The "Retro Game Reviews" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Army sniper Bob Lee Swagger is at the top of his game, able to take out a man from over a mile away. But after a botched mission in Ethiopia leaves his best friend and spotter dead and him stranded in enemy territory, he walks away from the military. He lives in seclusion in the American mountains until a mysterious agent of a shady government organisation approaches him with a proposition. An attempt is to be made on the President’s life from over a mile away and Swagger is the only one with the skills to figure out where the shot will be taken from. But he is double-crossed and finds himself accused of murder and on the run from the FBI and the military. How can he clear his name?
“Training Day” director Antoine Fuqua comes up trumps again with this slick and enjoyable action thriller. It’s one of those films where you can see the strength of the filmmaker’s vision because there isn’t an ounce of fat on it. You can imagine it appearing on screen exactly as it was first intended. His visual style is crisp and concise – everything you see is there for a reason and there’s no filler material. So despite being a shade over two hours long, the action always clips along at a brisk pace. He doesn’t waste time on extraneous character development or in-depth dissection of FBI agent Nick Memphis’ investigative skills. He skims over these with a couple of swift montages and shows federal detection methods can be as mundane as working in a call centre. So there is more realism to this movie than many of the 1980s’ action blockbusters. The action is slickly shot and suitably impressive in terms of huge pyrotechnics and prolonged car chases. There’s even room for a few slow-motion exits and entrances with the obligatory flaming background, John Woo-style. But where Fuqua excels is in creating and maintaining tension, leaving a sense of creeping paranoia. This is achieved through making us conscious of constant surveillance, fuzzy morals and layers of conspiracy.
You come to realise how skilled a sniper has to be (even if you don’t agree with his career choice), as in the opening moments we trace the path his bullet must take back to his hiding place miles away. All of the variables that have to be taken into consideration to make a shot are also explained, so you know quite how difficult it is. But the film doesn’t glorify gun use or violence in a general fashion. Their execution is brutally efficient and the consequences are clear and often bloody, though not gratuitously. The film takes some surprising sidesteps, giving the audience the build-up to a romantic subplot but stopping short of seeing it through to its inevitable conclusion.
The screenplay by Jonathan Lemkin is unusual among Hollywood action films in that it isn’t all gung-ho American patriotism. The hero is abandoned by his colleagues in the middle of a war zone. The government is run by corrupt, self-serving liars who employ shady organisations to do their dirty work. The law does not and cannot serve justice so characters are often required to take revenge rather than wait for the proper authorities to take effect. The hero works against them and questions his loyalty to the state. Morals are muddy and infinitely flexible, though the story is predictable in that the villains get their just desserts (although there are moments you doubt it will happen). Otherwise the characters are standard action movie stereotypes; the heroic lone gunman, the bumbling but good-hearted sidekick, the sweet little love interest, the nefarious bad guys that include a commanding officer that doesn’t like getting his hands dirty and the usual nasty thugs without a moral code. The dialogue is sparse and falls well within the normal bounds of action movie banter, though there are thankfully no buttock-clenching one-liners that one could deliver with a knowing smirk. That being said, the film coast through two natural endings before settling for a third that almost undermines the earlier hints of deeper intelligence.
Mark Wahlberg is in his element in action hero guise because he looks the part – he’s beefy enough so you wouldn’t want to mess with him. He’s good at the squinting and frowning required of most action leads and thanks to the sparse script, he rarely opens his mouth to spoil the effect. He maintains suspicious looks throughout that fit the creeping paranoia inherent in the story. He looks comfortable handling firearms and in hand-to-hand combat and never overacts in the lone gunman aspects of the character.
As Nick Memphis, Michael Peña is the emotional heart of the film. As the inexperienced FBI agent, he’s the most accessible and sympathetic character because he’s the one that most often needs help. He’s kind of the damsel in distress, but his clumsiness is married with sheer bloody-mindedness and a disarming honesty. He’s the one we empathise with because he’s the most human player – he gets scared when things get dangerous, but despite putting himself in peril, is willing to tough it out for the sake of the truth.
I don’t know what Danny Glover’s doing here as shady organisation head Colonel Isaac Johnson. The character appears to be defined solely by his lisp as he lacks menace on a grand scale. Elias Koteas is a one-note player as unctuous thug Jack, but is nonetheless effective. Ned Beatty has hit his stride playing creepy older characters and clearly relishes the part of corrupt senator Charles F Meachum, an even less principled version of Dick Cheney. Meanwhile Kate Mara is fresh off the button-nosed girl-next-door production line, so she’s entirely acceptable in the love interest role but hardly memorable.
The original music by Mark Mancina sticks to the tried and tested thriller format. There are plenty of brooding string arrangements overlaid with reverberating percussion and building brass. Swagger’s military background is referenced in the many brass and snare drum motifs, which easily convey the rising tension. Though his new life in the backwaters of the mountains is illustrated by twanging guitar and folk fiddle. So the music underlines the action, adding to the suspense when required, but never feeling terribly original.
“Shooter” is a rare thing - a reasonably intelligent action movie that will satisfy both action and thriller fans with its cat-and-mouse story, hard-as-nails leading man and hints at a bigger conspiracy and growing distrust of the American government by its people. That’s not to say you could write a thesis on the movie’s deeper political meanings, but it isn’t a guns and ammo vindication of the average Joe’s right to bear arms and fill his neighbours full of lead either. It has enough twists to keep you engaged throughout and sufficient murky morals to make the outcome feel a touch unpredictable. The action sequences are relatively exciting and there are some occasional “A-Team” flourishes to keep you entertained. So it’s smart but not clever-clever or too self-important to admit what it really is – a simple action movie.
(First post by the way.. hope i can write some more reviews soon, helps pass my time :) )
“Training Day” director Antoine Fuqua comes up trumps again with this slick and enjoyable action thriller. It’s one of those films where you can see the strength of the filmmaker’s vision because there isn’t an ounce of fat on it. You can imagine it appearing on screen exactly as it was first intended. His visual style is crisp and concise – everything you see is there for a reason and there’s no filler material. So despite being a shade over two hours long, the action always clips along at a brisk pace. He doesn’t waste time on extraneous character development or in-depth dissection of FBI agent Nick Memphis’ investigative skills. He skims over these with a couple of swift montages and shows federal detection methods can be as mundane as working in a call centre. So there is more realism to this movie than many of the 1980s’ action blockbusters. The action is slickly shot and suitably impressive in terms of huge pyrotechnics and prolonged car chases. There’s even room for a few slow-motion exits and entrances with the obligatory flaming background, John Woo-style. But where Fuqua excels is in creating and maintaining tension, leaving a sense of creeping paranoia. This is achieved through making us conscious of constant surveillance, fuzzy morals and layers of conspiracy.
You come to realise how skilled a sniper has to be (even if you don’t agree with his career choice), as in the opening moments we trace the path his bullet must take back to his hiding place miles away. All of the variables that have to be taken into consideration to make a shot are also explained, so you know quite how difficult it is. But the film doesn’t glorify gun use or violence in a general fashion. Their execution is brutally efficient and the consequences are clear and often bloody, though not gratuitously. The film takes some surprising sidesteps, giving the audience the build-up to a romantic subplot but stopping short of seeing it through to its inevitable conclusion.
The screenplay by Jonathan Lemkin is unusual among Hollywood action films in that it isn’t all gung-ho American patriotism. The hero is abandoned by his colleagues in the middle of a war zone. The government is run by corrupt, self-serving liars who employ shady organisations to do their dirty work. The law does not and cannot serve justice so characters are often required to take revenge rather than wait for the proper authorities to take effect. The hero works against them and questions his loyalty to the state. Morals are muddy and infinitely flexible, though the story is predictable in that the villains get their just desserts (although there are moments you doubt it will happen). Otherwise the characters are standard action movie stereotypes; the heroic lone gunman, the bumbling but good-hearted sidekick, the sweet little love interest, the nefarious bad guys that include a commanding officer that doesn’t like getting his hands dirty and the usual nasty thugs without a moral code. The dialogue is sparse and falls well within the normal bounds of action movie banter, though there are thankfully no buttock-clenching one-liners that one could deliver with a knowing smirk. That being said, the film coast through two natural endings before settling for a third that almost undermines the earlier hints of deeper intelligence.
Mark Wahlberg is in his element in action hero guise because he looks the part – he’s beefy enough so you wouldn’t want to mess with him. He’s good at the squinting and frowning required of most action leads and thanks to the sparse script, he rarely opens his mouth to spoil the effect. He maintains suspicious looks throughout that fit the creeping paranoia inherent in the story. He looks comfortable handling firearms and in hand-to-hand combat and never overacts in the lone gunman aspects of the character.
As Nick Memphis, Michael Peña is the emotional heart of the film. As the inexperienced FBI agent, he’s the most accessible and sympathetic character because he’s the one that most often needs help. He’s kind of the damsel in distress, but his clumsiness is married with sheer bloody-mindedness and a disarming honesty. He’s the one we empathise with because he’s the most human player – he gets scared when things get dangerous, but despite putting himself in peril, is willing to tough it out for the sake of the truth.
I don’t know what Danny Glover’s doing here as shady organisation head Colonel Isaac Johnson. The character appears to be defined solely by his lisp as he lacks menace on a grand scale. Elias Koteas is a one-note player as unctuous thug Jack, but is nonetheless effective. Ned Beatty has hit his stride playing creepy older characters and clearly relishes the part of corrupt senator Charles F Meachum, an even less principled version of Dick Cheney. Meanwhile Kate Mara is fresh off the button-nosed girl-next-door production line, so she’s entirely acceptable in the love interest role but hardly memorable.
The original music by Mark Mancina sticks to the tried and tested thriller format. There are plenty of brooding string arrangements overlaid with reverberating percussion and building brass. Swagger’s military background is referenced in the many brass and snare drum motifs, which easily convey the rising tension. Though his new life in the backwaters of the mountains is illustrated by twanging guitar and folk fiddle. So the music underlines the action, adding to the suspense when required, but never feeling terribly original.
“Shooter” is a rare thing - a reasonably intelligent action movie that will satisfy both action and thriller fans with its cat-and-mouse story, hard-as-nails leading man and hints at a bigger conspiracy and growing distrust of the American government by its people. That’s not to say you could write a thesis on the movie’s deeper political meanings, but it isn’t a guns and ammo vindication of the average Joe’s right to bear arms and fill his neighbours full of lead either. It has enough twists to keep you engaged throughout and sufficient murky morals to make the outcome feel a touch unpredictable. The action sequences are relatively exciting and there are some occasional “A-Team” flourishes to keep you entertained. So it’s smart but not clever-clever or too self-important to admit what it really is – a simple action movie.
(First post by the way.. hope i can write some more reviews soon, helps pass my time :) )
Page:
I thought that was common knowledge now =)
Machie wrote:
> It all goes back to the beginning of 2006, where I befriended a
> young fellow called Garin. He was a quiet boy, he didn't post
> much but I saw potential in him.
Machie admits to befriending young boys on the internet. :P
> It all goes back to the beginning of 2006, where I befriended a
> young fellow called Garin. He was a quiet boy, he didn't post
> much but I saw potential in him.
Machie admits to befriending young boys on the internet. :P
Why did you imply in your first post that you wrote the review?
Erm ok. I guess that makes sense..
You've heard the Daily Mail version, now I'll tell you what really happened.
It all goes back to the beginning of 2006, where I befriended a young fellow called Garin. He was a quiet boy, he didn't post much but I saw potential in him.
He had a talent for programming, php, CSS you name it. He wasnt an expert by any means but he had his uses. You see, for awhile now I've been working on a website. I've poured my heart and soul into this site, months worth of blood, sweat and tears. Garin said he could help me, at first I was wary but relented and accepted his offer. If only I knew what I was getting myself into, I dont have many regrets but eventually this would become one of the biggest regrets of my life.
Today my website is still incomplete and there's much more to be done. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I didnt take up Garin on his offer. Maybe my website would be online right now and I'd be earning a living. *sigh*
Now I try and live each day as they come, I dont want to remember the past and the horrors I've had to endure. I've since forgiven Garin for all the wrongs he's done me. My only wish is that he doesnt do the same to somebody else.
It all goes back to the beginning of 2006, where I befriended a young fellow called Garin. He was a quiet boy, he didn't post much but I saw potential in him.
He had a talent for programming, php, CSS you name it. He wasnt an expert by any means but he had his uses. You see, for awhile now I've been working on a website. I've poured my heart and soul into this site, months worth of blood, sweat and tears. Garin said he could help me, at first I was wary but relented and accepted his offer. If only I knew what I was getting myself into, I dont have many regrets but eventually this would become one of the biggest regrets of my life.
Today my website is still incomplete and there's much more to be done. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I didnt take up Garin on his offer. Maybe my website would be online right now and I'd be earning a living. *sigh*
Now I try and live each day as they come, I dont want to remember the past and the horrors I've had to endure. I've since forgiven Garin for all the wrongs he's done me. My only wish is that he doesnt do the same to somebody else.
Toastah wrote:
> Chill guys.. let this thread die it makes me look bad ;). Are you
> always arguing about something which doesnt really mean anything,
> neither of you are in the right or wrong.. you were both half
> right.
Machie is infatuated with me. Everywhere I post he replies. As he knows I occasionally help people in the web development forum, he even invented some story about doing a website that he needed help with. Thats how obsessed he is. As happens in lot of these situations where feelings are unrequited hes getting quite bitter about it all. And thats what you see here. I made a perfectly innocent and reasonable statement and off he went emailing people just so he could say I was wrong somehow. There wasnt even anything for me to be wrong about given I made no assertions about the reviews origins (thats how desparate he is).
You cant go anywhere on the internet without some weirdo finding you it seems. :(
Maybe I'll get a restraining order so his posts cant come within 50 feet of mine.
> Chill guys.. let this thread die it makes me look bad ;). Are you
> always arguing about something which doesnt really mean anything,
> neither of you are in the right or wrong.. you were both half
> right.
Machie is infatuated with me. Everywhere I post he replies. As he knows I occasionally help people in the web development forum, he even invented some story about doing a website that he needed help with. Thats how obsessed he is. As happens in lot of these situations where feelings are unrequited hes getting quite bitter about it all. And thats what you see here. I made a perfectly innocent and reasonable statement and off he went emailing people just so he could say I was wrong somehow. There wasnt even anything for me to be wrong about given I made no assertions about the reviews origins (thats how desparate he is).
You cant go anywhere on the internet without some weirdo finding you it seems. :(
Maybe I'll get a restraining order so his posts cant come within 50 feet of mine.
Chill guys.. let this thread die it makes me look bad ;). Are you always arguing about something which doesnt really mean anything, neither of you are in the right or wrong.. you were both half right.
I'd rather you let this thread die away please, dont really want this to be at top every time i go on review page.
I'd rather you let this thread die away please, dont really want this to be at top every time i go on review page.
I'm afraid I can't reveal all =( If I did then people could figure out a way to get past me unnoticed. Or atleast make my job even more difficult. No I think it's best I keep my trade secrets a secret.
Should this kind of thing happen again, we should report it to Freeola and then contact the original poster of the review/walkthrough. Hopefully if the person was cheating then he/she will admit to it, apologise and then go on to win GADs the honest way.
Garin allow me to be the reason for you winning another GAD. You've got talent for writing, why not write a review for a movie you've seen recently? I know you dont really need the money, what with all your trips around the world and gala dinners etc. I think it would be a good read and have a fine chance of winning.
Should this kind of thing happen again, we should report it to Freeola and then contact the original poster of the review/walkthrough. Hopefully if the person was cheating then he/she will admit to it, apologise and then go on to win GADs the honest way.
Garin allow me to be the reason for you winning another GAD. You've got talent for writing, why not write a review for a movie you've seen recently? I know you dont really need the money, what with all your trips around the world and gala dinners etc. I think it would be a good read and have a fine chance of winning.
Machie wrote:
> Aiyaah you give me a headache sometimes Garin. >_< and I'd
> love to list all the evidence but I really dont have time to
> waste on you anymore. All you need to know, whether it was an
> assumption or not, I WAS RIGHT! =)
Are you sure you dont have time? This is a very important issue you know. After all you had to start emailing people to gather evidence such was the magnitude of the situation. No doubt you had to stop important work on your website to tackle this subject as well. I realise you must have pages and pages of evidence at this point, but I'm sure everybody would benefit from a brief summary. And then you can publish your full findings at a later date (of course you'll want to hold back some juicy details to include in a book about the subject later).
:P
> Aiyaah you give me a headache sometimes Garin. >_< and I'd
> love to list all the evidence but I really dont have time to
> waste on you anymore. All you need to know, whether it was an
> assumption or not, I WAS RIGHT! =)
Are you sure you dont have time? This is a very important issue you know. After all you had to start emailing people to gather evidence such was the magnitude of the situation. No doubt you had to stop important work on your website to tackle this subject as well. I realise you must have pages and pages of evidence at this point, but I'm sure everybody would benefit from a brief summary. And then you can publish your full findings at a later date (of course you'll want to hold back some juicy details to include in a book about the subject later).
:P
Garin wrote:
> The review appeared on another user review website, that is a
> fact. That the review wasnt written by Toastah was an
> assumption at that point. Admittedly perhaps a fair one, but
> still not a fact. If you still have trouble understanding the
> difference, I'm sure a dictionary will help you out.
Aiyaah you give me a headache sometimes Garin. >_< and I'd love to list all the evidence but I really dont have time to waste on you anymore. All you need to know, whether it was an assumption or not, I WAS RIGHT! =)
Garin wrote:
> So might be polite to just ask if its their work first before we
> all assume the worst. ;)
"um hi, I notice this review was posted on another site, is this your own work?"
"oh okay then, just wanted to make sure you werent cheating"
----
You have a lot to learn Garin =) but dont worry I'll teach you.
> The review appeared on another user review website, that is a
> fact. That the review wasnt written by Toastah was an
> assumption at that point. Admittedly perhaps a fair one, but
> still not a fact. If you still have trouble understanding the
> difference, I'm sure a dictionary will help you out.
Aiyaah you give me a headache sometimes Garin. >_< and I'd love to list all the evidence but I really dont have time to waste on you anymore. All you need to know, whether it was an assumption or not, I WAS RIGHT! =)
Garin wrote:
> So might be polite to just ask if its their work first before we
> all assume the worst. ;)
"um hi, I notice this review was posted on another site, is this your own work?"
"err yeah sure, of course""oh okay then, just wanted to make sure you werent cheating"
"AHA! cha-ching!!"----
You have a lot to learn Garin =) but dont worry I'll teach you.
Page: