That's what he says during the conclusion

@ThatKidWhoLiesAboutHisAge OnTheInternet It's pro-soldier in the stance that it shows us what soldiers go through and how much they really do for this country while it is also anti-war by showing what wars do, destroying families of all parties.

Its pro-friend. Anyone who says they are "pro-war", has never been to war, usually that is your average, uneducated, moronic U.S. citizen.

@ThatKidWhoLiesAboutHisAge OnTheInternet No, it is not contradictory. It was just as stated. These people join, for whatever reason. Just as you would protect a friend/family member, soldier protect one another.

@@tater8251 .. Being "pro-soldier", for them, had nothing to do with you or this country. It is about one another, comrades.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. It seems a bit confused in whether he’s a holy glorious southern raised soldier or whether his belief in that is a bad thing that’s abused by the military.

well said

In what you described lies Chris Kyles truth. I think you're completely correct in saying that the film balances those two lines, but that is quite literally what Kyle was dealing with himself. In that sense I think this movie is beautifully made and tells that exact story adequately. Whether that's enjoyable to some or not is irrelevant at that point because it does Kyle's story justice.

I agree with the OP, but I see that as an unconditional win in terms of film-making and the worth of the final product we got. It doesn't have a clear message, because the concept of a war hero is incredibly complicated. To not celebrate a hero is idiotic; if they are not to be celebrated, then they are not heroes. The real question is, on what basis is one a war hero. Does the war itself change that description? Is it possible to be a war hero in WW2 but not in the middle East because of the very different nature of those wars? Is it EVER possible to be a hero if war is a moral wrong? Is war a moral wrong in the first place, or an inevitable means of dispute between states, and what does the answer say about us? And, most centrally to the film, what does that say about soldiers? None of these questions have clear answers, there is no objective worth or dismissal of soldiers, certainly not war heroes. You can have an opinion, of course, and that opinion can have more or less of a basis in reality, but you cannot have a DEFINITION. I love this film, not because it tells me what I should think about Chris Kyle, but because it bring up all of these questions, tackles them from many sides, and leaves them ultimately unanswered. It was uncomfortable finishing this film, not knowing where I stood... but it was worth feeling uncomfortable, because doing battle with that uncertainty is not only our best way forward when tackling the topic of war... it's also the only honest view of war one can have.

This. Too many in the anti-war crowd see a film like this and just say it glorifies war, full stop. What if it's just a little inconsistent in trying to get its message across? Media can be inconsistent, and open to interpretation.

What's cool about it? It's pretty disturbing how realistic the bodies fall.

@@alexdeghost2729 the firing stance of the SEALs, their cool guy gear, their punisher logos, etc. Watching bad guys who drill kids to death/help those guys get blown away is cathartic to the viewer.

@@TheSilentOne50 those things are in war though?

@@TheSilentOne50 but those are objectively just parts of modern war.

@@rabbidpig3480 They happen in modern war but the movie is still very selective about what it portrays and how. And that selection tends more towards glorification than an anti war message.

I mean, how doesn't it support the premise? If anything "The most lethal sniper in US History" is a neutral factoid. "Most lethal sniper" is not a direct endorsement. It is not a saying "War is good" or "Anti-War is bad". It is just saying "The most lethal sniper in US History"

@@SioxerNikita come on, really? Neutral factoid? People get off on supposed 'aces' of war. You get another view on this, if you take a look on this for example concerning german propaganda in wwll around flight aces. It's not neutral, it's a step in painting a picture of the uber-warriors, that are on your side, or even, that might be you in the future.

​@@savonarola831 Yes, it is still a "neutral factoid", he, as far as I know, is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US History. And you are comparing this to war time propaganda where you glorify the warriors as much as possible, in a movie where war is shown as devastating to everyone involved? Yeah, no. It is an eye catching neutral factoid made to specifically garner interest in the movie, thought up and placed by a PR firm to get as many viewers as possible. It is not making a statement about anything. Are we "glorifying" serial killers when a documentary about serial killers says "Most Deadly Serial Killer" or similar? Are we trying to paint a picture of the awesomeness of the uber-killers that murders a lot of people? Yeah, no... ...

@@SioxerNikita My thought is that maybe that headline could be like, a sign of accomplishment, akin to a title like "World Champion" but you are somewhat right that it is neutral

@@krumby3460 If it was "The US' most Awesome Sniper" it would definitely be glorifying, but stating something true, is not pro-war. "Nuclear Weapons, the most explosive weapon pound for pound" - aka. glorifying Nuclear Weapons You see how the logic doesn't follow? :)

+

There are much much better films that deal with PTSD and are anti-war. This film is not anti-war and there have been a ton of films that have dealt with showing the guys coming back having problems that still glorified war. The bottom line is this, Chris Kyle lied about nearly every aspect of his life. He was in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. No one should be watching a film based on this guy. Just like how the Navy wouldn't out Kyle while he was alive because of how much he had improved enlistment numbers this film shouldn't be promoted. The PTSD side is an afterthought and his death is put entirely on someone else. I guarantee you sniper enlistments saw a huge surge after this. I mean Stop-Loss (especially poignant given the amount of times you've deployed), Courage Under Fire, The Messenger, Brothers, and even documentaries like Restrepo

Michael Stott Yeah, the woman who mightve been shot because She was getting her baby medical care wouldnt have been a victim, the killer would have been... (Not that I would have blamed him, But unless its your country being blown up I dont think you can claim that you are the people paying the price.)

Michael Stott

This story made me cry and it makes me wonder, exactly what is all of this worth? Iraq is just now getting the basic control of its country back from the Islamic State, and religious tensions will, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, continue to persist and cause trouble. We can't look or walk away from this plane crash started by a plane crash. Are we just trapped in a cycle of war and deploying new troops? Or is this all leading up to a regional regression towards total tribalism and failed states?

Perhaps the system Kyle believed he protected was his home family's social and economic system?

​@@SCIFIguy64 Those systems didn't rely on him being in war. The economy we're talking about that needs all those wars is the one of the upper 1%. It's their endless interest that needs to be fueled by war, not the economy of the 99% that work for a living and produce real value.

@@bogeydope3022 "Those systems didn't rely on him being in war" Of course, they do. These systems rely on an economy. The economy relies on interests (supplies, materials, etc. which are not always inside the national borders, far from it) that are to be defended. And how are they defended? By militaries. And ultimately, if needed, by war.

@@Briselance Oh boy, tell me, which force attacked the economy that needs defense by means of military action? The oil keeps flowing by show of force alone, not by a war that uses it up. We are living in an age of proxy wars, that are only fueled by the military industrial complex. " The economy relies on interests (supplies, materials" No it doesn't, because the biggest part of our "economy" is printing money on computers, those interests can't be "paid" by means of real goods, because we're long over the verge of exponential rates . And here you'll find the reason for war, because it is the only way to gather real goods and power for people with a lot of worthless money. Btw, do you know the biggest Co2 producer in the world? It's the US Military. I wonder why nobody talks about them and their output.

​@@bogeydope3022 honey maybe if you would stop your decadent life style there would be less wars. For now enjoy the pizza, funko pops and cape shit that is fueled by oil that soldiers Die for.

Saw it. Disappointed.

I love that movie!!!

... with their* mental trauma ...

“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle

@@einundsiebenziger5488 they're on their way there

Kino

You’ll feel different when you evaluate how WTC 7 fell.

@@akira28shima32 His comment refers to a quote in the videogame Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, where a rogue U.S. General plunges the U.S. into a war with Russia for his own benefit by staging a terror attack.

@@TheCrazeturk you can change 2 words and hit the nail on the head on our invasion of the Middle East

i wouldnt characterize those that perceive its anti war message as "pro war". just they the acknowledge that war isnt always avoidable. this is not to suggest that the iraq war was in any way unvoidable. it surely was.

I see it as a war movie period. Neither pro nor anti war, maybe some of both as long as a biopic

that's amazing if it's the case, successfully challenges everyone's opinion.

its just people thinking that they know everything, this man's struggle to keep his people safe is relatable but some dont understand that

The baby scene 😂

Wow, just a couple of days ago I was talking about this video and wondered whether at some point the writer of the thesis that forms its core would ever stumble upon it. I tried contacting you about it back when I was making this video but I was unable to find your contact information. I'm glad I managed to do it justice (be it unpacked and in a less academic form). I could observe a lot of the motifs and themes that went against the pro-Iraq war narrative but I didn't have any theoretical framework to put those findings in. Your thesis managed to do that and then some. Anyways, if all of you watching are interested in the more political angle, check out Daniel's thesis 'Terministic Screens and Partisan Audiences'! Thanks for watching man! - Thomas

@@storytellers1 hey, you k ow this actually happened right? Im prolly wrong but it seems like you think that Clint Eastwood just made that film based on nothing, but it is a documentary almost.

@@noctismortis7349 11:10

Daniel Merwin p

Why was a fake baby used daniel?

Thank you for your service

@@justmyopinion7201 thank you brother.

Aaron Small, you served us we serve you.

Still don't think it was a great movie tbh

You must just have been cutting onions, like me.... Not even a vet or an american... Just sad to see what we do to others and our own

you know damn well the government wont

@@masonmax1000 then as private citizens we have a duty to our warriors. Go to a VFW or help a vet out if possible

@@masonmax1000 and the people won't either. Americans out there saying "thank you for your service" while not giving a shit about veterans with PTSD and other mental and physical problems.

Be better if they didn't.

@@andrewm.8772 troll

Do you seriously believe Bush and Cheney would have boarded an Abrams and single-handedly invaded Iraq if "the warrior" didn't agree to fight for them? To quote Carl Sandburg, „Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come“.

Can't have one without the other

@@michaelparker5478 Are you anti-war?

@@matthewjones39 of course

@@michaelparker5478 Well then you hate all soldiers.

if the USA stops play the role of global policeman now you can be damn sure another country will take our place. but I do agree with you.

@@masonmax1000 Let them, hasn't done the US any good. Honestly, the only thing that could bring down China is if they try to be like the US.

@@edwardheaney3641 LMFAO you got a good point there man.

USA is worse than PRC when it comes to world relations.

PRC is literally most hated country in the world - I award you no point and may God have mercy on your soul. Nobody lIkes PRC bro, even its own citizens hate it but Tiananmen Square shows what would happen if they voice it.

Happened to me. Then he recommended SWCC. I declined both.

I got offered a deal contract the first time I walked into their office, I immediately went to the army recruiter across the hall.

I am Jason it’s pretty common. They know most will wash out of seal training, now they’re needs of the navy.

@@swayzz5638 plus most recruiters get incentives for sending people into those slots

@@mmadmarch Why that sounds really good it has good pay and your technically elite (idk I'm not very bright when it comes to this stuff)

Yeah that miniseries is great and definitely not pro-war or even pro-miltary, it just accurately depicts Iraq Invasion from the POV of an elite unit and doesn't hollywoodize war to make the protagonist more sympathetic or change events to show cool action scenes like American Sniper or Lone Survivor does.

I just finished it a few days ago. Absolutely phenomenal.

That's another one that manages to be clearly anti-war without being anti-warrior.

@@tissuepaper9962 Its not even necessarily anti-war. Its just a tv mini-series that accurately portrays how the military is. It shows that modern service members are irreverent, and very few are star spangled patriots. Many are there to do a job. Many are there because it gives them opportunities that they never had before. Many are also there because it got them out of a worse life (like gangs). The dynamic that service members are not these honorable, dutiful, reverent, patriotic individuals (they're patriotic, but not in a manner that is displayed). They're just regular dudes living and vibing in extraordinary historical events, and trying to survive it.

@@JohnDoe-wt9ek to quote Cpl. Ray Person, “It’s like that song ‘When Stars and Stripes and Eagles Fly.’ Fuck, man, eagles fly in Canada too. When we got back from Afghanistan my mom tried to play me that song and I was all, ‘Fuck no, Mom. I’m a Marine. I don’t need to fly a little fucking patriotic flag on my car to show that I’m patriotic.’”

Critics don't understand this because almost no war movie glorifies war. They are a testament to the brutality and destructiveness it resaults in. Ultimately it should show the tremendous price it cause those stuck on middle.

Grand Torino is not a good representation of the minorities it portrays as the ones his character has to save. The Mang were completely misrepresented with cultures and traditions they don't even participate in. I think Eastwood THINKS he is doing the right thing in those movies, but can come up short in his desire to showcase a disgruntled, flawed hero/savior. I also really like his cinematography.

Gran Torino was typical "white man's burden" drivel that is centuries old. Nothing new. Besides, Chris Kyle was a liar and fraud who committed stolen valor.

@@4realjacob637 Plenty of war movies glorify war and many more glorify war "heroes". Look at movies such as U-571, a piece of unmitigated revisionist propaganda crediting America with an achievement actually made by the British. In fact, of all the captures of Enigma machines, only one was made by the US, late in the war, at a time where the Allies were already routinely decoding Enigma messages. Screenwriter David Ayer even admitted later that it was a "mercenary decision" to rewrite history to push the film for US audiences. America loves its "heroes" and the "tremendous price" is routinely whitewashed and rosey-colored. Even something like "Saving Private Ryan" celebrates the American heroes sacrificing themselves for the good cause. Or should we talk about the celebrated "Black Hawk Down", a piece that is a whitewash of the constant humiliation and abuse of the local population by US forces? But hey, they're the victims, right? After all, the local Untermenschen scum should have known to worship the American master race. A solid "testament to the brutality and destructiveness" war results in, yes? Quote Wikipedia "Stephen A. Klien, writing in Critical Studies in Media Communication, argued that the film's sensational rendering of war had the effect of encouraging audiences to empathize with the film's pro-soldier leitmotif and "conflate personal support of American soldiers with support of American military policy" and discourage "critical public discourse concerning justification for and execution of military interventionist policy."" More: The film goes out of his ways to spit in the face of the Pakistani soldiers who ACTUALLY save the arse of those US soldiers who got out. I'd suggest you watch movies like the original German "The Bridge" from 1959 or even the Soviet "Come and see", not the least because the latter shows those actually stuck in the middle, all too often forgotten in America, where war is something that happens in faraway countries and civilians have strange names, strange looks and speak a strange language, rendering them almost inhuman. There might something in those for you to learn about the "brutality and destructiveness" war results in and the "tremendous price".

@4real Jacob every war movie glorifes war and being a soldier. The us military literally funds every war movie you see. This movie is just trying to be a sob story to feel sorry for a person who willingly joined a war for securing oil and profits. A comdien summed it up perfectly "The united states will invade your country then 10 years later make a movie about how that invasion made their soldiers sad." If america made an actually good antiwar movie it wouldn't be from the perspective of the us military and instead the millions of innocent victims it has murdered. Remember the us military will literally invade the hauge if you try to charge an american soldier for warcrimes. It also doesnt help the movie is literally about a raging shit bird warhawk named chris kyle. Dudes rotting in hell if it exists.

Hans Günter Thanks for commenting Hans. You make fair points, and I do believe some viewers would agree with you. However imo, the consequences are there in the form of his friends getting killed (through his overconfidence and vengeful crusade), the deaths of the Iraqi family which he failed to protect, missing out on years of his relationship and his children growing up, and ultimately dying because of.the war anyways, leaving is destroyed family behind. But fair enough, I agree Eastwood could have been a little less subtle here and there.I wonder if there are deleted scenes which would have helped with this... - Thomas

and what does victory do for him? what did it do for anyone? the Iraq war basically was a victory. but it was an empty victory

Pyrrhic victory, A win that costs you so much it no longer seems worth it

I think it would have been a little bit better if he died when he showed his position to the Syrian Sniper. Of course, this is based off a true story so that couldn't happen but if he died during that, after the phone call, it would've shown that he gave up everything, even himself, to reach that "catharsis" and that his no giving up mentality cost him everything. He would overcome the fictional battle with the sniper, but not overall.

Are you forgetting that at the end he gets gunned down by another vet with PTSD?

Lol cry about it you monster. You can never make up for the crimes you have committed against the people's of the Arab world. Everyone of you who died deserved what they got. You're a fascist piggie whether you're aware of it or not.

I’d disagree that everyone thought the Iraq War was a mistake by 2013. Many conservatives were still condemning the Obama administration for withdrawing from the war or accusing it of being too soft on ISIS, and there even still a few people who thought Ba’athist Iraq had WMDs in 2003. But the tide was certainly turning that way.

I think, most of the audience here in Germany knows now that this film is a satire. It's more the authorities who don't get it.

gabe6550 hence "the people responsible" in his comment

the film isn't banned in Germanyi'm german and i've seen it many times on tv

Toufiq Aziz Pro-war? How? Its a fascist "utopia" playing on the duality of man. You have a prosperous society and equality between the sexes. So what ruins the good life? The states hunt for an enemy. The bugs retaliate. As if the gray and leather uniforms weren't a good enough hint.

I don't disagree. The book and the movie are worlds apart and I threat them as such. I enjoy them both for what they are.

"arent famous anymore" seth rogan mate.

Idk man Seth Rogans pretty iconic. I am nonetheless disappointed that he’d say that, I’m a big fan of his and it hurt my image of him :/

You arent qualified to be making judgments, your opinions are not quality nor will they ever be. Loser

One thing I don't get, Is there a problem with creating a pro-war movie? There must be hundreds of famous pro-war movies thats still great, why do people make such a big deal out of it?

@@oggan97 because war is bad and promoting it is almost as bad what are you even saying lmfao

@@STANKYCHEEZEMAYNE Yes war is bad but a movie is also a movie. There is countless of movies that "promotes" bad stuff. A pro-war movie in my view is a war movie where the main character/characters survives and is displayed as heroes and perhaps "bad-ass" people. I can think of countless of movies where violence is "promoted" in that case.

​@@oggan97 Every movie where violence is "promoted" is either good vs bad or is critiqued to hell. Name one movie that unapologetically promoted and glorified violence and made evil people look badass.

Letters from Iwo jima one of my favorites

speilberg the pedo propagandist? ok, great

Well, as a paramilitary myself, I'd haul the gun off, too. Recovering weapons is good warcraft.

there's no way to know who's a civil and who's a terrorist in war everyone u see with an unknown face can become a potential enemy

you pussies sitting here commenting on his life. He fought to defend you, that doesnt mean you cant be critical, however you sit here like he killed good people. You havent been there or seen what actually goes on. Its more than you see on Fox, CNN, MSNBC.

That's one thing when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy dresses up exactly like the civilians, just take away his weapon and suddenly he's another civilian casaulty of war.

Killing people is fun. Killing dangerous, harmful ones is amazing. A good battle is more exciting than a threesome with two nice looking girls. Bayoneting narcos, for me, was more fun than fucking girls.

For a movie about the toll war takes, it seems to ignore the largest toll of all - paid by the civilians, and how invaders like Chris Kyle destroy somebody's home, livelihood and family over a blatant lie. It would be like making a movie about a Russian sniper that's really sad that he has to murder Ukrainian children. Most people defending this movie would be up in arms about "Russian propaganda" if a movie like that came out.

Hm I need to rewatch the movie. I only remember him sniping and that awful fake plastic baby. XD

Ganesh God I believe it is the exact opposite, or at least conventional war, because each soilder fights for there country, each solider believe there cause is grate and put there life on the line for there country, probaly the most honorable thing somebody could do, saving and protecting others, only exception is terrorists

I like chees Cake lmao what a moronic view. “Except terrorists.” You don’t think they also think what they’re doing is right? How is America not terrorist with what they’ve done a few months ago?

but facts it's only terrorism when another country does it

Japan thought of it differently

I like chees Cake my point is that it depends who you ask. For you going to war is honorable but what about to the people you are fighting. You are literally going to a country and killing them till you win. If you want to win you must kill and the more you kill the quicker you win so calling a method of killing people cowardly is irrelevant because war is about winning, not about pleasing the enemy.

Agree for the most part with your comment, but "no PTSD"?

He, Mr. Kyle, never claimed adjustment disorder or similar affects of what is known as Post Traumatic stress. He might have had some issues, but he never personally stated any symptoms that I am aware of. I can't claim to understand the inner life of someone beyond what they say, and in any of his books Chris Kyle never stated anything like PTSD. Not everyone in combat experiences PTSD, it affects many of us, but it is not universal.

Kinda hard to not Hate the locals when they send children to blow you up

That thought is kind of why we have obnoxious shit like Trump's, failed, attempt(s) to ban people from specific countries from entering our country. So my neighbor is an idiot. He doesn't mow his lawn, he lets his dog wander around and scare the kids in my yard, he has three torn up trucks laying around in his yard, and is meth head. I have several people in my area that fall largely into that mould. Therefore I can draw the conclusion that ALL people in America are all those things... It's illogical and stupid, let alone that it's narrow minded bigotry. When you make yourself a bigot who views the world as "us" and "them" you are basically the same fools as ISIS and their ilk. People are people wherever you are. There are lots of idiots and dangerous jackasses, but like it or not for the most part people are pretty decent. One last note on Trump's attempts at banning people... It actually includes some of the people who actually were helping us, the U.S. military, fight over there. I personally know that two guys I worked with who were working as translators and guides have been unable to emigrate here because of Trump's B.S.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fd6dm6qLs9uzlIk.html

God Bless You, Sir.

A Christian PMC ... I hope you see the irony

It is what it is. I own my sh*t.

@ respect man. one of the (very many) atrocities of war, is that it can seduce the bravest men, who would fight and die for their lands and their people, to become enforcers of the corporate empire. if a war is not on your soil, it's not for your freedom, as far as i'm concerned.

The problem was that to get scenes like that you basically have to lie about what Chris Kyle was actually like.

and then you read his book, and released he loved killing people. loved killing people... and there is a reason why people believe the movie is pro war, if they wanted a anti war movie, could've picked a better main character, like one who lost all of their friends and an arm, was shipped home and how had to deal with the consensus of those actions in his live. but no that makes too much sense lets instead have the movie main character be a psychopath with major mental issues,

Thekilleroftanks Lol bro I don't care if thats what Chris Kyle was like or not. The point of the movie was showing what ANY soldier could experience. Some soldiers do enjoy the killing, some hide it, some can't stand it but they all come out damaged. That was the point of the movie.

Thekilleroftanks I read the book and am a combat veteran myself. He didn't actually enjoy killing people like in the way you think. It's just that he tried to explain a subject that is extremely difficult to explain to somebody that has never been through that situation. You don't get it and you never will and that's fine. It was a mistake on his part trying to put these subjects In a book for civilians. That's why veterans usually only tell war stories to other war veterans. Like, it's just weird. It's hell. You see your friends die and you're forced to make decisions you'll have to live with for the rest of your life. But for some reason, if you ask almost any real combat veteran if they would go back, almost every single one would say in a heart beat. We don't actually enjoy the killing part. It's not like we wake up every morning thinking "I really hope I get to kill somebody today". My heart sinks just by thinking about it because this is just so difficult to explain. We love each other. I love the guys in my platoon so much and I'm closer to them than I am to my own parents. I would give my life at any moment to make sure they come back or for the ones who didn't, have the opportunity to be home with theirs. I'd rather die than lose one of them. Sometimes, you have to do something you don't want to do or immoral for that to happen in a place that horrible. When I was there, they would force children to be human shields or they'd kill their entire families. You'd have guys strap bombs to them with dead man switches so if you shot them, they'd still go off. You have to. He loved his job because these guys he served with we're family. He had to make sure they came home and it fucking sucks because I've been in that situation where I had to do things I will live with for the rest of my life and still keep me up at night so I get it. But my friends made it home. And I would leave everything right now to go back and make sure everyone there makes it home. Which is what he wants. It's super difficult to explain to civilians. They just want to turn things around on you constantly and try to decode everything to fit their agenda. You're going to believe what you want to believe. You've never been there but your pride won't let you live with the fact that you will never understand something so deep down it makes you angry so you want to bring others down for it.

Nick yeah because with every one he killed, he saved a life. They're fucking savages and the shit they do to civilians is disgusting. I'd like to kill them all myself. They would butcher children and stuff them with explosives and they would force children to stay with them as they fought so they could get killed and they'd use it as propaganda that you believe. I've been there. You haven't. But you want to have everything figured out

“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle

LowOnSuga Thank you, great to hear it opened up a new way of looking at the movie!

i mean look at the poster at 12:15 "the most lethal sniper in us history" doesnt seem anti war but instead something to be proud of

@@l.h.9747 did you not watch the 1 minutes of video before that screencap?

@@reastmanable i watched the whole video. The minutes before dont matter when the movie isnt even advertised as an anti war movie.

@@l.h.9747 Maybe it was advertised as such to get people to from different political standings to see the movie, only for the actual message to be completely different. Believe me, when I first watched this movie it was not a feel good time making me wish to fight in every conflict that I can. Advert made me think one way, but the movie itself made me think another.

Keenan McCarty You're welcome Keenan!

Sorry for the wall of text about to come, mate. 😞 "I've always felt that great war films are indeed anti-war films." So "The Battle of Britain", "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day", "Band of Brothers", "The Thin Red Line", "The Pacific", "The Darkest Hour", "Dunkrik" and maybe many others are indeed either anti-war films or bad films? They are indeed great films about war. Yet they do not wallow in the crassest, primitive anti-war hogwash. Is war bad? Sure is, and extremely so. And? Do you think everybody cares about that? During the Interwar Period, the Anti-War movement was big. Much bigger than anything we know today. The anti-war were listened to. Their litanies and rambles consisted, amongst others, in the total lack of glory in dying in war. See Lord Halifax in "Darkest Hour"? The character's quite representative of the anti-war in the Interwar Period. Suing for peace even when it had long ceased to be any semblance of a viable option. The Western democracies yielded. They wanted to avoid blood but blood still was spilled, and millions, from either side, had to die before the nightmare was over. Why did that happen? Democracies had listened to the anti-war/pacifists. And democracies had grown weaker than ever before, and allowed Hitler to rise to power without any serious reaction from the Western democracies when he annexed Czechoslovakia, when he attacked Poland (at the same time the USSR did, by the way). And even then, in France, some people vehemently cried "Not a single drop of French blood for Danzig!" (Nowadays called Gdasnk, in Poland). Whatever falseties they spread with their naivety, pacifists fail to acknowledge that their ideology is naught but weakness. And that war, despite its horror, needs to be waged at times. And that, thus, people need to be recruited, equipped, trained, supplied, paid, etc. to be ready for war, either as professional or reservist servicemembers, or as volunteers joining for the duraction of the war, or as conscripts. And since we will always need to have soldiers ready, while keeping in mind that crimes are we might as well see them and their deeds at least potentially glorious, rather than treat them as tissues to be discarded when used up, the same way US servicemembers were treated during and after the Vietnam War : sent to fight with a pat in the back by civvies who, with utmost hypocrisy, greeted them back with spits, boos, slurs and disgusting indifference to their suffering.

@@Briselance I struggled to read through your entire message. You start out disputing the claim that all the great war movies, are anti-war movies. but you provide literally nothing to back up your dispute of the claim. I don't hate war movies that are pro war, they can be very entertaining to watch, but not a single one of them has stuck with me. there is no underlying message for my brain to consume slowly over a long period of time making sure it gets stuck in there, they were good movies, about war, but they werent "The great" war movies. Public as well as professional ratings seem to agree with me quite a bit as well, so I'm assuming based on loose evidence that my opinion is the common census. and it is absolutely fine to disagree, but put an argument forward at the very least? Your interpretation of the anti-war movement is incredibly warped compared to mine, to quite a degree as well. At no point have soldiers returned from war as disatisfied with the war itself as in the middle east, not even Vietnam manage spur vets left right and center to speak out about how their brothers died for some old guys' oil war. And talking about going to war with Germany, with the knowledge we have now, should they have intervened faster? possibly, but the fact remains that wars should not be started lightly, which is what the anti-war movement is all about. people don't want their family, friends, or themselves to end up fighting a pointless war, laying down their lives wondering why the hell they are even there. theres a million reason why they didnt react in a more volatile fashion. Did they think they could settle it diplomaticly? economically? was a full scale world war necessary? if so, how should we handle it, planning, strategy, intelligence, as well as diplomacy with the rest of the allied nations. I am not gonna pretend like I know what was going on, I have read some history books, written by the people who wanted to and were allowed to speak up, and they have contradicting statements. You never actually made any arguments, you just made up facts and claimed them to be true or false, with absolutely no evidence what so ever to back it up. your gross oversimplification of War as well as the anti-war movement, your misinterpretation of weakness and pacifism makes me feel very uneasy, how many of you are out there?

@@Briselance The hypocrisy is entirely on your part - the one who openly treats civilians as subhuman scum and then doesn't want to be responsible for war crimes. Your waffling about the interwar period is just as much of whitewashing. Why did WW2 happen in the first place? Because Japan and Germany glorified the military. Your hypocrisy about war "needing to be waged" is a pitiful excuse for wars of aggression done solely and exclusively to put others "into their proper place".

Don’t feel sorry for not contributing to the violence and greed that led the US to invade Iraq twice. Your friends did nothing to help. All American involvement in Iraq has brought is instability, further poverty, and violence to the doorsteps of so many innocent people.

There’s always two sides to a story. Keep in mind, that’s what the other side did. They would basically parade with guys of ours that they killed. It doesn’t matter which side it is, you shouldn’t brag about taking a life at all.

@@artruisjoew5473 For some reason I don't think you'd feel the same if you saw an insurgent bragging about killing an American.

@@artruisjoew5473 Why critically think and use empathy when I have the ability to dumb myself down as a human being and not care? Not valuing life on all sides can be just as dangerous as the original threat, but it seems that your philosophy is one instilled into you rather than one that you found on your own.

@@artruisjoew5473 This isn't a video game. I thought we had realized how big of a lie nationalism was 100 years ago at the close of World War 1. Honor is a false prize dangled by a corporation. You are trying to kill another human being because they have a different flag sewn onto their jacket sleeve, all the while they are trying to accomplish the same thing to you. All because someone somewhere wanted money. If you can talk so dispassionately about killing other people for a false cause, you are a living case study of how dangerous and potent of a lie nationalism can be.

So I commented above about how I thought this was a stealth anti-war movie concealed as a barn-burner of a pro-war propaganda film. For this reason I like the film, but for the commenter's reason above, I also dislike the film. It totally misportrayed what we know about Chris Kyle from his own moribund, probably untruthful accounts and language. I'm also a multi-tour combat vet who worked extensively with special operations and there are other stories from those that worked directly with Kyle... other SEALs in fact that seem to confirm the worst of suspicions. There are scenes in this movie that seem to be deliberate white washing reinterpretations of those stories I've heard. I understand why, if the purpose was to make a stealth antiwar film, it adds resonance to use the legacy of a honored hero, but I wish the film did more than overtly double down on the accepted narrative or just simply create a composite character to tell the story through.

Me too. Glad i'm not alone.

if the fight is not on your soil, it's not for your freedom.

I think the issue is that WW1 and the war in Iraq are distinctly different - far too different to impose the same sort of values and premise onto a film.

@@DakotaofRaptors I think all other wars besides WWI have had some sort of moral values attached to the side fighting. While that was done too at the time with with WWI it is much harder to say there was a really bad side due to everyone being incredibly inhumane. With Iraq the most pressing issue is that everyone really thinks that no one should fight there that is sane. Original documents were forged when going to war there so the US involvement is inherently evil. That makes it harder to to do a nuanced take since people will blindly follow the positive characterization done on the military, comradery while ignoring the trauma, murdering of innocents that is inflicted. The other side is in my opinion rightfully criticizing this movie because when engaging with war it is easy to engage in propaganda for war, even if one tries to critically depict it it needs to be done so well that everyone notices it because this war was, as stated before shrouded in lies and a false sense of nationalism to get American people into the meat grinder that is war. Full Metal Jacket is also an anti war movie and that one is so way more overtly but there still so many people that signed up to the military afterwards because they liked the depiction, even if it was harsh and brutal.

