The "Retro Game Reviews" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Machie wrote:
> The facts were right there but I've learn that even that's not
> enough for Freeola so I went to get more. Luckily a confession
> came before I could get a reply.
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.
> The facts were right there but I've learn that even that's not
> enough for Freeola so I went to get more. Luckily a confession
> came before I could get a reply.
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.
To Freeola: Now we can all copy and paste reviews and win?
Garin wrote:
> Somebody clearly has too much time on their hands. One wonders
> why you felt the need to contact anybody given the facts were
> right in front of you. ;)
lol too much time on my hands? You're one to talk, re-watching Eccleston episodes of Dr Who and movies like Ghost Rider and Next hehe ^^
The facts were right there but I've learn that even that's not enough for Freeola so I went to get more. Luckily a confession came before I could get a reply.
*grin*
> Somebody clearly has too much time on their hands. One wonders
> why you felt the need to contact anybody given the facts were
> right in front of you. ;)
lol too much time on my hands? You're one to talk, re-watching Eccleston episodes of Dr Who and movies like Ghost Rider and Next hehe ^^
The facts were right there but I've learn that even that's not enough for Freeola so I went to get more. Luckily a confession came before I could get a reply.
*grin*
Machie wrote:
> I havent heard back from the guy yet. I'm keen to know what he
> thinks of this. I did get an email back from Ciao who confirmed
> a few things for me.
Somebody clearly has too much time on their hands. One wonders why you felt the need to contact anybody given the facts were right in front of you. ;)
> I havent heard back from the guy yet. I'm keen to know what he
> thinks of this. I did get an email back from Ciao who confirmed
> a few things for me.
Somebody clearly has too much time on their hands. One wonders why you felt the need to contact anybody given the facts were right in front of you. ;)
The top post has now been updated, hopefully something like this won't happen again and I'm sure Freeola will be happy to let you off this time. Definitely come back and contribute some of your own work though. :-)
Garin wrote:
> I was wrong to suggest we learnt the facts before accusing him?
> Shoot first and ask questions later eh?
Yes. The facts were right there in front of you. Only after I mentioned I had contacted the person did the guy admit to cheating (after he claimed the win). This isnt the first time you've done this and been wrong, infact I think it's cute that you try and see the good side in everyone. =)
Garin - 0
Machie - 1
I havent heard back from the guy yet. I'm keen to know what he thinks of this. I did get an email back from Ciao who confirmed a few things for me.
Toastah, come on you knew copying was wrong otherwise we'd all be copying and pasting reviews. But don't worry we've had someone who tried to cheat twice but then go on to win several GADs the honest way. ^^ So yes please do write reviews yourself and hopefully you'll win some GADs =D
> I was wrong to suggest we learnt the facts before accusing him?
> Shoot first and ask questions later eh?
Yes. The facts were right there in front of you. Only after I mentioned I had contacted the person did the guy admit to cheating (after he claimed the win). This isnt the first time you've done this and been wrong, infact I think it's cute that you try and see the good side in everyone. =)
Garin - 0
Machie - 1
I havent heard back from the guy yet. I'm keen to know what he thinks of this. I did get an email back from Ciao who confirmed a few things for me.
Toastah, come on you knew copying was wrong otherwise we'd all be copying and pasting reviews. But don't worry we've had someone who tried to cheat twice but then go on to win several GADs the honest way. ^^ So yes please do write reviews yourself and hopefully you'll win some GADs =D
Machie wrote:
> I guess you were wrong again Garin =) being polite didn't work
> did it? ¬_¬
I was wrong to suggest we learnt the facts before accusing him? Shoot first and ask questions later eh?
> I guess you were wrong again Garin =) being polite didn't work
> did it? ¬_¬
I was wrong to suggest we learnt the facts before accusing him? Shoot first and ask questions later eh?
ST or one of the other mods, if you have time, you might want to rename the sticky thread and make sure people are more aware of the rules =)
Garin wrote:
> Copied it might be. But just to mention it might still be
> his/her own work. After all the Ciao review is just a user
> review. No law against cross-posting your work to different
> sites.
>
> So might be polite to just ask if its their work first before we
> all assume the worst. ;)
I guess you were wrong again Garin =) being polite didn't work did it? ¬_¬
oh and Ciao don't like you posting reviews on other sites. It's acceptable on Freeola but you have to mention it, but that doesnt mean people wont try and contact the original poster to make sure.
> Copied it might be. But just to mention it might still be
> his/her own work. After all the Ciao review is just a user
> review. No law against cross-posting your work to different
> sites.
>
> So might be polite to just ask if its their work first before we
> all assume the worst. ;)
I guess you were wrong again Garin =) being polite didn't work did it? ¬_¬
oh and Ciao don't like you posting reviews on other sites. It's acceptable on Freeola but you have to mention it, but that doesnt mean people wont try and contact the original poster to make sure.
Hi, sorry guys, i was testing this site to see how it works, i thought reviews could just be entered if you thought it was a good one due to not seeing anywhere that it had to be your own work. Should of guessed this really..
Anyway after claiming the prize i feel that i shouldnt recieve it as i have now found out by your comments that this is against the rules. So if staff are reading this they can cancel my prize if they want.
But.. i am going to start writing reviews here, yes my own reviews, sorry for the inconvenience guys.
Anyway after claiming the prize i feel that i shouldnt recieve it as i have now found out by your comments that this is against the rules. So if staff are reading this they can cancel my prize if they want.
But.. i am going to start writing reviews here, yes my own reviews, sorry for the inconvenience guys.
Page: