Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
18,463
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
Reading a lot of Hereditary vs. Midsommar here. Hereditary was much more enjoyable for me. But I did like them both.

Don't look Up
I loved it! Really like the style this filmmaker uses and I found it really funny. Ron Pearlman was the MVP 8/10
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
9,074
Reading a lot of Hereditary vs. Midsommar here. Hereditary was much more enjoyable for me. But I did like them both.

Don't look Up
I loved it! Really like the style this filmmaker uses and I found it really funny. Ron Pearlman was the MVP 8/10
I thought Hereditary was very poor. Based on that i couldnt bother watching Midsommar. There was i read a sharp divide between the critics and audience. The critics loved it. The audiences hated it.
 

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
18,463
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
I thought Hereditary was very poor. Based on that i couldnt bother watching Midsommar. There was i read a sharp divide between the critics and audience. The critics loved it. The audiences hated it.
The films are nothing alike so I wouldn't let your dislike of Hereditary stop you watching Midsomar.

One is demonic, haunted house affair whilst the other is folk/cult horror.

It would be like comparing The Conjuring to Wickerman.
 

George Owen

LEAVE THE SFW THREAD ALONE!!1!
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
13,518
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
The films are nothing alike so I wouldn't let your dislike of Hereditary stop you watching Midsomar.

One is demonic, haunted house affair whilst the other is folk/cult horror.

It would be like comparing The Conjuring to Wickerman.
Exactly.

As a side note, I think that having consumed magic shrooms before (not before the movie, but before as having previous experience with psychedelics), will help you enjoy Midsommar much more. The filmography/photography reflects the effects of shrooms in a very realistic way, and rightly so, as they play an important role in the movie.
 

RedPed

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
11,219
Just come across this clip that I mentioned earlier from the movie Kate. Probably my favourite sequence from 2021. Simple yet effective. No matter how fecked up she is here, she's still sooo hot. Yeah I definitely would and not ashamed to say it.

 

RedPed

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
11,219
Anti-Life (2020)

Available on Netflix and originally titled 'Breach', this extremely harmless and run--of-the-mill sci-fi chiller goes further in cementing Bruce Willis' current status as a bona fide B-list, straight-to-video helmer. I'm not really sure where his next big blockbuster is coming from but at last count he's got 11 films on the go for 2022. Surely that should tell you something?

Anyway, before I pull this film apart, let me just add that I did end up sitting though it. Was it because it was that bad, I couldn't look away? Or did it indeed have some redeeming qualities? I'm not too sure. The majority of the budget must have gone to Willis because it certainly wasn't spent on production. It doesn't take much of a discerning eye these days to realise when they're being presented with a high quality gourmet classic or a no-frills TV dinner. Nothing new about the story..it's been done a hundred times before. The last of humanity on a ship to a new beginning but alien virus has other plans. Perhaps the weight of the movie is too much for Willis' reputation to carry on it's own. Perhaps he knows it's going to be another dud. Who knows? He's there in body anyway, not necessarily in spirit.

All attempts to build up any tension, sense of peril are usually thwarted by the terrible acting, lazy writing and plot development and annoying characters drifting in and out of the story at will. The few effects utiilised within the film are low-key and perhaps in a way that adds to its subversive charm. Yes, despite all these misgivings I managed to get to the plot twist, if you can call it that, right at the end. So they must have done something right? All I know is it's quite alarming where Bruce Willis' career is heading right now.

I'm giving this a 4/10.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
The Remains of the Day. I had seen this movie before (twice?), and I find it more difficult to think about each time. I absolutely love the book and have read it multiple times as well (and put it back on my pile yesterday), and what I particularly like about it, are all the little bits of nuance and expressions, and how the character and story slowly inch forward. Of course, every film of a book will look off for fans of the book, but I think it's particular in this case, as those tiny nuances is where the book lives most - at least to me. So I can't help but miss that in the film.

All the same, it's great movie, I think, that captures the overall themes of the book and the general characteristics of its main characters in full. It also has beautiful and strong shots and great acting. Subtle, understated, calm, historical, strong reflection on a (specific part of) society - if you like those qualities in a film, you should love this.
 

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
4,277
The Remains of the Day. I had seen this movie before (twice?), and I find it more difficult to think about each time. I absolutely love the book and have read it multiple times as well (and put it back on my pile yesterday), and what I particularly like about it, are all the little bits of nuance and expressions, and how the character and story slowly inch forward. Of course, every film of a book will look off for fans of the book, but I think it's particular in this case, as those tiny nuances is where the book lives most - at least to me. So I can't help but miss that in the film.

All the same, it's great movie, I think, that captures the overall themes of the book and the general characteristics of its main characters in full. It also has beautiful and strong shots and great acting. Subtle, understated, calm, historical, strong reflection on a (specific part of) society - if you like those qualities in a film, you should love this.
It’s one of the easier Ishiguro novels to adapt (imagine “The Unconsoled” or “When we were Orphans”). I read the book after watching the film and I felt that the film had been true in spirit. Hopkins and Thompson were superb, probably the latter’s best performance.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
It’s one of the easier Ishiguro novels to adapt (imagine “The Unconsoled” or “When we were Orphans”). I read the book after watching the film and I felt that the film had been true in spirit. Hopkins and Thompson were superb, probably the latter’s best performance.
I agree, absolutely true in spirit. My issue is just that, as I said, all the little details are so important to me in this in particular book that I miss them all.

I haven't read When We Were Orphans yet (and the newest one). Is it good? Ishiguro is owe of my favorite writers - he's great across his career, and I love The Unconsoled as well.
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
39,404
Location
Egypt
The Suicide Squad (2021) :

Far better than what I expected from the trailers. Yes, the story is cliched and nothing to write home about, but the movie is so fun and has its own "personality" out from the get go. I liked how they took their liberty in viewing violence and gore because it would have been out of character for everyone in the movie if it was censored.

Very good action flick to turn off your brain and spend some good time. I think it's a move in the right direction for DC.

8/10.
 

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
18,463
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
The Suicide Squad (2021) :

Far better than what I expected from the trailers. Yes, the story is cliched and nothing to write home about, but the movie is so fun and has its own "personality" out from the get go. I liked how they took their liberty in viewing violence and gore because it would have been out of character for everyone in the movie if it was censored.

Very good action flick to turn off your brain and spend some good time. I think it's a move in the right direction for DC.

8/10.
This was really fun but I still don't trust DC. They always take one step forward followed by a giant leap backwards!

John Cena was great in this though :lol:
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
48,839
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Been flying many hours the past week and thus was able to watch a few flicks on the airline.

No Time To Die - 9/10 - was excellent. My fav Bond movie since Octopussy (and I really liked a few of the more recent ones). But it's near three hours long so plan ahead. Also, Lea Seydoux :drool:

Platoon - 10/10 - hadn't watched in a few years. This film is a masterpiece. I recall my grandpa, former Army LRRP and combat vet, telling me how this movie most accurately portrayed the war. Also interesting to watch and actually notice Depp more than once. Dafoe and Berenger were magnificent.

Every Last One Of Them - 2/10 - this film was shit but fun if you like all out ridiculous action with holes you can drive a proverbial truck through. And atrocious acting.

The Wrath of Man - 4/10 - it's a Statham movie, probably enough said. Interesting plot, typical improbable ending.

Wedding Crashers - 8/10 - it's a comedy classic.
 

Volumiza

B-Boy cypher cat
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
8,656
Location
Somewhere in the middle
Also, Lea Seydoux :drool:
At least we wouldn’t have to fight over Ana de Armas!
Platoon - 10/10 -
Still one of my favourite war films. Some very emotive scenes.

Did you watch the making of documentary on Amazon Prime? If not, it’s worth a watch. I was young when this film came out so even though I loved it, I didn’t really know much about it. The documentary makes for interesting viewing.

Oliver Stone literally threw that cast unknowingly into the jungle for weeks on end with some badass military bloke.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
9,074
No Time To Die

Rented it just there. First two hours are great. Turns into austin powers at the end where dr evil (and his loyal henchmen) want to kill the whole world. I could see the ending coming a mile off as well.

6/10.
 

Edgar Allan Pillow

Ero-Sennin
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
39,372
Location
┴┬┴┤( ͡° ͜ʖ├┬┴┬
Matrix: Resurrections

Absolutely terrible. Even the fight sequences were blergh. Jessica does a good job despite the poor role. 3/10

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Decent watch despite a botched ending. Loved the main cast of kids. Good time pass. 7/10
 

pauldyson1uk

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
48,553
Location
Wythenshawe watching Crappy Fims
The Last Rite

A medical student suffering from sleep paralysis finds herself plagued by a demonic entity, after moving in with her boyfriend.
The story itself was OK, there was a good story fighting to get out, the music played its part and there was a few jump scenes and the possession play book was played to its fullest. There was shades of The Exorcist and Ammyiville in it, if it had more money spent on it, it could have been so much better.
There was a few things that really let it down,the acting, the acting was dreadful, some of the worst you will see, the ending, the ending was fecking dreadful.

I wanted to like it more, but I just couldn't

3/10
 
Last edited:

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
80,209
Location
Centreback
Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Feel good tribute to the original film and Harold Ramis (slightly overcooked). Turn your brain off and enjoy would be my advice. 7/10 (6 if you aren't a ghostbusters fan)
 

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
4,277
I agree, absolutely true in spirit. My issue is just that, as I said, all the little details are so important to me in this in particular book that I miss them all.

I haven't read When We Were Orphans yet (and the newest one). Is it good? Ishiguro is owe of my favorite writers - he's great across his career, and I love The Unconsoled as well.
I liked when “When We Were Orphans” a lot although I don’t think it was one of his most critically acclaimed. It is set in Shanghai in the run up to the Japanese invasion in the 1930s, and the main character is an English detective who was born there and has returned to find out what happened to his parents. Like most of his books, the main character views events from a very limited, if not skewed perspective.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I liked when “When We Were Orphans” a lot although I don’t think it was one of his most critically acclaimed. It is set in Shanghai in the run up to the Japanese invasion in the 1930s, and the main character is an English detective who was born there and has returned to find out what happened to his parents. Like most of his books, the main character views events from a very limited, if not skewed perspective.
Yeah, I've read about it, and read somewhere I think that he had been thinking of doing a detective story for years and then finally got round to one. I tend to like the genre, so I don't care if it's not his best, I'm really looking forward to it anyway. :D
 

pauldyson1uk

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
48,553
Location
Wythenshawe watching Crappy Fims
Ghostbuster Afterlife.

Loved it, it has everything you liked from the first first and a bit more thrown in.
It was a cracking tribute to the original, the bits with Egon in were very well done.
There was nothing to dislike about this.

10/10
 
Last edited:

ChrisNelson

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
3,083
Location
Westhouses
The 355 (2021)

Doesn't really offer too much over and above Diane Kruger and Penelope Cruz.

The plot of bad guys getting hold of a drive which can disable the entire world has been done so many times that to improve on the genre you really have to throw a lot at it, some really fresh ideas and memorable performances. Unfortunately this does neither.

A passable action film but all rather predictable in the end.

6/10
 

Bilbo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
12,266
The Tender Bar

I really liked this. Story wise there's nothing new here and it won't appeal to everyone but I enjoyed spending time with these characters, Affleck especially.
 

Vidyoyo

Self-confessed coffee shop chat-up expert
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,928
Location
In the good times and golden era
Few from my letterboxd:

Radiance (2017): Mixed feelings about this but mostly positive. I particularly like how it captures the mixed emotions of the two main characters and the way it looks at the ambiguity of sense - using the blind man's condition to share how he both succeeds and fails in seeing the world from a new perspective. What's less good I think is the ending. It seems to struggle to decide how it wants the story to end, leaving a few question marks. 7/10

Last Child (2017):
Also mixed feelings about this. It's a slow drama about two parents who have to overcome the death of their son, and who take to helping the kid they're told he saved before he died. I like the way it shows their struggle to deal with grief and how they respond to the situation by offering kindness. What I didn't like as much is the big shift it takes midway through. The idea is interesting as a plot point but it deviates quite a bit into thriller territory and I don't think it quite hits the strong emotional notes it seems to be going for. 6/10

Saw both on MUBI
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
17,104
Location
The Zone
Me - David Lynch is the greatest living artist on the planet and he has completely changed the way I view art


David Lynch -

 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
48,839
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Number 7 was a classic, watched it many times in my teen days after finding a VHS copy in my mom/step-dads closet (it was a big score - dozens of VHS porn flicks). I would host after school socials at the hizzo complete with snacks and wine coolers. Had like 20-something teens over one afternoon and was like I gotta stop this eventually. Looking back, I should have charged an admission fee.
 

jderbyshire

Has anybody seen my fleshlight?
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,372
Anti-Life (2020)

Available on Netflix and originally titled 'Breach', this extremely harmless and run--of-the-mill sci-fi chiller goes further in cementing Bruce Willis' current status as a bona fide B-list, straight-to-video helmer. I'm not really sure where his next big blockbuster is coming from but at last count he's got 11 films on the go for 2022. Surely that should tell you something?

Anyway, before I pull this film apart, let me just add that I did end up sitting though it. Was it because it was that bad, I couldn't look away? Or did it indeed have some redeeming qualities? I'm not too sure. The majority of the budget must have gone to Willis because it certainly wasn't spent on production. It doesn't take much of a discerning eye these days to realise when they're being presented with a high quality gourmet classic or a no-frills TV dinner. Nothing new about the story..it's been done a hundred times before. The last of humanity on a ship to a new beginning but alien virus has other plans. Perhaps the weight of the movie is too much for Willis' reputation to carry on it's own. Perhaps he knows it's going to be another dud. Who knows? He's there in body anyway, not necessarily in spirit.

All attempts to build up any tension, sense of peril are usually thwarted by the terrible acting, lazy writing and plot development and annoying characters drifting in and out of the story at will. The few effects utiilised within the film are low-key and perhaps in a way that adds to its subversive charm. Yes, despite all these misgivings I managed to get to the plot twist, if you can call it that, right at the end. So they must have done something right? All I know is it's quite alarming where Bruce Willis' career is heading right now.

I'm giving this a 4/10.

This guy on YouTube reviews bad movies - did an episode on "Breach" a few months back.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
The Holiday. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslett are both coming out of a bad (almost-)relationship just before the holidays, and do a house swap between Diaz's mansion in LA and Winslett's cottage in rural England to get away from their respective lives. Soon, both meet someone interesting and new perspectives open up, and eventually new love, in the form of Jude Law and Jack Black.

It's bad. This was listed as a romantic comedy, but there is barely any comedy to speak off (despite Jack Black's presence even), and the romance is so obvious that the only real drama is some practical stuff (that actually doesn't even really get resolved, just postponed). Romantic feelgood movie is probably a more accurate description. The romance, though, is kinda pathetic in Winslett's story and blindingly obvious in Diaz's - to the point where my frame of reference for most of the film (it gets better in the final third) was Harlequin/Hallmark movies.

Yeah, no.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
American Sniper. It's kind of a weird film. It's well filmed and acted (nothing extraordinary, but solid as usual from directer Clint Eastwood and main guy Bradley Cooper), but I thought the narrative was severely lacking, in two ways that I probably have to spoiler to discuss.
First, it seems that the film wants to show how war damages the fighers mentally, but you get very little of that. You would need to see much more of Kyle back home to see how it affects him and his family. Instead, you mostly see him being this awesome soldier in Iraq, while the interludes back home in the US are so short that there isn't really time to develop the psychological angle at all. We just have to get it all from his wife (Sienna Miller) telling him that he isn't really there with them. And poof, we're back in Iraq and he's killing people again. I started making fun of it halfway through the film, and could predict exactly when we were switching back to an Iraq scene. There is just no depth or credibility to it at all.

This perspective is even worse at the end, cause going home permanently should be where the PTSD really comes out - but it doesn't, cause we see Kyle sulking a bit and hear the war in his head in front of a switched-off tv, and then get healed instantly once he starts helping other vets. (It may not have been instant in actual time, but given we jump from brief scene to brief scene in a matter of minutes, it's instant for me as a watcher.)

