screen resolution of 800x600 or greater is recommended
profile pic   ChuBlogga!
Offended? Intrigued? Contact my manager.

    Here begins your journey into the mind of everybody's favorite asian, and I don't mean Jet Li.
What follows is the somewhat inane, mostly irrelevant, and self-important ramblings of a man on the brink of madness.
Welcome... to the Chu.

Friday, March 23, 2007
 Shooter misses the mark    [L]

Just got back from seeing Shooter tonight. I have to admit: I'm a bit pissed.

I'm going to pull kind of a jerk move right now.

I'll just have to say it: The book was much better.

No, wait: the book was infinitely better.

The movie diverged wildly from the book about 30 minutes in, and coincidentally that's about the time it started to suck.

You know how faithful the LOTR movies were to the source material? Shooter is just like that. Except exactly the opposite.

Now, I can understand certain changes - such as updating Bob's character into a desert war vet vs. a vietnam vet. I can also understand cutting out certain subplots for the sake of time - because to do POI just like Hunter wrote it would probably require a 5-hr miniseries.

But they cut out the best parts! The battle of Bone Hill, the dog rescue, the finale - gone. What remains is merely coincidence.

The movie has diverged so far off course that I am actually insulted. Because the changes had to have been done on purpose. The changes are so major that they had to have been done with a will. Shooter isn't a movie for gun nuts. Instead, it is a movie for what Hollywood thinks are gun nuts. This is a movie that Hollywood thought mindless, retarded, firearm fanatics would like. It is 2 hours of condescension.

There are some high points- the first 30 minutes, some of the action scenes (although outlandish at times, still enjoyable), Kate Mara.

There are some very low points- the story, Mark Wahlberg switching hands/eyes halfway through the movie, the easy explosion of gas tanks, the ending.

That all being said: I don't regret paying money for this movie. Because in the end, some of that money's got to get to Stephen Hunter, and that's just fine by me. And if it does well enough, then maybe they'll do another Bob Lee Swagger flick, and maybe they'll do it right next time.

Ok, after a few days' distance from the movie, I offer the following caveat: That Shooter is, at the very least, an okay action flick. Nothing more than mediocre, however. The direction was competent, the action satisfying. I'm still pissed about the silly script, though.

Related links:
Anarchangel's review

Labels: , ,

I'm not sure if you have read The Bourne Identity (or any of the trilogy), but it was the exact same thing with the movie and the book. The movie had nothing to do with the book except for Bourne's name and abilities. The only difference is that I wasn't upset at all, the movie was still enjoyable and the book was phenomenal. Sometimes you have to forget how much you loved the book, and enjoy the movie for what it is.

Just a thought.

By Blogger Patrick, at 3/26/2007 04:54:00 PM      

Oh and lets go shooting soon.

By Blogger Patrick, at 3/26/2007 04:55:00 PM      

I'd like to second Patricks comments, about enjoying the movie for what it is.

I walked in expecting a total piece of crap; and it was a decent action flick. Was it a faithful filming of "Point of Impact", no of course not; but it was a good action movie.

Some source matreeial is so overwhelming that an deviation grates on me; but in this case, I'm able to take them as two separate things.

All in all thats why I said it hit "close to the mark". It wasn't bad, it wasnt great, but it was good for a hollywood action flick.

By Blogger Chris Byrne, at 4/03/2007 12:49:00 PM      

^^^ speak up ^^^