Columns

“Sniper” Hits the Target

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
American Sniper

The record-breaking success of Clint Eastwood’s AMERICAN SNIPER has shocked the Hollywood establishment and produced angry denunciations from Tinseltown leftists.

SNIPER earned more than $100,000,000 its first weekend in wide release—the strongest opening for any war movie, ever. It also counted as the top January opening in history—easily beating AVATAR, the previous record holder, which went on to become the leading box office earner of all time.

Eastwood’s film isn’t comparable to “Nazi propaganda,” as comic star Seth Rogen suggests: it’s a straightforward biography of an American hero who is motivated by his deep Christian faith, and carries a Bible into combat. Beyond its popularity—and an “A+” rating from viewers according to CinemaScore—SNIPER won six Oscar nominations—including Best Picture,  though 84-year-old Clint Eastwood was snubbed for Best Director. Perhaps politically correct Academy voters recalled his anti-Obama “empty chair” speech at the GOP convention.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (32)

Leave a comment
  1. Mike  •  Jan 20, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    What makes Kyle even more interesting a figure is when one ponders his unsubstantiated or outright bogus tales of the Jesse Ventura encounter, killing two carjackers in Texas, and shooting looters in New Orleans after Katrina. What compelled him to tell such tales?

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      He was something of a big mouth blow hard, though he was admittedly a great shot.

      I read his book, in which he comes across as a loud mouth braggart, and saw the Eastwood movie, in which he comes across as a Gary Cooper-type quiet hero.

      I preferred the Chris Kyle I saw in the movie.

      What was that John Wayne western about “When myth conflicts with reality, print the myth”? Liberty Valance? Can’t remember.

  2. ed sanford  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 12:08 am

    So Mr. Kyle is in Iraq killing men ,women and children who are trying yo save thier country from being destroyed by an invading military and you rightwingers think that makes him a hero?Heroes are the ones who die defending they’re home and country.Those who kill people that are defending their homes and country are not heroes.they are butchers!and what do you call the man who killed Kyle.In Irag friendly fire is the heroe.GOT KARMA? Right wingers,

    • Marco  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 7:28 am

      Let me guess, your kind of hero is Michael Moore?

      • Carson  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 9:25 am

        I’m guessing ed Sanford lives with his mom down in the basement. His dad may have left because he was feed up supporting a grown man who played videos all night and sleep most of the day. Mothers put up with sons like that.
        Also Marco was right about ed’s hero being Michael Moore and I’m sure Obama. He has never been in the Army or had any type of job that had danger in it. ed I’m sure is just a sponge of Society.

    • Mark Moland  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 9:46 am

      Ed you are delusional

      • Anne Olan  •  Feb 12, 2015 at 1:37 am

        You are “guessing” about Ed. That says a lot. I will pray for you, however, as God created all of us in his image, even ignorant folks like yourself for whom there is hope, it seems, since you admit you’re “guessing” about Ed. Thanks and Godspeed to you.

      • Anne Olan  •  Feb 12, 2015 at 2:01 am

        The above is disgusting to say the least. “feed up” says a lot, however; Mr./Ms. Carson can’t write or spell. This suggests he is sub-educated if at all. He assumes (ass between u and me..) that Ed lives with his mom down in the basement. Stat’s on adult children living with parents and political affiliation.. shows conservatives… rifle packers between ages of 18 and 39/40, men and women, who have not been, do not have the means to higher than high school education, (or have been indoctrinated against getting college or higher degrees by conservative party in America (not outside this country…?) umm, sadly, are taking up space on America’s “public dole” via use and abuse of unemployment, workmen’s comp., and more, etc. Our taxes pay for disparaged anti-Americans to further fund persons like Carson who supposes things he has no knowledge of about Sanford (et,al,) like he, Sandford, lives in basement, his dad left cuz of being fed up (feed up..). Ouch. Let us pray.

    • Susan  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      Kyle never killed any children and he killed 1 woman who was launching an explosive. Furthermore, it was insurgents (terrorists) who were slaughtering men, women, children and American military personnel. It’s no surprise you ally yourself with terrorists and call them heroes. Sick.

      • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:47 pm

        The B-29 crew of the Enola Gay, by contrast, killed probably 100,000 unarmed civilians in the summer of 1945.

        But they, too, were heroes.

    • Rob Rossi  •  Jan 24, 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Ed did you see the movie? My view of the movie is not at all like you have characterized it. You may want to watch it a second time.

      It’s not a glorification of war. It a soldier’s introspective story, where duty, honor and judgement are constantly called into question and tested in realtime. A hesitation might mean the death of a fellow soldier. Acting too quickly might result in the death of an innocent child. None of us deal with decisions like this in our daily lives.

      It examines the toll of war on families as well. Civilians complain that they have to work on an occasional weekend and will be separated from their families. By contrast, asoldier’s wife raises her children with little help. She worries that the next time she sees her husband, he’ll be changed forever. Even worse she worries she may never see him again.

      And yes it examines evil. Iraqi people don’t saw people’s heads off. But Al Qaeda does; they seem to revel in it. And that is the vortex of this conflict. Having once looked evil in the eye, it shows how difficult — if not impossible — it is to leave behind the fight. If not me, then who shall carry on? Soldiers confront evil not in the abstract but in its most sadistic manifestations. And from that point on, they and their families are snared in its web. No matter how much time, no matter how many miles separates a soldier from his duty, evil never lets go. It scars our soldiers in ways that even their families can’t see.

      The least we can do is respectfully listen to their story.

      In the the theater where I saw “American Sniper” a hush overcame the crowd. I think they listened respectfully. I don’t think politics can inspire this type of reaction.

      Kylefinds himself inextricably if not permanently

      More than any movie I’ve seen this century it demands thought. The Iraqi people aren’t made out to be villains.

      • Anne Olan  •  Feb 17, 2015 at 5:38 am

        Yes. Thank you.

      • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 6:00 pm

        Don’t kid yourself. Iraqis saw people’s heads off as good as any of their co-religionists in the Middle East.

        A snakes nest.

    • Will Decker  •  Jan 26, 2015 at 3:09 pm

      Mr. Sanford;

      Some corrections to your post.
      1) Yes, some of the insurgents were women and children, but if the women and children are trying to kill you (as the film clearly shows), they are fair game. As non-uniformed combatants, they are OK to kill based upon the Geneva Accords. They were not “innocent”.
      2) The “invaders” were legitimate combatants, while the “defenders” were mostly not Iraqis, but AQ fighters who flocked to Iraq.
      3) If these women and children wanted to avoid getting likked, they could have left Fallugah with all the other non-combatants.
      4) Mr. Kyle was doing overwatch, that is protecting advancing forces.

      Did you even see the movie? From your comments, it would appear not.

      Hope this helps;

      • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:19 pm

        “The “invaders” were legitimate combatants, while the “defenders” were mostly not Iraqis, but AQ fighters who flocked to Iraq.”

        I can’t agree with that one.

        True, there were lots of foreigners (mostly Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Syrians and other non-Iraqi Arabs) who flocked to Iraq to fight the Americans, British, etc.

        But they were dwarfed in numbers by Iraqis.

        The key to the “surge” of 2007-2009 was basically buying the loyalty of armed Iraqi Sunni Arabs, who found they were more afraid of their Shiite fellow Iraqis that they were of the Americans.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:55 pm

      No, Chris Kyle was a hero due to his exemplary military performance during 5 tours of duty in Iraq.

      His killing was done in combat zones, against enemies whom were also armed and committed to killing him and his comrades.

      He was not some kind of Texas-version of the Einsatzgruppen.

      You hate war and the death that it involves? OK, blame the national leaders whom order it to happen. Not the soldiers (American or otherwise) whom believe they are serving their country honorably.

      Your quote:

      “Those who kill people that are defending their homes and country are not heroes.they are butchers!”

      My response:

      What soldier (or sailor, in CPO Kyle’s case) thinks otherwise?

  3. Jim Mollison  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 10:18 am

    Um, yeah, Ed. The Iraq citizens were not who was being fought in Iraq. It was foreign insurgents streaming in from the harsh regimes all around, typically through Syria, who were terrified of the prospect of the model of a working democracy standing out like a sore thumb in their midst. The ID’s of insurgent casualties bore this out repeatedly, not to mention the intelligence. The tide of the war, in part, turned when the locals were able to conclude it was safe to turn against the Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists in their midst that they so despised and who made their lives hell.

