Shooter

finally, a movie in theaters WORTH seeing!!!! i just saw "Shooter" and i was thoroughly entertained. the plot kept me intrigued from beginning to end. mark wahlberg is fantastic... he's like a modern day McGuyver, but better looking and more sarcastic. his character is cunning and smart. wahlberg excels in playing characters who are determined to make an impact. i'm not a huge fan of action movies, but this movie was so packed with plot that i just kept moving along with it. i bet most of the naysayers of the film are going to be people who believe every word their government tells them. yes, this film depicts government officials in a bad light, but what or who doesn't? i'm sure in reality it's much worse. don't let political beliefs interfer with seeing this film... it's a good time no matter what side you are on. the screenplay was well-written, excluding ONE, minute one-liner about anna nicole smith marrying for love which was obviously written before her death. (plus the story takes place in 1997 anyway!!) other than that detail, viewers should have no complaints with this film. it's intense but not overbearing. easy to follow but complex. and you'll be impressed with wahlberg's character... go see for yourself!!

Mark Wahlberg might be the Bruce Willis of the new generation. His taciturn Bobby Swagger is perfect. The action is basically nonstop and very gritty. Bobby is a sniper who has retired to the mountains after being screwed by the government in an event which finds his sidekick dead. After being set up, he is stone cold killer. Think Jason Bourne as someone who remembers his past is really p.o.'d about it. The acting is good all around, with Glover and Beatty as bad guys you love to hate. Underlying all this a morality tale about what this country and its government have become. Many situations, of course, stretch the imagination , but watching a sense of honor prevail, no matter how briefly, is worth the price of admission. No Oscar nominations here, but a big bundle of money for the producers will be no surprise.

I was surprised in many ways by shooter. #1, I was surprised by the release. I follow movies and I didn't hear about this title until early this year. #2, I was amazed by Marks ability to sell me on his acting skills. #3, By the fact that the most established actors in this title, Ned and Danny may have given career killing performances. I think Tony Todd and Stephen Root would have been solid choices, but my guess is the two poor performances were bought for name recognition.

To me this had Eastwood written all over it. At times I thought I was watching Line of Fire at others Unforgiven, but in the end it was just really good entertainment, much like The Bourne movies.

I think it's worth the watch and the story although not new was presented in a fresh manner. This one will go in my collection when available. I'm sure it will have a host of deleted scenes and alternate endings.

Solid film!

Although not accurate all the way, this film is one of the more realistic action thrillers I've seen. It's one of the few films where the main character actually spends a lot of time taking care of just two gun shot wounds (without vital organs being hit), one of the few films that puts governmental corruption in a more or less correct perspective, one of the few films where the lone hero needs a sidekick to help him with the planning, etc. On top of that, the film is entertaining from beginning to end and character motives are believable.

But then again.... this film is not for everyone. Left wing supporters are likely to be offended by its pro-gun message. American right wing supporters are likely to be offended by the strong anti-US government viewpoints clearly expressed in this film. Pro-constitution anti-federal government paleoconservatives and right wingers outside of the US without an in depth knowledge of sniper rifles are probably the only ones to enjoy this film to the fullest. And boy oh boy, how little are they in number... which probably explains why this film did not become the blockbuster hit it could have been.

Like so many other projects, you have to find something not intended or not well exploited to enjoy it.

The film itself is ordinary, a noir revenge story. Its modern noir because the hero is captured in the story and the twists of reality he goes through are organized for our benefit.

Government conspiracy of extreme competence? Check. Individual with superhuman powers who unfailingly undoes it, leaving no man standing? Check. Pretty girl who gets swept up? Check. There really isn't much else left to the extremely strict formula, expect for the obligatory but minor plot twist associated with our hero's past.

What this has that is interesting are two things.

One is the idea about watching from a distance. These noir things depend on the notion of a watcher, us. Modern noir has a watcher folded into the story. Here, its our hero who can watch and touch from over a mile away. Its a big deal, a big idea that isn't quite exploited here. The director is too ordinary. Tony Scott could have done it.

The second is a short scene in the middle. Its there for purely expository reasons, to explain a key plot point. But its pretty darn good, one wonderful scene in the midst of a tepid movie. It a visit to an old fellow in the country. He's an expert gunsmith, supposedly the best. He's also clued into the "government" who is here portrayed as existing only to create attractive fictions.

The actor is immensely talented. The setup and writing here is a cut above the rest of the script, incisive, deep and many-layered. In the midst of a rant about conspiracies, he mentions that the shooters from the grassy knoll were dead three hours after the JFK shooting and buried in the desert . When slightly questioned our man simply says "I still have the shovel."

Its very impressive writing. It must have been someone else.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.