Films liberals cannot comprehend.
Films conservatives won't understand.
Reminder Paul Verhoeven is a hardcore leftist as is Neumeier and producer Jon Davison referred to the film's message as "fascism for liberals" – a politically liberal film done in the most violent way possible.
![image[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CbvmVpp.jpg "image[1].jpg")
>>66570573
forgot to add pic
>>66570503
Was it good?
>>66570573
American Sniper. Most people missed the true meaning of the film and what it was trying to convey.
Liberal here.
It's not like it's deep. The company that produced this film was trying to capitalize on the success of American Sniper from last year by releasing a similar movie that fellates the military while presenting a completely one sided and factually dubious account of real events in an attempt to appeal to the Midwest angry dad demographic.
The fact that they did it with Michael Bay this time is even more fitting due to his brashness and lack of subtlety.
But yeah, sure. Liberal boogeyman.
>that part after the final firefight when they threw his friend's body off of the roof and he turned and covered his ears and closed his eyes so he wouldn't have to see the impact
>tfw he couldn't even formulate his anger into proper words after confronting the soldiers who did that so he just screamed as loud as he fucking could
Great movie...
>>66570600
Liberal here. I agree with everything you said and this movie is trash but I'm so fucking grateful to Michael Bay for the negative effect this will inevitably have on Hillary's campaign (who, let's face it, is more rightwing than Trump)
>>66570592
American sniper is not a liberal film.
Evey time there is doubt in the character's mind, he is reassured by one of his colleagues that what he is doing is not only morally correct but unequivocally the best thing that he could be doing with his life. Even worse is the way it boils the entire Iraq war down to a personal conflict between two snipers and the way it draws distinct lines between combatant and noncombatant.
Eastwood is not liberal. I don't know how you could misread his film this badly.
>>66570503
You don't actually care about the troops. You always vote for people who cut their pay, their va benefits, the VA, and you vote for people who throw them into foreign wars under false pretenses.
Wanna know who to blame for bengazi? Blame yourself.
>>66570680
>he missed the film's point
>>66570639
Thread.
>>66570707
>You don't actually care about the troops
Why should I care about a bunch of high-school drop outs with below average IQ who think the epitome of patriotism is to die for Israel?
>>66570707
Seeing as the military has a lower mortality rate than people living in Detroit, yeah. I don't think there's any special aura surrounding the military.
>>66570573
>Reminder Paul Verhoeven is a hardcore leftist
It's funny to listen to the commentary track to Starship Troopers because Verhoeven is constantly trying to hammer home that it's stupid because it's satire.
Meanwhile his commentary partner has a different view on things, and the majority of the people who like the movie like it for the explicit fascism. All the supposedly ironic ideas are quoted with gusto and zeal online ("I'm doing my part", "I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all", etc).
Verhoeven thinks he's doing smart ironic movies, but when satire is poor it becomes the message it's trying to satirize. Robocop falls on the success side, Starship Troopers was an abject failure.
>>66570747
Robocop was mostly a commentary on 80s materialism.
>>66570727
M8, this isn't some meta masterpiece. If it was making a point contrary to any of those things, it would be in the subtext but it isn't, there is no real subtext to any of it. Eastwood doesn't do subtext well.
>>66570680
>Eastwood is not liberal. I don't know how you could misread his film this badly.
The man who embodies swift vigilante justice and played the most recognizable anti-liberal vehicle for justice over decades couldn't possibly make a non-liberal film.
That's your hypothesis? It's shit.
>>66570600
>>66570676
>>66570736
>Liberal here
>>66570503
>>66570834
n-no you're wrong
>>66570852
>redditor here
>>66570873
Only people from reddit call other people reddit
Wasteman
>>66570865
Is this real? Please let it be real.
Zulu
>>66570503
TORRENT
W H E N
go back to /b/
Republican shill
>>66570865
>>66570937
Oh, it's real all right. And it's even more unsubtle than the first one.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxz-Y-c2UUc
>>66570592
Liberals and Conservatives politicized that film so much that it's impossible to view it objectively, same with 13 Hours.
>>66570676
>Hillary's campaign (who, let's face it, is more rightwing than Trump)
That's what all my liberal friends have been saying.
>>66570865
It's funny how a mainstream religion,who has more power and influence than it'll admit is under the impression that it is under attack.
Sorry that you don't get separation of church and state.
>>66570834
He didn't write or direct the dirty Harry films.
Consider the ones he did direct instead. Unforgiven's antagonist is a sherrif that forbids guns being in his town for Christ's sake. Not to mention the loving inclusion of 6-7 scenes where people are literally just describing guns.
I think unforgiven is decent as a revisionist Western and has some good subversions but it is obviously the work of someone who is leaning to the right.
>>66571005
It's a tactic. By claiming they're under attack, they push their followers into being more loyal and unite them in hating "the enemy"
>>66571122
>Unforgiven's antagonist is a sherrif that forbids guns being in his town for Christ's sake
eastwood is not a liberal, but he is also pretty pro gun control. A bad example for reading his politics from his films.
>>66571137
>implying all those movies arent cheap false flags.
>>66570747
I don't think the ironic ideas of fanaticism are lost on ppl. When we see anons on this site quoting starship troopers, its done in self awareness. It's just fun to quote the movie is all
