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.

UPDATE
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: guns, movies, reviews

Short review of 300 (imdb):

Imagine a cross between Gladiator, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, The Alamo (not the recent movie), and with a dash of Dangerous Liaisons.

Yeah, so it's pretty much an instant classic for any red-blooded American male.

The storyline is as emotionally gripping as Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan. Men are allowed to cry during this movie. Frankly speaking, if your heart is not moved by King Leonidas' rallying speech, then you're lacking in man-parts or a heartbeat.

However, the story takes a backseat to the visuals: the look and feel of the movie is visually stunning, truly jaw-dropping. Each frame is a work of art worthy of an oil-canvas painting. The colors are vivid, edits done with precision, framing, timing, all top-notch. This is a very technically well-done movie. The fact that it was done so well with a shoe-string budget makes it an even more impressive feat.

The action is top-notch, more exciting than Normandy Beach, more savage than the colosseums of Gladiator, more futile than the Alamo. Gory at times, but stylishly and abstractly so - definitely easier to take in than the all-too-real blood and guts of Saving Private Ryan.

I absolutely loved this movie. Not completely, for there were a few uneven spots (some minor dialogue issues, some over-the-top scenes), and the extraneous (but short-lived) nudity. However, none of these issues were enough to make a dent in my overall impression. I recommend any man to see 300, although you may want to keep the remote handy.


Related:
Anarchangel's review, and history behind the movie

Labels: movies