    And so, a nascent democracy, not perfect and not fully arrived was well on its way, threatening to function as an ongoing sharp rebuke to all the Islamofascist regimes in the region; unfortunately, for the first time in human history, someone thought it a sound idea to unilaterally declare a conflict “over” and simply walk away from it. (Usually it’s thought best practice to make sure your enemies are on the same page, first. Usually, anyway.) Thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. A sad and disgraceful episode in American history to say the least.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      The US could have kept troops in Iraq for a hundred years and the result would have been the same.

      Plus, the government of al-Maliki, thinking they could run the place with just the support of Iraq’s 60% Shiite population, did not want US troops there past 2010. Bush Jr negotiated a SOFA stipulating so. Obama merely honored it.

      And at the time the last US troops left Iraq there was no war going on. It was pretty much a victory of sorts. It was the Iraqi government, which repressed it’s Sunni Arab minority and filled it’s officer ranks with corrupt cronies which would make the South Vietnamese look like the poster child for good government in comparison, which was responsible for ISIS making military gains and gaining popular support in the Sunni Triangle.

      As far as “Islamofascist” (whatever that means), it fairly well describes the al-Maliki regime, which benefited from being lavishly armed and equipped by the US and the proved to be utterly useless when confronted by ISIS.

      And those same “locals” who turned against Al Queda are the same ones who apparently prefer living under ISIS that they do living under the Baghdad regime.

      Of course, it’s easier to just believe that Obama is some kind of a secret agent of Al Queda kind of conspiracy or something, so I’m sure you won’t agree with me (or the other 51% of US voters who preferred him over the GOP candidates.)

      See you at the next Donald Trump rally!

  4. Punkey  •  Jan 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    I have not yet seen this film but I am looking forward to and then buying it’s video, once out. When 43% of my fellow citizens have become useful fools to our countries enemies and have helped vote in the first truly anti American president, it’s no wonder that subversive statements like so many of those above abound now in our country. You are truly lucky that we have forgotten the meaning of treason.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 6:04 pm

      Opposing the Iraq War does not qualify one for charges of treason.

      And where did you get “43%”????

      Obama won nearly 53% in 2008 and 51% in 2012. Very comfortable margins in election years with record turnouts.

      Do you really believe that over half of your fellow citizens hate America?

  5. ed sanford  •  Jan 23, 2015 at 12:38 am

    Listen up war mongers. Marco;My idea of a Hero is George Bush.Not the fratboy.The one that was shot down over the ocean serving his country.carson;My Mom & Dad are both dead,but thanks for your sympathy you moron.Mark;The delusion was WMD.And you bought it.Susan,since you saw every killing,you must have a point in there somewhere.Jim M;The Iraqi military was made up of Iraqi citzens. and we killed a bunch of them.Punkey; You have not forgotten the meaning of treason. you forgot the meaning of stupidity. FYI I served in the Military over seas.Where did you clowns serve!

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:58 pm

      The Iraq War was stupid and unwarranted and carried out poorly (at least the first four years) and cost a lot of lives for nothing.

      But it was not treasonous.

  6. Brian  •  Jan 23, 2015 at 7:32 am

    ed, I served plenty overseas in the USMC. You are a turd and your commentary is irrelevant, go back to your basement.

    • ed sanford  •  Jan 23, 2015 at 9:52 pm

      Geez Brian,your turd comment is really deep.Did you come up with that by yourself? or did Beevas help you?You must really be popular at the Highschool you are curently attending.

  7. Afraid of hollyweirds army  •  Jan 27, 2015 at 4:45 am

    Haven’t seen it yet. It’s too packed for my comfort level. The most important thing to remember is w/o men like Chris Kyle, Saddam Hussein would be processing his yellow cake like Iran. Instead it’s sitting in Canada. All 550 tons. Google it.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 6:10 pm

      Snopes kinda doesn’t go along with that.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

      From the Snopes rebuttal:

      The item reproduced in the example block above cites the July 2008 removal of yellowcake from Iraq as proof that Iraq had in fact been buying yellowcake in an attempt to restart its nuclear program (and ultimately produce nuclear weapons) before the U.S. invasion of March 2003, and that therefore the Bush administration was right and Joseph Wilson was wrong.

      However, that claim is erroneous.

      The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a “secret” cache that was recently “discovered” by the U.S, nor had the yellowcake been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article cited in the example above:

      Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam’s nuclear efforts.

      Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

      Or, as the New York Times stated more plainly:

      The yellowcake removed from Iraq was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa.

      • Jimmy  •  Jun 27, 2015 at 1:30 am

        I don’t see where the original comment referenced any particular yellow-cake. The snopes comment says that Saddam did in fact have yellow cake. The fact that it was known and under UN supervision would not prevent Saddam from processing it if he chose to. He constantly broke all sorts of UN resolutions and cease fire conditions.

  8. Kpar  •  Jan 30, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    A lot of folks think that our involvement in the Iraq War was a mistake- I respectfully disagree. I remember the tenor of the times, as Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN, and failed to comply with the cease fire agreement by opening his WMDs to international inspection.

    He even managed to completely corrupt the UN through his “Oil for Food” program (not that corrupting the UN was all that difficult).

    The Iraqi people suffered severely under the rule of that sadist and his misbegotten sons- good riddance.

    The ensuing occupation was initially mishandled (it is surprising how we had forgotten the dearly learned lessons on counterinsurgency from VietNam) but was corrected by the surge.

    Forgotten in all the brouhaha is a central truth- our military (and our allies) spent all of their time chasing down murderers who used their religion as an excuse to justify their brutality- our guys were on the side of civilization in the battle against barbarism.

    Our current POTUS never understood (or seemed to care), that is why he lost the war by pulling out before the job was done, making all of our sacrifices meaningless.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jun 26, 2015 at 5:25 pm

      I disagree.

      The War on Terror is really a war on Islamic Salafists nutcases, of which Saddam Hussein was definitely not one.

      He was actually quite good at murdering these types, since he feared they were a threat to his dynasty.

      And he scared the Iranians, too.

      And his Iraq was never a threat to the US.

      Hell, Ronald Reagan made the Iraqis de facto allies of the US during the 1980s for cynical reasons, i.e. Saddam was killing Iranians by the bushel. Even when he gassed his own people in 1987-1988. Bush Jr should have done the same post 9/11.

      • Jimmy  •  Jun 27, 2015 at 1:32 am

        We believed he was a serious threat based on the fact that we and practically every other nation believed he had WMD. You can’t make decisions based on hindsight. And even if he wasn’t as big of a threat as we thought, he was a threat.

  9. Sean Flynn  •  Jun 27, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the Iranian army from 1983 to 1988 and US ignored it, while supplying the Iraqi armed forces with US intelligence information about the Iranians, “dual-use” (helicopters, vehicles, etc) equipment that was used for military purposes and farm credits to feed the Iraqi army.

    Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people during an unsuccessful rebellion by the Kurds (armed by Iran) in 1987-1988 and the US was silent about it.

    Saddam Hussein showed he had a knack for self-preservation by NOT using poison gas against either US-Coalition forces or Israel in the 1990-1991 Gulf War. There was nothing indicating he was acting otherwise in 2003.

    Iraq’s neighbors & America’s allies in Middle East cautioned against invading Iraq & did not contribute any military forces to the war, unlike 1990 when Bush Sr got troops from Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc to join the anti-Iraqi coalition.

    Saddam Hussein’s regime had nothing to do with Al Queda or 9/11, despite the mendacious suggestions of the Bush/Cheney administration and their supporters. Subsequent to the invasion the US was dedicating 90% of its war effort to Iraq and less than 10% to Afghanistan, where Al Queda (the original organization which carried out 9/11) and their Taliban allies were.

    Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had never attacked the US, had no plans to and probably never would have.

    The Iraq War of 2003-2010 was completely, totally 100% unnecessary, costing 5,000 US lives and several trillion dollars for absolutely nothing, other than empowering the pro-Iranian (and anti-US) Shiite population to take power.

    There has been no greater catastrophe in US foreign policy history.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn