- Registrato
- 16 Luglio 2014
- Messaggi
- 13,873
- Reaction score
- 3,076
'L unico film che non ho visto di questi e Foxcatcher di cui si parla benissimo. Per adesso Whiplash e nettamente il migliore, un film semplicemente fantastico. Comunque credo che il premio andra o a Birdman(molto adatto alla Academy) o Boyhood per premiare il lavoro dietro il film, che e qualcosa di nuovo. Poi il film e validissimo ma non e fenomenale, nettamente inferiore a Whiplash per me.
No, e un film normalissimo che al momento ha tanto successo perche in America sono pazzi per il militare. Le cose che si leggono su Facebook...mi viene da spararmi per non vivere piu in un mondo con certa gente.
Il film ha diversi aspetti molto buoni(Eastwood sa cosa fa e Bradley Cooper e in grandissima forma e merita la nominazione), ma anche grandissimi difetti: Il carattere Chris Kyle non viene mai approfondito, poi io ho anche letto il libro e Kyle e un macho, razzista e in generale una persona molto antipatica(ha una logica e vista del monto pari a quella di un bambino di 12 anni). Questo non si vede nel Film e per me non e un caso che Eastwood ha preferito lasciare fuori questi aspetti per dipingerlo come eroe e buona persona(per quel po che si vede). Oltre a questo Eastwood prova di rubare un po della dramma di Enemy At The Gates e lo fa in modo pennoso, la grande scena della incontro "finale" e incredibilmente ridicola e completamente inventata da Eastwood. Quando vedi il film si nota proprio che e troppo assurda sta scena.
Questa e la mia recensione scritta su un forum inglese:
Very mixed feelings about this, mostly because I read the book and the guy (Chris Kyle) seemed to be an uTter bully and douche that revelled in displays of machoisim. Quite a few of his statements within the book make you shake your head and wonder if it really is an adult writing it.
This isn't translated onto the screen at all. Instead we get a way more positive character which makes sense for the movie to make him more likeable but simply isn't keeping true to his book. It has to be said that this isn't a biopic but rather a partially fictionalized version of events.
Clint Eastwood's direction is also a bit hit & miss IMO. While the ending is fantastic and the action scenes are always gripping, tense and perfectly choreographed with the bulked up Bradley Cooper putting in a great performance, the movie's main character stays rather flat throughout most of the movie which makes it rather difficult to care about him or the guys surrounding him. This may be due to the exposition which felt very rushed to me. We basically get a few early life sequences and then it's already SEAL training and deployment. While I get that his pre-military life isn't the most interesting, fleshing the character out a bit couldn't have hurt, alas, what I can't look past is the fact that the SEAL training sequences lasted all of 5 minutes. I mean...come on! That would have been very important, show us how he suffers and pulls through, make us care about him, show us how hard the training is. Nope, just some very, very rushed scenes and then we're already on a rooftop in Afghanistan. Yikes! This could and should have been done better.
Furthermore the movies has now fleshed out enemies which makes sense. That shouldn't be the case. He's a sniper and doing his job without knowing who he's shooting most of the time. Some may don't like this, I'm ok with this as it simply is how it is. However, Eastwood tried to address this issue by making it seem like a duel of snipers with an insurgent sniper was taking place. This felt like a very cheap and amateurish take on 'Enemy At The Gates'. Why? Does it make the movie better? No. Does it spark interest? No. It's just useless.
There also is a rooftop scene involving the other sniper which is extremely fictionalized and you can tell while watching. It's just incredibly cliched and made me sigh while watching it. Luckily after this horrid scene, we get the ending scenes which finally manage to make me care a bit more and particularly the ending hit all the right notes in the classic Eastwood-ian way.
It's a solid movie with some very good scenes but also some flaws I simply can't look past. I'm generally looking at military intervention from a neutral, scholarly position, so Americans may be - no scratch that - surely are more inclined to be emotionally involved even with a flat character, I'd like to hear what you guys thought after watching it.
