Every movie rewrites history. What American Sniper did is much, much worse

[1000]

war is war. no right or wrong.

There's a reason for the Geneva conventions

 

[C130]

There's a reason for the Geneva conventions

doesn't stop the atrocities on both sides.
war isn't clean no conflict small or big is.
you have to be ignorant to think you have the moral high ground.

 

[Falcon29]

This is lowest point for any movie director. Trash movie with trash dehumanizations of Iraqis.

 

[jhungary]

Not all snipers have a personal record to reach.

If I saw stuff there I might have picked it up, doesn't mean i'm going to kill everyone with it, what a retarded logic by those marksman.

Dude, read the above post.

Only SF kept kill tab, nobody else in this army does that, as a Kill tab is a cross reference between an battle assessment team and the sniper log, they wont offer the confirmed kill unless a certain rules is settled.

Soldier in the 25th or 82nd divison operate sniper team as marksman capacity, there would not be a confirm kills offer to them as they are hard to track

Baiting is taught to soldiers to put down item of military value and try to bait people so they can be capture for questioning...

lol dude...

 

[flamer84]

Did anyone see Taras Bulba ? It's about the Ukrainian revolt against the Poles in the 17th century .Every actor takes 5 minutes to die when he's shot on the battlefield,time in which he explains in melodramatic words how he's happy to die for Russia.At least the Americans aren't so despicably cheesy.

 

[jerry_tan]

Good movie but dang he is fat!

 

[Musafir117]

That nation love wars and destruction
End of the year they released three war movies
American sniper
Unbroken
Fury

 

[Vassnti]

Did anyone see Taras Bulba ? It's about the Ukrainian revolt against the Poles in the 17th century .Every actor takes 5 minutes to die when he's shot on the battlefield,time in which he explains in melodramatic words how he's happy to die for Russia.At least the Americans aren't so despicably cheesy.

Saw it and to be fair that was from the 60's , everyone took 5 minutes to die in movies then

 

[flamer84]

Saw it and to be fair that was from the 60's , everyone took 5 minutes to die in movies then

There's a 2000's new edition to.That's why i even bothered to see it,thinking i'll get to see a nice historical movie.But no...

 

[karakoram]

Let me download it via torrent :-D:-D

 

[Jazzbot]

Damn, I am already downloading the movie and this thread has ruined the fun..

 

[Jungibaaz]

Damn, I am already downloading the movie and this thread has ruined the fun..

Don't bother, the parts that aren't propaganda are actually quite boring.

 

[gambit]

As a film, it was really PG childish plot, boring and repetitive, with extra gore and glorified, self-righteous violence.
The ending saved the film from being utterly disappointing, it was a dramatic end, as far as making a good film goes, minus the politics.

Nonetheless, the entire thing was predictable. I saw everything coming, called it out well in advance, I thought maybe Clint Eastwood would do a better job. But err, I guess I was wrong, only the ending was half decent.

And as for the politics. Yes, it was pretty much a filthy piece of propaganda. One thing it did do well is that it correctly portrayed PTSD and other issues these men face.

Other than the ending and that aspect. I hated it.

Am shocked.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Am shocked.

You see the key here is, I almost always watch films for other values, not their politics. And even if you ignore the politics, it was a very mediocre film. It's only made worse by the people rating it so highly.

 

[gambit]

You see the key here is, I almost always watch films for other values, not their politics. And even if you ignore the politics, it was a very mediocre film. It's only made worse by the people rating it so highly.

One of the easiest thing to impersonate, with practically nil chance of being exposed, is to be a film critic, especially if the so called 'review' is a negative one.

For example, someone put together a software program that emulate how Noam Chomsky talk to illustrate how Chomsky was smart enough to fool so many people.

The Chomskybot

To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not readily tolerate the strong generative capacity of the theory. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the earlier discussion of deviance is unspecified with respect to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. With this clarification, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not quite equivalent to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. It may be, then, that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics suffices to account for an abstract underlying order.

I have no idea on what the hell the above mean. It really is nonsense. But to any blind follower of Noam Chomsky, the above would definitely pass their equivalent of the Turing Test. All you have to do is refresh your web browser and read the changes. It is hilarious.

Pretending to be a 'film critic' is no different. All I have to do is familiarize myself with all the usual jargon and phrases common to vagueness and open to wide interpretation, then changes those words and phrases around from film to film. Voila...I am a 'film critic'. Not a 'movie critic', mind you. A 'movie' is for the vulgar crowd. I only watch 'films'. See ?