The second issue, and tied in with my previous paragraph, is that there is virtually no dramatic arch. In a normal film story, there is some kind of tension or issue, or whatever sort of drama. But not here. The guy goes to war and becomes a legend. He loses a few friends, but he avenges them. He is missed back home, but when he returns permanently, he overcomes his PTSD and becomes a beloved father again. And then he's killed suddenly. I know that's more or less what actually happened to Kyle, but it's just lame for a film. From a dramatic point of view, you'd expect the PTSD to become a real issue, or that he is killed in the war he can't get away from anymore, or something more dramatic with his fellow soldiers, or whatever else that actually produces a dramatic arch. But there's none of that. Everything the film builds towards falls apart by Kyle just becoming normal again (very quickly, as I mentioned above) - and then he randomly gets killed in an unrelated event (at least in the film there's no explanation).
So when the film was done, I was basically left stunned. Really, is that the ending? How is this a film? Why isn't it just a documentary or other kind of hommage? Why was this film praised so much? I guess I can get the feelgood factor for Americans that like to see their war heroes, but for anyone else...?

Also, I read that this movie depicts the messiness of the Iraq War, but does it really? We get nothing about the Iraqis, nothing about the intentions and failures of the occupying forces, next to nothing about anyone's doubts (there's a brief discussion once, but Kyle isn't the doubting kind). The insurgents, too, are just portrayed as cannon fodder, apart from the Butcher and the Sniper, who were more or less invented (at least in this specific form) to give Kyle some semblance of specific motivation in his actions. (I think I read that Spielberg wrote those into the plot. I think he might have made a very different film if he had directed it.)

So yeah, a pretty good film - until the last half hour, which made me wonder why I had been watching any of this.
 
Last edited:

Amar__

Geriatric lover
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
20,233
Location
Sarajevo
Supports
MK Dons
It's basically the American version of that Inglorious basterds movie about Fredrick Zoller.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,015
American Sniper. It's kind of a weird film. It's well filmed and acted (nothing extraordinary, but solid as usual from directer Clint Eastwood and main guy Bradley Cooper), but I thought the narrative was severely lacking, in two ways that I probably have to spoiler to discuss.
First, it seems that the film wants to show how war damages the fighers mentally, but you get very little of that. You would need to see much more of Kyle back home to see how it affects him and his family. Instead, you mostly see him being this awesome soldier in Iraq, while the interludes back home in the US are so short that there isn't really time to develop the psychological angle at all. We just have to get it all from his wife (Sienna Miller) telling him that he isn't really there with them. And poof, we're back in Iraq and he's killing people again. I started making fun of it halfway through the film, and could predict exactly when we were switching back to an Iraq scene. There is just no depth or credibility to it at all.

This perspective is even worse at the end, cause going home permanently should be where the PTSD really comes out - but it doesn't, cause we see Kyle sulking a bit and hear the war in his head in front of a switched-off tv, and then get healed instantly once he starts helping other vets. (It may not have been instant in actual time, but given we jump from brief scene to brief scene in a matter of minutes, it's instant for me as a watcher.)

The second issue, and tied in with my previous paragraph, is that there is virtually no dramatic arch. In a normal film story, there is some kind of tension or issue, or whatever sort of drama. But not here. The guy goes to war and becomes a legend. He loses a few friends, but he avenges them. He is missed back home, but when he returns permanently, he overcomes his PTSD and becomes a beloved father again. And then he's killed suddenly. I know that's more or less what actually happened to Kyle, but it's just lame for a film. From a dramatic point of view, you'd expect the PTSD to become a real issue, or that he is killed in the war he can't get away from anymore, or something more dramatic with his fellow soldiers, or whatever else that actually produces a dramatic arch. But there's none of that. Everything the film builds towards falls apart by Kyle just becoming normal again (very quickly, as I mentioned above) - and then he randomly gets killed in an unrelated event (at least in the film there's no explanation).
So when the film was done, I was basically left stunned. Really, is that the ending? How is this a film? Why isn't it just a documentary or other kind of hommage? Why was this film praised so much? I guess I can get the feelgood factor for Americans that like to see their war heroes, but for anyone else...?

Also, I read that this movie depicts the messiness of the Iraq War, but does it really? We get nothing about the Iraqis, nothing about the intentions and failures of the occupying forces, next to nothing about anyone's doubts (there's a brief discussion once, but Kyle isn't the doubting kind). The insurgents, too, are just portrayed as cannon fodder, apart from the Butcher and the Sniper, who were more or less invented (at least in this specific form) to give Kyle some semblance of specific motivation in his actions. (I think I read that Spielberg wrote those into the plot. I think he might have made a very different film if he had directed it.)

So yeah, a pretty good film - until the last half hour, which made me wonder why I had been watching any of this.
I’ve said my piece, but Matt Taibbi did it better - American Sniper is almost too dumb to criticize
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
7,500
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I’ve said my piece, but Matt Taibbi did it better - American Sniper is almost too dumb to criticize
Yeah, I read your comment. :D I read the critical reception bit on Wikipedia, and I was amazed how posive many people were, including what are supposed to be high-ranking film critics. This is the positive section (there is some criticism, too,, actually):
Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter called the film "A taut, vivid and sad account of the brief life of the most accomplished marksman in American military annals." Justin Chang of Variety gave the film a positive review, saying: "an excellent performance from a bulked-up Bradley Cooper, this harrowing and intimate character study offers fairly blunt insights into the physical and psychological toll exacted on the front lines". David Denby of The New Yorker gave the film a positive review, saying "Both a devastating war movie and a devastating antiwar movie, a subdued celebration of a warrior's skill and a sorrowful lament over his alienation and misery." Keith Phipps of The Dissolve wrote that the film, while well made, missed a chance to explore the toll that such service exacts on soldiers. Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C+, saying "The film's just a repetition of context-free combat missions and one-dimensional targets." Elizabeth Weitzman of New York Daily News gave the film four out of five stars, saying "The best movies are ever-shifting, intelligent and open-hearted enough to expand alongside an audience. American Sniper ... is built on this foundation of uncommon compassion." Kyle Smith of the New York Post gave the film four out of four stars, saying "After 40 years of Hollywood counterpropaganda telling us war is necessarily corrupting and malign, ... American Sniper nobly presents the case for the other side."

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "Bradley Cooper, as Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, and director Eastwood salute Kyle's patriotism best by not denying its toll. Their targets are clearly in sight, and their aim is true." Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of The A.V. Club gave the film a B, saying "American Sniper is imperfect and at times a little corny, but also ambivalent and complicated in ways that are uniquely Eastwoodian." James Berardinelli of ReelViews gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "American Sniper lifts director Clint Eastwood out of the doldrums that have plagued his last few films." Rafer Guzman of Newsday gave the film three out of four stars, saying "Cooper nails the role of an American killing machine in Clint Eastwood's clear-eyed look at the Iraq War." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times gave the film a positive review, saying "Eastwood's impeccably crafted action sequences so catch us up in the chaos of combat we are almost not aware that we're watching a film at all." Claudia Puig of USA Today gave the film three out of four stars, saying "It's clearly Cooper's show. Substantially bulked up and affecting a believable Texas drawl, Cooper embodies Kyle's confidence, intensity and vulnerability." Joshua Rothkopf of Time Out New York gave the film four out of five stars, saying "Only Clint Eastwood could make a movie about an Iraq War veteran and infuse it with doubts, mission anxiety and ruination." Dean Obeidallah praised the film, saying "His focus was not on whom we were fighting, but the unbearably high price Americans pay for waging war regardless of its target. The film is a cautionary tale for Americans about why we must avoid war. It is not a celebration of waging it."
Most of this I just don't get at all. Where is the character study? Where does this display the negative side of the US's experience of the Iraq War? (let alone any aspect of the Iraqi experience) How is this devestating, or showing any (lasting) alienation, misery, or vulenarability on Kyle's part? Where is the compassion? (I have no idea how someone could think of that word in this context!) I guess it's no surprise that these are all Americans, and I figured it's 100% telling that the New York Post reviewer (final comment of the first paragraph) saw this as a great film and a case for the noble side of war.

In any case, that made me look up what others had said about the movie, and here on the forum the overall opinion was a lot more negative.
 
Last edited: