what issues really challenge America's deadliest sniper

Rating: 10/10 (16 February 2015)

Before anything else... Why are all of the first 10 reviews 1 star reviews? It looks like a deliberate sabotage when comparing to the 7.5/10 average rating and coats the first page of reviews. Moving on from this but not entirely I would like to address criticisms of the film in general and try to explore why I liked it.
To start then, I liked this movie! I hate masculine bravado action movies, badly scripted family back story and promoters of popular racism against (currently) Arabs. This movie is none of those things! I'm not a great fan of American patriotism either, especially when used to make a black and white us and them. And this movie isn't those things either. In fact if you're looking for that junk here you may well be disappointed. So why have some critics claimed it is some or all these things?
Well the film is called American Sniper for a reason: It's about a very patriotic sounding Texan man who does say why he wants to go to war. And what do most soldiers (I imagine) have for reason to go to war if not to protect their own. But that isn't what the movie itself SAYS. It portrays it sure but very gently when compared to some other super macho charged action war films. But that's not all. Even the very "American" sniper isn't an Arad hating macho man. (spoilers) The film shows him learning his root purpose for protecting sheep from wolves as a sheep dog, from his father, and this is only the base of his morals to protect and not take advantage, not a direct illustration of his views by race, as we see in every situation where he has to make the call to kill or not to kill. Yes there is a clerical side to making the right call, but throughout the film we're given the impression that behind his default patriotic mask of answers, he's covering the great humanity he holds and trouble he has with what he does, despite holding true to his dedication to protecting American lives, which is his job and a conflicted result of his development of purpose.
He's dealing with complex psychological challenges, but he's "dealing" with it the way most do, by ignoring it. Which I guess is why some people missed it. I did find the sudden escalation of his exhibiting signs of trauma nearer the conclusion a little off, and yes as a theme the PTSD side of war could have been explored more, but actually showing it so underlying was far better. I might like to have also seen more of the war widow angle but one film can only do so much. This one stuck to "the legend" as the human and, I think, perfectly illustrated the biography.
The family side was completely real, not another forced back story. The film moved well and wasn't off putting to watch despite some stark, unsettling subjects. The climax and continuation didn't sit perfectly as a typical movie but that's reality for you, it ain't always like in the movies. And yet they did throw in some extra elements to moviefy it (blame Spielberg for that apparently, who had the direction originally) but Clint keeps them in check and does things well in every aspect.
I can't really fault this movie. That said it might not be for you if you're sharply on either side of war opinion. If you want a macho Arab killing frenzy, it's not here. If you want a patriotism is scum message, it's not here either. If you want to see a human destined into the middle of such a world that shines a little light onto some of the issues that really challenge America's deadliest sniper. Take a look.