Whatever your personal feelings about war may be, it is a film well worth seeing.

Rating: 7/10 (1 April 2016)

This movie came in for an avalanche of adverse criticism from many who claimed the film is all lies, and is just a massive piece of Republican propaganda.
When I read this, I wondered if I had seen the same movie.
Clint Eastwood is a major Hollywood director of much distinction, as is Bradley Cooper a major box office star, and it seems very difficult to believe that the Republican Party (who 99% of Hollywood hate with a purple passion), would be able to exert any influence on how this movie was put together.
The movie was a major hit all over the USA, and it broke box- office records for an Eastwood movie. The movie was made because Hollywood knew it would put bums on seats, not because the Republicans told them to make it.
The fact remains that Chris Kyle is credited with being the most lethal sniper in US history, with 255 kills of which 160 have been officially confirmed.
So where is the disgraceful distortion and fabrication?
It seems that many in the anti-war brigade seem to think that any war films that are made about Iraq and Afghanistan should proclaim from the hilltops how wrong it all was. The 'anti-war brigade' complain bitterly when Kyle and his fellow marines call the enemy 'savages', and that the film doesn't try to show the enemy's' point of view.
Why should it? It's a film about an American sniper – pure and simple. They call the enemy 'savages' because it is their job to kill them – or more accurately – kill or be kill. What would they have them say to the enemy?
They are trained American killers, and they are doing what they've been ordered to do. If you want to see a film about the wrongs of war – don't go and see American Sniper. All armies have snipers – they always have had and always will have. It's a not particularly glamorous or even heroic part of warfare, and I didn't see anywhere in the film where Kyle tried to suggest that it was – in fact if anything, the contrary is true.
His fellow SEALS said he was a hero – but not Kyle, he knew better. He was just doing his job. Even his own brother, who was also in the army, made some serious anti-war sentiments when Kyle met him at the airport Todd McCarthy of "The Hollywood Reporter," wrote: "A taut, vivid and sad account of the brief life of the most accomplished marksman in American military annals." Retired snipers have stated that the movie is very realistic in how a sniper is portrayed. It is a particularly unpleasant, un-heroic 'profession'; but hardly a piece of Republican propaganda.
As with all movie bio-pics, it contains scenes that were based more on the creative minds of Hollywood writers than in fact – what's so new about that? Has there ever been a war film that is based 100% on fact? I doubt it.
Now to the movie itself.
I must say up front that I'm not a big fan of war movies. No matter how well made they are, I always become confused when I am watching war action sequences. I never know exactly what it is they are trying to do, which fighters are on which side, who is killed, who are the killers and even when the fighting comes to a 'ceasefire', I don't even know who has won, or who gained the advantage.
To me most war scenes in movies are just explosions of violence where people from both sides are killed and wounded, but I rarely have any idea what is really going on. No doubt film directors would be horrified to read this as I'm sure they plan and create their war action sequences with meticulous care, but for me and many – it goes right over our collective heads. In this respect, 'Sniper was better than most – especially when Kyle working as a sniper, as we can see who he is aiming to take out, and whether he succeeds. But as soon as Kyle joins his squad on the ground then things become murkier, although I have to say, I did more or less follow most of the action.
The film is a very interesting account of an American patriot who went back to Iraq time and time again, (four tours of duty), saw countless of his comrades killed or maimed. He eventually takes retirement for the sake of his wife and family; only to be killed back home by a mentally deranged veteran he was trying to help.
He was clearly troubled by what he was doing; he knew he had to kill to protect his fellow fighters, but took little pleasure in it. When he went back to the USA at the end of a tour of duty, demons haunted him, and he had great difficulty adjusting back to civilian life. The film also does an excellent job in showing us the pain and distress of the families back home in America.
Sure, the movie erroneously shows Kyle taking out an Iraqi sniper called Mustafa who was an Olympic level marksman operating in Fallujah. In his autobiography, Kyle himself stated that "other US snipers killed him". Does it really matter? He is indeed credited with killing an insurgent from a mile away.
Eastwood is one of my favourite directors and he never makes a bad film. This is not his best, but all in all it is a pretty good effort and is worth seeing – even if you are an anti- war liberal.
It depicts life as it happened, both in Iraq and back home, in interesting, entertaining and dramatic ways that held my attention throughout.
Whatever your personal feelings about war, it is a film worth seeing.
mobithailand.com