Shooter tireur d'élite

Fugua is definitely not a loser (see KevSpa), when he takes on a solid script he can turn it into a very watchable affair like Training Day, its unfortunate then that he has to deal with people like Jonathan Lemkin, a strange character in the movie business in general. On the one hand, he can create such a marvel as Hackford's Devil's Advocate and then embarrass himself with a monstrosity like Red Planet, where you're not sure if the screenwriter is being serious. And Shooter will give you the same feeling with a lot of the dialogue and a few unintentionally absurd situations. Then neither the great Wahlberg, who was perhaps born for badass roles, nor Fugua, who proves his craftsmanship in action scenes, can save the day. At least the snipers' final showdown in the snowy mountains is definitely worth a look. If you don't mind tired clichés and dull dialogue, add as many stars to the overall rating as you like. PS: But Antoine, the nearly 20-second slow motion shot of Mark's macho walk really isn't cool. :) (24/06/2007)

In the currently fashionable trend of building action on fast editing and lots of CGI effects, Shooter is a very likable old-school alternative, which does not hide its ambitions to be a stylish B-movie. In addition, its plot and narrative style, built on basic clichés, blatantly refers to the genre mannerisms of action films of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fuqua understands that well-mastered craftsmanship can do a lot. Therefore, despite its 2-hour runtime Shooter is a very enjoyable time spent in a whirlwind of compelling action that centers around the divine Mark Wahlberg, who never lets his pissed-off expression drop and makes you think of the greatest action fighters who dominated similarly-themed films 15 years ago. And if he had sharper catchphrases, I’d give it five stars! For the genre-devoted viewer, this is the ultimate comfort food, whereas for the rest of the world, based on other reviews, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. (16/06/2007)

A simple and straightforward action film, where the screenwriter probably got fired in the middle of the shooting and then it was just improvisation. Fortunately, Antoine Fuqua can still do it, and Mark Wahlberg is good with these badasses, so in the end, it's an inoffensive average. (22/04/2007)

This isn’t downright bad. After all, the beginning throws out a hook and it carries on pretty well, but ab hour later, instead of heading for an action ending, absolutely unexplainably and needlessly it starts dragging things out and out and out... In some places there’s a good moment, while occasionally there’s horrendous one (the flashback with the helicopter is pure, undiluted hell), but most of the time it keeps within the boring, stagnant, completely uninteresting waters of a mundane B-movie that is pretending to be more than is. Simply another standard offering from the routineer that Fuqua is, was and always will be. (04/07/2007)

Bob Lee Swagger may not be the new Jason Bourne, but his great luck is that he doesn't want to be. He wants to be an old-school, uncompromising hero, and he excels at it. Wahlberg is excellent as a cold-blooded machine, and his sniper performances, whether in a war atmosphere or in the quiet snow, fascinated me with every shot and deliberate quickness. And when he makes fun of patriotic speeches, it's settled. I'm not saying that Shooter is flawless, because the villains keep repeating lines like "Swagger is still alive," even though they don't make much effort to catch him, but such stumbling adds a little charm to a good action film. (24/07/2007)

It is a well-known fact that fans of the action genre do not need a film to have a good script, because an action film is based on other values, and Shooter is a typical example of this. The script is ridiculous and is a condensed collection of the most clichéd elements, complemented by typically pathetic-patriotic speeches about democracy, love for the homeland, justice, etc. It is actually a typical Seagal movie, though (even though routine) better handled in terms of direction and above all, significantly better acted. Mark Wahlberg fits well into these types of roles. For genre fans, it is a decent film with several uncompromising fights, an invincible hero, and wicked villains. Others will probably suffer during the dull dialogues, obvious inconsistencies, and predictable fights. Overall impression: 25%. (25/10/2009)

We’ve known that the government (mainly the American one) is a bitch for a long time and Shooter was probably supposed to prove it. It’s fine that this kind of old-school movies (Commandooo) still appear from time to time, even though they didn’t have to overdo the old school so much here (the hero living in a hut in the mountains, for god’s sake). The screenplay is unnecessarily slow-moving and full of cliché. Shortening the movie by about half an hour would have helped. Wahlberg delivers more or less what’s expected from him (an honorable tough-nut) and Kate Mara is a beauty you never tire of. But Danny Glover pleased me a lot, in this movie miles away from Rod from Lethal Weapon. He’s simply a superb, decrepit bastard. And there’s no end of dead bodies here (that’s a plus:). Fuqua should start looking around for a great screenplay, because Training Day shows that he can do better. (05/07/2007)

Leaving aside the fact that Wahlberg is like a Terminator in every shootout, none of the highly trained soldiers can hit him, he quickly aims in any direction, and after a few hard hits from his automatic weapon, the enemy lies on the ground, this is pretty solid action entertainment with excellently outlined sniper themes. Above all, I liked that long-range shooting is portrayed in a more realistic way, and the viewer can see that it's not just about having the biggest telescope and the longest rifle. It's a shame that, on the other hand, the script is filled with clichés and the aforementioned super Wahlberg, who, after the initial shot in the back, acts too badass and it's quite annoying. (20/05/2008)