Only because Eastwood specifically chose Chris Kyle and ended the movie with that montage of the 'fallen hero'. Chris Kyle was out-spoken in his pro-war, pro-invasion of Iraq, pro-killing civilians. If you want to make an anti-war movie, you don't choose him as the central character, excuse his killing of civilians by conceit, and then glorify him at the end. The dissonance there is nowhere near enough to undermine that central point.

Jeff Jeff yeah uhh ok

It's fake

Nice

Better be alive than dead

“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle

That's probably one of the simpler, more frequent statements I hear on KZfaq. "well if _________ likes/dislikes it, than it must be good/bad" You don't have to see eye-to-eye with a critic on every single movie to trust their judgment or find value in their critique. Obviously. A critic's power lies in the consistency of their voice. People were saying "suicide squad was actually great" days after seeing it in theaters, while a ton of critics said it was terrible. Who the fuck do you even trust at that point? Who are really the "most people" that enjoy these films? What does a "good" film consist of? In other words, if it takes one opinion to determine how you will feel about a movie (or being pretentious enough to assume most people will agree with you) then you should really expand your perspective and not be so...sheepish.

Well Michael, I say if you like the movie then it's good, if you don't like it then it's bad.

quite so

TheHortond Hack. Idiot. Old fool...

the irony in this comment.

thespacejuice how

Thats a gross generalization because I loved the film and I left the theater thinking it was an anti-war film

It goes both ways. Some people loved it because it was America pumping. Other people hated it because it was America pumping. The movie was clearly an anti-war piece but it still had strong nationalist values, which I think confused everyone. The "pro-war" people were just hyped to see a brawny American male sacrifice everything to protect those he loves and defeat the "evil" that lives in Iraq.

When I saw the film myself, it was immediate to me that it was anti-war. Kyle joined the Navy to become a SEAL, and persevered throughtout the trials of training, and felt he was ready for combat. He enters the war with high ideals but reality broke through and Kyle was slowly becoming disillusioned by the war; disillusioned but in denial - When his best friend expressed disillusionment and died Kyle blamed it on the mans loss of faith, rather than accepting the possibility that he to could die at any time, and that "the plan" might indeed include his imminent death. He pushed through but survivors guilt ate at him, and forced him on into a final tour, but the result of his final mission was a continuation of the nothing he felt inside - no absolution, only further pain.

Christian Rodriguez this movie is very political. It glorifyes killing making the moments of his executions epic. It also does not translate the other languages, distancing the audience, thus creating a gap between the different cultures.

Sea Skimer exactly you also forget that they refuse to assimilate into western culture when they move.

There was nothing epic about any kill in the movie and "glorifying killing" is not political by any means. Never read the book so I'm gonna go ahead and assume what was written there based on people's opinions and I'm pretty sure there's something people don't understand. But if I'm wrong and he's actually the bad guy... Well... what does that change about the movie? He's depicted in completely different way

Frodo Baggins Reminded me a lot of The Hurt Locker actually with how he keeps feeling the need to go back

Almost as if that's the point of it.

How so? If anything, I think he served more as a sort of (darker) parallel to Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle. We never hear him say goofy villainy stuff, we just know he was an accomplished sportsman with a thriving family. We see that his family is suffering as he has obviously become obsessed with the war, not unlike Chris Kyle himself. The video's he makes show his hatred towards for enemy, again not unlike Kyle's vocal hatred for the insurgents. I think his tale, although somewhat cut short due to the focus on the main character, is to show the tragedy of a man corrupted by hatred and how his family is destroyed by the war. - Thomas

Storytellers Thats a good point, I've never really seen that much of a difference between Kyle and the enemy sniper besides a uniform

+Storytellers Our distinct viewings of this film are like the 4 gospels of Jesus Christ: different perspectives. We never see the foreign sniper speak because his character arc is focused on his marksman skills, literally taking out American soldiers, 5,000 sniper points a piece. He was a symbol for foreign antagonism. You never get a sense of true humanity, just cinematic villainy. Wasn't there a financial reward he was seeking? A true gun slinger straight out of the wild west if I ever saw one. Not to mention, his death scene. Who's the focus on? You guessed it, our beloved American hero. The foreign sniper becomes the object of the greatest headshot in American war history. You feel like the foreign sniper was endowed with a decent measure of humanity? Then ask yourself this question: when he got his head blown off, did you feel sympathetic to his tragic end, or were you busy being amazed at chris' incredible shot? Don't get me started on chris' wife and the ongoing hollywood trend of talented actress, useless role. And the foreign sniper wasn't a proper foil to the American sniper. Not by a long shot (pun intended) Compare foils in these classics. Lost in translation The prestige Adaptation Unbreakable Collateral The master Mad men (all kinds of foils!)

In reallity that guy got killed by a drone lol.

***** Is that a valid objection?