the response this scene scored in Soldier of Fortune country.

That cat-and-mouse game between Kyle and Mustafa was totally fabricated. No such thing ever happened. In Kyle's book, Mustafa is only mentioned in passing in one paragraph, but they did not engage with one another. Thus, Kyle did not kill him as he does in the film. He was taken out by other snipers.

by Anonymousreply 18January 22, 2015 6:25 AM

Thanks, r7. It sounds like a good movie, just not a movie about the actual man. Evidence shows his soul was lost long before the film's outline.

You say he gets "lured", does the movie make it seem he was duped into it? Does it address how we really do not offer a way back into American civilian life, away from the trained killer's way of life, de-compression, as it were?

Anyway, you were kind enough to respond, and I'll check it out for myself later.

by Anonymousreply 19January 22, 2015 6:41 AM

Patriotic and well-meaning are disputable depending on one's perspective and actual experiences with all manners of the ripples of this war. In fact the hoopla can be altogether avoided if this were billed as Any War, and Any Sniper. Specifying Iraq war and Kyle demands necessary scrutiny of what's omitted, downplayed and fabricated. Too dumb to be dangerous, Matt? That's why we loved us long time some Dubya!

by Anonymousreply 20January 22, 2015 6:44 AM

america went crazy for it. so what does that mean?

by Anonymousreply 21January 22, 2015 6:58 AM

War, war and more war.

by Anonymousreply 22January 22, 2015 7:03 AM

[quote]You say he gets "lured", does the movie make it seem he was duped into it?

The movie shows Kyle watching a televised report of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and being inspired to join the SEALs. Kyle originally applied for the Navy SEALs in 1996 but was turned down due to the pins in his arm from the rodeo accident. Then, in the winter of 1997-1998, a Navy recruiter called and said that they wanted him in the SEALs program, pins and all.

by Anonymousreply 23January 22, 2015 7:03 AM

All R7 has done is make me agree with Seth Rogen, god hep me.

Even before this guy died, I had heard about his lies. The guy was typical of the TX attitude that is a huge part of why this country is so fucked up. A nasty piece of work. People keep forgetting he went to IRAQ, not Al Qaeda. The idea that we're supposed to be proud that he killed people in *their* country in a war having nothing to do with 9/11, but that this guy subscribed to that psychotic belief is nothing of which to be proud.

The military is a microcosm of society. Some are assholes and some are great, intelligent people. This guy was typical of the bigoted trash of the south.

Ventura WON because this guy was a liar. He treated Iraqis like "sport" and many Americans are sick fucks for cheering that on. Don't think you're normal. All Eastwood has done is further lie to add to this guy's bullshit legacy.

by Anonymousreply 24January 22, 2015 7:20 AM

The man was a braggart and a liar. If anything, he was an antihero.

Chris said that he shot looters during Hurricane Katrina from the roof of the Superdome:

[quote]This story became widely known after it appeared in the June 2013 issue of The New Yorker as part of a profile of Chris Kyle. Apparently, Kyle told the story to some Navy SEAL buddies as they were hanging out drinking in his San Diego hotel room one night in early 2012. A few of them in turn relayed the story to the writer of The New Yorker article. Kyle had told them that in 2005, he and another sniper went to New Orleans during Katrina and picked off thirty looters from the top of the Superdome. When the article's writer, Nicholas Schmidle, contacted the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, to confirm the story, he was told, "To the best of anyone's knowledge at SOCOM, there were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." Schmidle then contacted one of Kyle's officers. The SEAL replied, "I never heard that story," adding that it "defies the imagination." -The New Yorker

by Anonymousreply 25January 22, 2015 7:26 AM

Chris Kyle claimed that he shot and killed two men who tried to carjack him at a gas station:

[quote]In an April 2013 story in D Magazine, Kyle claimed that two men approached him at a gas station on a cold January morning in 2010. The men demanded his keys and wallet. With his hands in the air, he said he quickly studied the men to see which one looked most confident with a gun. Kyle told them he needed to reach into his customized black Ford F350 to get the keys. According to Kyle, he instead grabbed a pistol that was under his winter coat and fired two shots under his left arm, striking man number one twice in the chest. He turned and put two bullet holes in the second man's chest also, killing them both.

[quote]Kyle told D Magazine that he waited for the police to arrive. According to Kyle, the officers ran his driver's license and instead of the normal information coming up (name, address, birth date), a phone number for the Department of Defense came up. The police made the call, reviewed the surveillance footage, and Kyle was let go.

[quote]The problem with his story is that no surveillance footage was ever made public and the officers who were supposedly there never came forward to back up the story. "I talked to every single law enforcement out there, all the Texas rangers," said journalist Michael J. Mooney, who wrote a book on Chris Kyle, "and there's no evidence whatsoever." Journalists at the The Fort Worth Star-Telegram said that they "checked with the medical examiner's office, which reported no such deaths in Cleburne in January 2009" (The Washington Post). Kyle's account, which could not be confirmed, was then given more credence when fellow Navy SEAL and friend Marcus Luttrell mentioned it in his 2012 book Service: A Navy SEAL at War. Luttrell's own story became the subject of the 2014 movie Lone Survivor, which we also researched.

by Anonymousreply 26January 22, 2015 7:27 AM

[quote][[italic]Rolling Stone[/italic]'s Matt] Taibbi suffers from Earnest Young Writer syndrome. He always comes off smug and sanctimonious, even when he makes good points. He's the kind of argumentative jerk in college you eventually want to strangle.

Then don't ask him if he wants hang out with you, R14. I'm sure he's even less interested in you as you are in him.

by Anonymousreply 27January 22, 2015 8:22 AM

It's so hit and miss with Eastwood. He made two films this year, one, an Academy Award nominated smash and the second the absolutely terrible flop "Jersey Boys". He managed to ruin a great crowd pleasing stage show.

by Anonymousreply 28January 22, 2015 8:44 AM

If Americans knew anything about South Africa and the RWC, they'd know "Invictus" was treacly bullshit, too.

They would've seen articles written about it at the time.

by Anonymousreply 29January 22, 2015 2:31 PM

R25 What's even more appalling is that he (and many other dimwits believe looters after a devastating hurricare deserve to be shot!

by Anonymousreply 30January 22, 2015 2:52 PM

Fake!Baby is clearly the best actor in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 31January 22, 2015 3:00 PM

This article is payback for the military Satanists' murder of that Rolling Stone writer on Highland in Los Angeles a year (or two?) ago. The young writer who had the goods on the general.

This war as never ending business opportunity (for some) is destroying this country.

by Anonymousreply 32January 22, 2015 3:05 PM

LOL, R31.

by Anonymousreply 33January 22, 2015 3:05 PM

Rolling Stone? Didn't know that POS was still out there. How do they still party their bills?

Well anyone that writes for them is as relevant as Limbaugh. I'll pass on this joker's opinion.

by Anonymousreply 34January 22, 2015 3:21 PM

It's pretty simple - if you like this movie, you're a fucking idiot. The end.

by Anonymousreply 35January 22, 2015 3:22 PM

R34, you're cute to think what you wrote has any relevancy.

by Anonymousreply 36January 22, 2015 3:29 PM

Sarah Palin's post-menopausal panties got all damp from this flick...that's enough for me to [italic]never[/italic] watch it.

by Anonymousreply 37January 22, 2015 3:31 PM

[quote] "What if a patriotic, well-meaning man discovers that his only real skill is war?"

That's why [italic]go to war.[/italic]

So these losers can use "their skills."

They train for it...they wear camo drag...and they have a boner...to kill people.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

by Anonymousreply 38January 22, 2015 5:20 PM

It's an extremely well-made movie, expertly directed, even more expertly edited and featuring a top-notch performance by Bradley Cooper. But you have to view the movie through the lens of "inspired by the life of Chris Kyle," and very loosely inspired, at that.

It's a propaganda film very much similar to those made during World War II -- but that was, essentially, a "just war," and this was not, so, yes, the criticisms against the film are valid. It just requires a greater suspension of disbelief than would normally be required.

by Anonymousreply 39January 22, 2015 7:51 PM

[quote]The military is a microcosm of society. Some are assholes and some are great, intelligent people. This guy was typical of the bigoted trash of the south.

So all Southerners are the same, but people in the military deserve to be judged on their own merits? By the content of their character, perhaps?

by Anonymousreply 40January 23, 2015 12:45 AM

Salon has a great article about this, entitled, "7 heinous lies “American Sniper” is telling America"

Here are seven lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling:

1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.

2. The Film Invents a Terrorist Sniper Who Works For Multiple Opposing Factions: Kyle’s primary antagonist in the film is a sniper named Mustafa. Mustafa is mentioned in a single paragraph in Kyle’s book, but the movie blows him up into an ever-present figure and Syrian Olympic medal winner who fights for both Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and the Shia Madhi army.

3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film.

5. The Real Chris Kyle Fabricated A Story About Killing Two Men Who Tried To Carjack Him In Texas: Kyle told numerous people a story about killing two alleged carjackers in Texas. Reporters tried repeatedly to verify this claim, but no evidence of it exists.

6. Chris Kyle Was Successfully Sued For Lying About the Former Governor of Minnesota: Kyle alleged that former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defamed Navy SEALs and got into a fight with him at a local bar. Ventura successfully sued Kyle for the passage in his book, and a jury awarded him $1.845 million.

7. Chris Kyle’s Family Claimed He Donated His Book Proceeds To Veterans’ Charity, But He Kept Most Of The Profits: The National Review debunks the claim that all proceeds of his book went to veterans’ charities. Around 2 percent – $52,000 – went to the charities while the Kyles pocketed $3 million.

Clint Eastwood is disgusting, and now I hate Bradley Cooper for even being in this movie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41January 24, 2015 4:01 AM

Sniper bump

by Anonymousreply 42January 24, 2015 5:20 PM

[quote]it's a simple, well-lit little fairy tale with the nutritional value of a fortune cookie that serves up a neatly-arranged helping of cheers and tears for target audiences, and panics at the thought of embracing more than one or two ideas at any time.

This made me laugh.

(sorry for bumping old thread, but was curious about American Sniper and didn't want to start a new one)

by Anonymousreply 43May 2, 2020 11:30 AM

R24 Thank you. Nice to see someone woke on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 44May 2, 2020 11:43 AM

You brought this thread back from the dead of 2015 just to make a comment like that? You do know you can just READ old threads, right?

by Anonymousreply 45May 2, 2020 11:47 AM

Maybe someone who saw and/or thought about the film between January 2015 and May 2020 has something to add, r45.

DL has become a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" place with the thread police: bump an old thread: "Why did you bump this thread from 2015???" Start a new thread: "Why didn't you search for the thread from 2015???"

by Anonymousreply 46May 2, 2020 11:51 AM

R46 but the person who revived it DIDN'T add anything - that was my point. Of course bringing up old threads makes sense when there's something new, or something to contribute, or someone wanting more information. But people just do it and type something insipid.

"Cool thread" "Oh yeh, good point"

by Anonymousreply 47May 2, 2020 11:53 AM

^^This

by Anonymousreply 48May 2, 2020 11:54 AM

No, R46. Do try to keep up. Someone has been bumping old threads from 2015 for a couple of weeks now, and it's probably the same person who has spent literally YEARS bumping old threads early in the morning just to disrupt the board so we don't talk about what stupid things Trump and/or Bernie supporters have done today.

It's hardly believable that someone like R43 just happened to bump an old 2015 thread about Matt Taibbi of all people by coincidence.

by Anonymousreply 49May 2, 2020 12:05 PM

Has anyone ever seriously said "you should have bumped a 5-year-old thread instead of starting a new one?" Come the fuck on. People get mad if you start a new thread when there are recent and active threads on the same topic; no one gets mad if you didn't bump something from five years ago.

by Anonymousreply 50May 2, 2020 12:06 PM

JFC, r49

by Anonymousreply 51May 2, 2020 12:07 PM

Or maybe I should sign my posts

by Anonymousreply 52May 2, 2020 12:10 PM

Ha! r49 is a moron. But a funny one.

by Anonymousreply 53May 2, 2020 12:26 PM

I like how seriously DLers take DL.

Anyway, this film's HOT SHIT!!! And what's hilarious about it is the way they conservatized his story, because the dude's actual book makes him out to be the fucking Jordan Belfort of Snipers. He was a despicable human being, and they should have adapted the "real" story, with all his racist, jingoistic fabrications. That would have made a compelling film. Instead it's more right wing Eastwoodian pabulum.

by Anonymousreply 54May 2, 2020 12:30 PM

One of Cooper's few fuckable roles though I'll give him that!

by Anonymousreply 55May 2, 2020 12:31 PM

I like R49

by Anonymousreply 56May 2, 2020 1:12 PM

Rednecks gonna redneck.

I have many “redneck” members of my extended family. It is difficult to convey how stupid they are. Their brain doesn’t even have the capacity to process information. And they are ok with that.

The laziness and complacency is probably the bigger issue.

In the case of Chris Kyle, all I can say is that seems to have been self-limiting.

by Anonymousreply 57May 3, 2020 4:43 AM

Taibbi's behavior as an inveterate heroin addict, a habit he picked up during his long stint in Moscow as one of the founding editors of X-ile (sp?) an American expat publication, are well chronicled. It's unclear how sober he ever got. His partner/co-editor had a penchant for teenage girls one of whom he seemed to import to the U.S.

Taibbi and his pal were likely a "useful idiots." Two very well-off, educated, upper-middle class brats who wanted to party and raise hell moved to Moscow. And one of them had a father connected to. NYC and DC media? Even better! Damn, how stupidly confident.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 58May 3, 2020 10:24 AM

Taibbi's partner Mark Ames:

[quote]Ames spoke about his sex life in Moscow during an interview with The New York Observer in 2000: "'Russian women, especially on the first date, expect you to rape them,' said Mr. Ames. 'They’ll go back home with you and say, ‘No, no, no,’ and if you’re an American, you’ve been trained to respect the ‘No,’ because you’re afraid of sexual harassment or date rape, and so you fail over and over. But it took me a while to learn you really have to force Russian girls, and that’s what they want, it’s like a mock rape."[8]

Does this guy have anything in common with Richard Spencer?

by Anonymousreply 59May 3, 2020 10:35 AM

Going to a film called ‘American Sniper’ and expecting anything other than propaganda seems naive. Expecting the truth is wilful idiocy.

by Anonymousreply 60May 3, 2020 12:03 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!