Review: American Sniper


 The true story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), said to be the most lethal sniper in American military history, with a confirmed 150+ kills during his four stints in Iraq. Sienna Miller is Taya, Chris’ wife back home, Keir O’Donnell plays Chris’ younger brother Jeff, who also enlists and becomes quite shaken by his experiences.

 
Firstly, a little semi-tangential context about the filmmaker at the helm here, and all the political hype surrounding this film. I think it’s relevant, as the film, its source and its director often seem to cause political debate. Despite foolishly debating an empty chair at a RNC for cheap laughs, and previously starring in a bunch of right-wing cop flicks in the 70s and 80s, director Clint Eastwood (“Play Misty For Me”, “Mystic River”, “Jersey Boys”) comes across as more of a Libertarian than a Republican or Conservative to me. I mean, I wonder if the folks at FOX News have heard his views on Gay Marriage or Climate Change? However, he claims that this 2014 true story mostly adapted from Chris Kyle’s own memoir (even though the writing of the film started before the book was even finished), is actually ‘anti-war’. It’s not the biggest right-wing, flag-waver out there (and I’ve never believed that an anti-war film needed to be anti-American military, by the way), but I would hardly call this one anti-war, even if you start from the position that any accurate depiction of war will end up being anti-war as a result. For instance, I’d even put the underrated Vietnam War film “We Were Soldiers” in that category, even though it might not seem anti-Vietnam War specifically. Having said that, I’ve enjoyed plenty of war movies over the years, and not all of them have been anti-war films that lined up perfectly with my own beliefs (And for the record, I do not support the belief of a certain noted leftie filmmaker who calls snipers ‘cowards’. That person should be ashamed of himself, Kyle still has living children for crying out loud. I won’t name the jerk, he knows who he is, and although we occupy the same side of the political fence, I find myself less of a fan of his with every passing year).

 

I feel like I needed to get all of this political stuff out of the way, so that you know where both the filmmaker and also myself are coming from. However, at the end of the day, this is a movie review. Therefore, the only thing that truly matters here is whether the film is any good or not. It’s all well and good to be based on the real guy’s memoir, and for him to be a decorated soldier and all. Yet, that in and of itself does not constitute a great film. I’m sad to say that this didn’t do much for me. As scripted by Jason Hall (the lame-o techno-thriller “Paranoia”), it’s no right-wing, modern day “Green Berets” turkey, it’s simply respectful to the troops and refuses to really delve into the ‘bigger picture’ issues at all. That’s fine. What’s not fine, is that the film is not very interesting or fresh. In fact, there’s a helluva lot of “The Hurt Locker” in this, only dealing with a sniper instead of an IED guy (Neither film bothers to make much of a political statement about the war. That’s not their aim).

 

The battle scenes are photographed a helluva lot better than in that film or “Zero Dark Thirty”, that’s for damn sure. It’s a rather well-made movie in many ways, but not one with anything remotely new to say, and the only time that the central character remotely interested me was in his post-war resistance to being called a ‘hero’. Otherwise, he’s not a very engaging or interesting guy, and Bradley Cooper, Oscar nomination or not, is mostly rather dull in the part, aside from those post-war scenes (where he seems shy, but also unable to cope with the fact that he’s at home while someone else is doing the job in Iraq instead. That’s well conveyed) If, as everyone involved seems to want to claim, the film was meant to be more character study than political statement, the character being studied isn’t overly compelling, except when at home. In fact, I think Eastwood missed the boat by not telling the seemingly more interesting story of Kyle’s younger brother. There seems to be more of a movie in that character, if you ask me. Or maybe Eastwood should’ve focused more on Kyle’s post-war work with fellow veterans suffering PTSD, not to mention his untimely and truly tragic murder at the hands of one of the troubled soldiers he was attempting to help. What we get instead is far too worn-out, two-dimensional and clichéd. Having said that, the more action-packed second half of the film is definitely an improvement. Also, the film does have one genuinely great moment and most of it is probably due to Cooper: It shows Kyle contemplating having to shoot a kid who has just picked up a rocket launcher. Wow. You can definitely see the turmoil there, though Cooper doesn’t overplay it (And, anti-war or not, I’m not sure I really want a terribly conflicted sniper, given the split-second decision nature of their frigging job!). It’s his and the film’s one shining moment. Meanwhile, after this and “Foxcatcher” the same year, I really have to ask how and why the perfectly bland Sienna Miller manages to continue getting roles in big films? She offers nothing. She’s practically wallpaper in every movie I’ve seen her in. How is she doing it? Why do directors seem to like her? I’m not even trolling, I’m genuinely curious. Is she just a super-nice person everyone wants to work with or something?

 

Not all true stories deserve to have a film made about them, and to suggest Chris Kyle’s is one of those stories that needn’t have been told, is meant with absolutely no disrespect for him, his family, nor his national service (However, if he really did call his wife whilst in the midst of battle, he was kind of a dick. If he didn’t, Eastwood and screenwriter Jason Hall are giant dicks for suggesting he did it on two occasions. Seriously, who would do that? It’s cruel, and probably against military protocol, though I’m not qualified to confirm that one). Whether or not you agree with war itself (I’m strongly against it, but somewhat resigned to its inevitability), Kyle deserves respect. He clearly served his country on the battlefield, performed duties that I’m sure none of us would ever like to do (even those who are pro-war), and I feel just plain awful about the sad fate that eventually befell him. However, that does not in any way change how I feel about this story as has been told in this film (And I also hear Kyle comes off a lot worse in his autobiography than in the film. I haven’t read it, however, and won’t take that into consideration). Some people will love this film, and you’re welcome to feel that way. I wanted to see what you saw in the film, however I’m ultimately ambivalent about it. I hate feeling ambivalent about a film.

 

Clint Eastwood’s idea of being anti-war is a little more towards the right than my idea of anti-war, however, what really matters here is that this film just didn’t offer me much that I hadn’t seen before, and done better before. It’s a bit…meh, though the second half is better than the first, and it’s not the rah-rah flag-waver some of you might be dreading (or, perhaps hoping for, depending on your stance on the subject). I just wasn’t overly engaged or moved here.

 

Rating: C+ 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Boyka: Undisputed

Review: Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear