Is this reviewer kidding? This is one of the stupidest reviews I have ever read and I have read a lot of stupid reviews. This is a real person's story, not a rewrite of the Hurt Locker. Many Veterans have trouble disengaging from combat life. Just because it was a topic covered in the Hurt Locker also is supposed to make it tired and old hat? That is a silly as saying people falling in love has been done, no more movies about falling in love. Wouldn't be much art left would there? This loser's real problem is that it doesn't defecate on our military enough for him. Ever occur to you Kyle might actually have been fighting some ruthless swine? In any case, this is about Chris Kyle's story not a study in moral equivalence. If you would like to test your theory on the wonderful folk Kyle was fighting try writing a scathing review about Islam, maybe even throw in a nice illustration of Muhammad, and then head off (unintentional pun) to Syria on vacation. See how well that goes for you.

Chris Kyle, a US navy Seal from Texas, was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and claimed to have killed more than 255 people during his six-year military career. In his memoir, Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.” He bragged about murdering looters during Hurricane Katrina, though that was never substantiated.

This guy is an admitted racist and all but confessed to loving to "dehumanize and kill brown people". It's right there in his book. What a sicko.

This is a terrible review. This isn't a movie solely intended for "love-it-or-leave-it-Americans" as the author of this review would make you believe. The movie is as neutral as The Wolf of Wall Street is. It neither glorifies nor demonizes it. It shows the realities of war from the perspective of a Navy Seal Sniper and it's up to the audience and their own set of values to decipher the morality implications of this story.

If you don't enjoy war movies, don't go see it. On a technical level, the movie is well produced. The story is not JUST about a man who pulls a trigger and shoots children or hunts world class snipers and insurgent leaders who cut off limbs and mutilate Iraqi civilians. The scenarios depicted in this film were real and these are situations that have taken a HEAVY mental toll on many vets, including Kyle himself. The movie is NOT The Hurt Locker because EOD soldiers are tasked out to a different operation and mission than that of a Navy Seal sniper. While their experiences may share similarities, they're also very different. (perhaps not to civilians, but I digress.) The movie doesn't depict the personal toll on the Iraqi's because this film isn't about that. That's a different movie that can be made but it would clutter this film.

The heart of this story really revolves around PTSD and Kyle's relationship with his family. To some extent, it examines the effects of war and the toll it takes on Kyle as well as his family. I could argue that they could have highlighted this aspect more. Sienna Miller's role as Kyle's wife was a bit lacking compared to the performances of other actors, but it was passible.

On another note, in addition to the physical wounds endured by many vets (as highlighted in grisly detail at the end of the film) PTSD is a very real issue many veterans face. It's a problem that could affect up to over 500,000 of the 2.5 million who served in OIF & OEF based on VA estimates. An average of 22 Veterans kill themselves each day, an inability to cope with symptoms of PTSD unfortunately and tragically brings many veterans down that path. (I feel like I have to state that due to the kinds of people that read the Mercury. Perhaps those that weren't already aware will be able to put those facts into perspective and think more objectively about the story)

Now, having stated that, I found this review was more about judging Chris Kyle and his actions than it was about reviewing a movie. It's easy to sit there and say what people should have done when you, the viewer, were privileged to go to college and learn about whatever it is you wanted because you had aspirations and the ability to go to school directly out of high school. It's easy to point the finger when you live in a culture like Portland that looks at war more critically then people who grew up embracing different values in other regions of the country. (Think of it like religion, and how where you were born in the world is likely to dictate those sets of values). It's easy to condemn whilst sitting behind a computer screen far removed from places like Iraq, Syria, or Baga Nigeria.

My point is, it's clear the reviewer doesn't get the point of the movie. You don't have to be "Oorah infallible America #1" to understand that this is an important film the dramatizes history during Operation Iraqi Freedom. War is terrible and this movie illustrates that. There's nothing glamourous about this movie. You can disagree with the war but you can't deny that it happened. If you're interested in Chris Kyle's story, this is worth checking out. If not, move along.

Now that I've defended the movie, I'll also state it wasn't my favorite movie of the year. I preferred Fury as a war movie. Foxcatcher was another well made and profound movie that was recently released which I preferred to American Sniper. I can see how American Sniper could be nominated for a best picture Oscar, but again that all comes down to individual preference. But what isn't deniable is the importance of this piece as a reflection of human history and conflict, for good or for worse, on this planet.

tl:dr - The bias of the author is evident in this scathing review of American Sniper. Disliking this film doesn't make you liberal, it just means you didn't get it or it wasn't for you.

Kyle joined the military before the 911 attacks...seems you didn't watch too closely, but that isn't surprising given that you clearly went into this movie with a chip on your shoulder. I agree that it could have done a better job of delving more deeply into the subjects of the war's toll on Kyle. Not so much in a way that would have changed the direction or overall feel of the movie, but just in a certain scenes could have been better written / directed kind of way. I also agree that the dialogue at times leaves much to be desired.

I didn't get the sense that movie was trying to overly glorify war or depict our enemies in any biased way. The battle scenes were meant to be just that - accurate battle scenes. The movie just happens to be about a sniper...so guess what...these battle scenes are going to have enemies who are killed, without delving into the back story that you were looking for that would "depict them as actual people". Can I ask you this...what "stereotypes" do you think the movie unfairly depicts? Newsflash - when our troops are in firefights in the middle east, there are going to be middle eastern people getting killed, shooting back at them, planting bombs, scheming against them, etc.

Finally, your bias is further shown by mocking the story about his "hillbilly father". As someone who grew up in the Southwest and grew up hunting (and I still own guns and bird hunt...and live in close-in NE and blend right in...GASP!), I saw these scenes as just painting the picture of his disciplined upbringing and the roots of his introduction to being a good marksman.

Overall, the movie wasn't perfect, but not for the reasons that the reviewer tries to point out. It's definitely worth a watch.

The action scenes were top notch, but otherwise, it was just a boring chick flick. The Olympic champion sharp shooting al Qaeda sniper was actually pretty cool. He was routinely picking off his enemy targets from a mile away, and in fashionable style. Plus, he could jump from rooftop to rooftop. In all fairness, the shrink was quite sharp himself, the way he used the protagonist's motivation to help his brothers, as means to get him to join the support group, which led to his reintegration into civilized American society, and relief from PTSD. This was a low budget movie, shot in digital with no color enhancement and without high paid stars. The authentic location was probably a dirt cheap place to shoot.

If you're looking for something a bit more influenced by the gay agenda to propagandize Hollywood films, as alluded to by the foreshadowed actual plot of Inglourious Basterds, go see, Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb PG-13.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5gdzHSh-bY

Despite the fine comedic actors, there's no real laugh lines; just a lot of slap stick, but Ben Stiller makes an ironic point about wandering Jews, and portrays a hilarious Neanderthal.

al Querida sniper jumps from rooftop to rooftop @4:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99k3u9ay1gs

Not that one up there, this one down here:

al Querida sniper jumps from rooftop to rooftop @4:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBc_PdW1xkg

The Iraqi sniper probably had a better record.

Into Bengayzie
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/generals-conclude-obama-backed-al-qaida/

PatRIOT Act Games, 'mo bett'a!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoVWedQOQl4

O'bamass' bin Ladin Raid White House Photo ENHANCED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY7BrZcLIXU

Inside The Situation Room with President Obama
Rock Center Killing Of Osama Bin Laden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogUDnIuvZdQ

I been chewed out before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggiUtXIVp8g

When we watch violence on film, whether actual live footage, convincing re-enactment, or vintage cartoons, how are we in principal any different than the sniper who sights his target and pulls the trigger? In his heart, does the sniper relish killing, or does he dread his duty? Does the audience wish that they could be the sniper? What do you wish to do in your heart?

These Young Iranians Arrested for Recording Tehran Version
of Pharrell Williams's "Happy"
Sentenced to 91 lashes and six months in prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5qdIxVcz8


O'bama supports Iranian government against Persian freedom activists.

Great, now Chris Kyle's haunting the comments section.

Boehner's invite adds fuel to a potential showdown between Congress and the White House over Iran, one that could lead to the first successful veto override of President Obama's tenure. Twelve Democrats in the Senate have previously cosponsored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. If they continue to call for sanctions alongside their Republican colleagues, the Senate may have the two-thirds majority necessary to override an Obama veto.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/john-boehner-invites-israeli-prime-minister-to-address-congress-next-month-20150121


In the Arizona GOP debate last week, Santorum noted that "we did absolutely nothing to help" the Green Revolution. But "when the radicals in Egypt and the radicals in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood ... rise against either a feckless leader or a friend of ours in Egypt, the president is more than happy to help them out."

The memo refutes claims still being made by the State Department that the Green Party "did not desire financial or other support," because it "would discredit it in the eyes of the Iranian people."

The secret memo's warning that the Islamist regime "with its apocalyptic constitution will never give up the atomic bomb" also contradicts conventional wisdom that the Green movement wants a nuclear Iran.

The Obama administration is oddly proud that it does "not provide financial assistance to any political movement, party or faction in Iran." But Foundation for the Defense of Democracies scholar Michael Ledeen has argued for years that supporting Iran's real opposition can keep it from becoming the first jihadist nuclear power.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022812-602609-obama-ignored-iran-freedom-fighters-in-2009.htm