Thursday, April 05, 2007

Shooter

*sigh*

Where to start?

I must remember not to see movies when I've already read the book.

The Good: The shooting is fairly well done, the fighting scenes aren't so jerky that you get sea-sick trying to watch the film, and the female lead has pulchritude to spare.

The Bad: The screen-play appears to have been developed by taking a copy of the original book (Point of Impact) and handing it to DailyKos readers for them to edit and adapt.

Sweet Jeebus. As Chris said, "Nothing like getting your politics delivered by way of a trip hammer."

Every sodding moonbat talking point was stuffed down the viewers throat. Sometimes twice. War for oil? Got it. Administration lied? Yep. 9/11 conspiracy? Twice. Capitalistic military/industrial complex as The Source Of All Evil? Oh, yeah. Executive Branch with Imperial Intentions? Uh-huh. Abu Ghraib? Yeppers. The Eee-eeevils of Gitmo? Of course. WMDs? Yes.

If I want to get beaten (metaphorically speaking) about the head-and-shoulders by a copy of the Leftist Moonbat Playbook, I'll pop over to DailyKos or HuffPo and jolly well save myself the $7.00 matinee price.

The Ugly: Marky Mark does not have what it takes to convincingly pull off a role as either a Southern cracker or a USMC Gunnery Sergeant -- much less both at the same time.

And he probably could have. Lord alone knows that in a world where Leo DeWhoozits could make me believe for a second that he was a Rhodesian mercenary there's a good chance that a Bostonian underwear model slash rapper could convince me that he's a Southron Marine gunny -- but every time he got close, some part of Bahs-tan would sneak into his accent and spoil the whole thing.

In summation: Bad. Bad, bad. Rent the DVD if you must see it. Better yet, sucker someone else into renting the DVD and bring the popcorn.

LawDog

21 comments:

shooter said...

I enjoyed the book immensely. Actually re-read the darn thing when I got home from the movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see the Holly-wusses kept the plot as close to the book as possible. I tend to ignore the political bushwa, though. It was their way of getting a Whorrywood cheap shot at GWB and we all saw through it.

And, by Dawg, yes, Kate Mara (Fenn's widow) had a nice pair of pulchritudes to show off.

Ambulance Driver said...

Glad I haven't seen it then. I liked the book.

In my opinion, they grievously miscast Mark Wahlberg as Bob Lee Swagger. Barry Pepper would have been MUCH better.

Matt G said...

"there's a good chance that a Bostonian underwear model slash rapper..."

Don't forget "thug who was convicted of aggravated robbery..."

Frankly, his best role was one of his first, in Fear.

Matt G said...

Holy. Crap. Wait a sec. This is supposed to be Stephen Hunter's Point Of Impact?!?

Marky Mark? As Gunny Swagger --a VietNam veteran Marine sniper who had as many kills as Carlos Hathcock? Who was so Southern cracker?

Oh, hell no.

Anonymous said...

[Cue the Lloyd Bentsen voice, take aim at Marky Mark:]

"Ah KNEW Bob Lee Swagger...and YOU, suh, are no Bob Lee Swagger..."

[Lloyd voice off]

Seriously, I knew casting Marky Mark in that role was going to be a bad idea as soon as I first heard about it. Stephen Hunter must have choked on his beer when he first heard about the casting decision, too...

Oh, well: instead of watching that misbegotten waste of celluloid, I'll just read Point of Impact again.

After, that is, I finish rereading Hunter's Pale Horse Coming. That was a good book; hope Hollywood doesn't screw that one up too...

--Wes S.

Anonymous said...

If Marky Mark is a felon how is it that:

A. Marky Mark took firearms training at front Sight Academy (I think it was FS) for background on this film and was allowed to handle and use firearms?

B. Marky Mark is allowed to handle and use firearms in movies as by ATF definitions they are still weapons?

For that matter how is it any of the various Hollywood felons are able to pull this off without being busted by the ATF? In the real world some poor schmuck saddled with a BS MISDEMEANOR beef for domestic violence can't touch a firearm without getting hauled off to the hoosegow.

Can someone explain this?

Stephen Renico said...

The plot seems idiotic.

Apparently this film backfills a story in which the main character was at war in Ethiopia.

Now, the last time I checked, Ethiopia and the US were allies and we just smashed Al-Qaeda in Somalia together.

We've never had soldiers shooting Ethiopians. Nor have we ever (to quote the film) "killed raped, tortured, and killed people for oil in Ethiopia".

Nor does Ethiopia even have @#$%ing oil.

One might as well make a film about an American soldier who fought and witnessed American atrocities when we invaded Quebec to take over the banana plantations.

Asinine.

This "call the deadliest (fill in the blank) out of retirement to (fill in the mission) because he's the only one who can do it" cliche is getting ridiculous, too.

Anonymous said...

After reading the review, I think I'll pass on the movie. Sounds almost, not quite, as if they did a "Starship Trooper" (another travesty) movie job on "Point of Impact". I saw the commercial for Shooter and didn't realize it was based on POI until they mentioned Swagger.
Les

dracphelan said...

I've decided that I do not want to watch any modern movie with political intrigue. They all seem to cast anyone who is a conservative as an evil, sadistic megalomaniac.
It's no wonder I stick to movies like The 300 and Ghost Rider. They don't attempt to shove politics down my the throat.

Anonymous said...

They should've got Mel Gibson. He would be passable as a USMC Gunnery Sergeant and I hear he's pretty good at playing a cracker.

Anonymous said...

In the comments here they discuss how Marky Mark is able to use guns in his movies.

Brass

Jim w. said...

I just don't go to or rent movies.
Most are trash made by trash.
I don't want my money going to the Hollywood left-liberal drunks and dopers who think it is all right for them to brandish guns and glorify violence in movies and to have armed bodyguards but want to "control" MY guns. And a lot of other things about my life.

Jerry The Geek said...

Litany:

Change the time-line.
Tommy Lee Jones plays "Bob The Nailer"

Change the time-line.
Tommy Lee Jones plays "Bob The Nailer"

Change the time-line.
Tommy Lee Jones plays "Bob The Nailer"

repeat as needed ...

Matt G said...

In at least one of Wahlburg's crimes, he reportedly attacked an old immigrant with a metal hook.

But he deserves HIS rights to possess firearms more than, say, someone who accidentally crossed the wrong border with some ammo in the car.

While it's not the underwear model's fault that our federal ATF regs are so messed up, it is his fault that he repeatedly attacked people brutally. This man makes more in a year than I'll likely make in my lifetime earnings.

He probably can do without my money.

Ross said...

There's a reason I try to avoid seeing movies made from books. Two egregious examples of this reason are Clear and Present Danger (which, while not a Hugo Award winner, was still a pretty damn good book) and Starship Troopers.

After that abomination came out, I wanted to smack the producer upside the head and ask him if he'd ever READ the damn book!!! And if he HAD, I wonder if he was capable of reading beyond the first grade level!

Hollyweird just misses so much intelligent plot in their quest for ever-larger explosions and the ability to take a free shot at anyone who doesn't think like they do...

Anonymous said...

Ross, the director, Paul Verhoeven, admitted to only reading the first couple of chapters. He then went with what his AP told him about the rest of the book. We have the technology now to remake that movie into what it was meant to be, badasses in powered armor.

Brass

Anonymous said...

Brass, no way, if they screw it up once they'll screw it up twice. I would like to see Farnham's Freehold made "properly". Mark

Anonymous said...

Ross, if we're going to talk Tom Clancy book to movie abortions we have to give credit where credit is truly due – The Sum of All Fears. The movie had absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the book and it caused the movie to be utterly nonsensical. The muslim terrorists were replaced with politically correct white neo-nazi ones since no one wanted to contemplate muslims nuking Baltimore. It might be offensive to murderous muslims I guess. I guess whitey doesn't get offended or something. Clancy approved of course since he'll whore himself out to anything these days to make a buck.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LawDog said...

For the deleted poster.

If the readers of this blog bother you so much, go somewhere else.

Lawdog

Jim said...

I (to my utter lack-of-surprise) agree with AD, Barry Pepper would have been much better. That said, the book is still the better way to get the story.