Essentially it's a nice compagnion piece to The Hurt Locker but nowhere near as good as it. For me there are worlds between both movies(and also between AS and Zero Dark Thirty). Give it a watch but don't expect too much
No, e un film normalissimo che al momento ha tanto successo perche in America sono pazzi per il militare. Le cose che si leggono su Facebook...mi viene da spararmi per non vivere piu in un mondo con certa gente.
Il film ha diversi aspetti molto buoni(Eastwood sa cosa fa e Bradley Cooper e in grandissima forma e merita la nominazione), ma anche grandissimi difetti: Il carattere Chris Kyle non viene mai approfondito, poi io ho anche letto il libro e Kyle e un macho, razzista e in generale una persona molto antipatica(ha una logica e vista del monto pari a quella di un bambino di 12 anni). Questo non si vede nel Film e per me non e un caso che Eastwood ha preferito lasciare fuori questi aspetti per dipingerlo come eroe e buona persona(per quel po che si vede). Oltre a questo Eastwood prova di rubare un po della dramma di Enemy At The Gates e lo fa in modo pennoso, la grande scena della incontro "finale" e incredibilmente ridicola e completamente inventata da Eastwood. Quando vedi il film si nota proprio che e troppo assurda sta scena.
Questa e la mia recensione scritta su un forum inglese:
Very mixed feelings about this, mostly because I read the book and the guy (Chris Kyle) seemed to be an uTter bully and douche that revelled in displays of machoisim. Quite a few of his statements within the book make you shake your head and wonder if it really is an adult writing it.
This isn't translated onto the screen at all. Instead we get a way more positive character which makes sense for the movie to make him more likeable but simply isn't keeping true to his book. It has to be said that this isn't a biopic but rather a partially fictionalized version of events.
Clint Eastwood's direction is also a bit hit & miss IMO. While the ending is fantastic and the action scenes are always gripping, tense and perfectly choreographed with the bulked up Bradley Cooper putting in a great performance, the movie's main character stays rather flat throughout most of the movie which makes it rather difficult to care about him or the guys surrounding him. This may be due to the exposition which felt very rushed to me. We basically get a few early life sequences and then it's already SEAL training and deployment. While I get that his pre-military life isn't the most interesting, fleshing the character out a bit couldn't have hurt, alas, what I can't look past is the fact that the SEAL training sequences lasted all of 5 minutes. I mean...come on! That would have been very important, show us how he suffers and pulls through, make us care about him, show us how hard the training is. Nope, just some very, very rushed scenes and then we're already on a rooftop in Afghanistan. Yikes! This could and should have been done better.
Furthermore the movies has now fleshed out enemies which makes sense. That shouldn't be the case. He's a sniper and doing his job without knowing who he's shooting most of the time. Some may don't like this, I'm ok with this as it simply is how it is. However, Eastwood tried to address this issue by making it seem like a duel of snipers with an insurgent sniper was taking place. This felt like a very cheap and amateurish take on 'Enemy At The Gates'. Why? Does it make the movie better? No. Does it spark interest? No. It's just useless.
There also is a rooftop scene involving the other sniper which is extremely fictionalized and you can tell while watching. It's just incredibly cliched and made me sigh while watching it. Luckily after this horrid scene, we get the ending scenes which finally manage to make me care a bit more and particularly the ending hit all the right notes in the classic Eastwood-ian way.
It's a solid movie with some very good scenes but also some flaws I simply can't look past. I'm generally looking at military intervention from a neutral, scholarly position, so Americans may be - no scratch that - surely are more inclined to be emotionally involved even with a flat character, I'd like to hear what you guys thought after watching it.
Essentially it's a nice compagnion piece to The Hurt Locker but nowhere near as good as it. For me there are worlds between both movies(and also between AS and Zero Dark Thirty). Give it a watch but don't expect too much
