[jakepunk]

I thought I was going to like this movie.  It was good up until the third act.  Then it started getting more and more ridiculous.  The problem isn't with the acting, it's with the script.  It goes from "Tom Clancy plausibility" in the first two acts to "stupid silly" at the end.  There's a conspiracy where Shadowy Men Who Answer To No One are above the law and yet waltz into government offices to face their accuser.  Add a little anti-current-administration politics, dodging bullets from a platoon of mercenaries unscathed, and the comic relief character who turns into a soldier, and you're got a big mess.  Thumbs down.

[Digi-G]

Well, yeah, I guess if you concentrate on the story that much it's not 100% plausible.  Then again, it's a movie. 

Yeah, it had a couple of cheezy moments and the plot was kinda predictable.  But I still enjoyed it.  The characters were mostly believable and likable, except for the ones you were supposed to hate.  There was plenty of shooting, explosions and helicopters too.

Levon Helm (from The Band) nearly steals the movie in his 5 minute cameo as the "old man on the mountain".  What a great character. 

While I enjoyed it at the theater, I would most definitely recommend it as a rental.

[jeffreybehr]

The book, 'Point of Impact' by Stephen Hunter, is great.  Set in the '80s, it's (of course) lots more complicated than the 2-hour movie.  Hunter wrote 2 equally fine 'sequels', 'Black Light' and 'Time to Hunt'.

I enjoyed the movie for what it is, and altho it certainly could have been better (IMO, of course), it's LOTS better than 'Sahara', based on Clive Cussler's novel.  This one turned the 2 main characters, serious scientists/engineers/outdoorsman, into baffoons.  It's no wonder Cussler sued the production company (and lost, for some reason).

'Shooter' I thought was fair-to-good the 1st time I saw it, and I've seen it again and enjoyed it more.  Kate Mara is highly enjoyable as Julie/Sarah Fenn.  Worth your time, IMO.

[John Casler]

I picked this one up at Costco and screened it the other night.

For an "Action Film" it runs the formula, stretches the limits, and holds together if all you are looking for is a little (lot) of action, suspense, and small plot twists.

You have the "Good Guy loaner" (Rambo et al)
You have the "Good Guy getting physically injured but miraculous healing"
You have the "bad guy who is hooked up to power"
You have the "Omnipotent Bad Guy abuser of power"
You have the "Slimy Low Life, henchman"
You have the "Innocent Love interest" who rises to the level of pulling the trigger herself
You have the "Rape/torture of the "innocent"
You have the "Bumbling Comic Relief Good Guy"
You have the "Synchronized plans that ALWAYS work"
You have the "Good Guys operating from a place of higher ideals and Righteousness"
Etc, etc,

If your looking for Lawrence of Arabia, or Gone with the Wind, leave it on the shelf.

Photography was good
Directing was good
Casting seemed to be good
Acting (for a film of this type) was acceptable(Glover seemed to enjoy his villain role enough to overact a little)
Stunts and Effects were good enough
Technical terms and reality of Snipers was very good (see extras)
Editing was acceptable and scenes were well paced
and Music was appropriate.

[Daygloworange]

You have the "Synchronized plans that ALWAYS work"

Ya gotta love those! 

What's up with Glover? He talks as if somebody just punched him in the mouth throughout the whole film. 

I though the movie was OK.

Cheers

[Turnandcough]

For an "Action Film" it runs the formula, stretches the limits, and holds together if all you are looking for is a little (lot) of action, suspense, and small plot twists.

Stretches the limits is right.
I'm willing to "check my brain at the door" up to a certain point but I'm really tired of movies/scenes where the hero is, somehow, able to outrun and outshoot 100 heavily armed Navy Seals dropping from helicopters and coming out of the woodwork from all directions. The guy's out in the open, running across a field yet the bullets and RPGs always seem to land inches away from his heels.
Advice to elite sharp shooter Navy Seals: Try aiming your guns an inch or so to the right!!! 

[John Casler]

For an "Action Film" it runs the formula, stretches the limits, and holds together if all you are looking for is a little (lot) of action, suspense, and small plot twists.

Stretches the limits is right.
I'm willing to "check my brain at the door" up to a certain point but I'm really tired of movies/scenes where the hero is, somehow, able to outrun and outshoot 100 heavily armed Navy Seals dropping from helicopters and coming out of the woodwork from all directions. The guy's out in the open, running across a field yet the bullets and RPGs always seem to land inches away from his heels.
Advice to elite sharp shooter Navy Seals: Try moving your guns an inch or so to the right!!! 

True, but you forgot the fat policeman already shot him not once, but twice.

My question is what the "love interest" did for the bullet to the hip??

If you want reality, the movie was over right then.

He shouldn't have been able to walk or move his right arm/shoulder for weeks.

[Turnandcough]

For an "Action Film" it runs the formula, stretches the limits, and holds together if all you are looking for is a little (lot) of action, suspense, and small plot twists.

Stretches the limits is right.
I'm willing to "check my brain at the door" up to a certain point but I'm really tired of movies/scenes where the hero is, somehow, able to outrun and outshoot 100 heavily armed Navy Seals dropping from helicopters and coming out of the woodwork from all directions. The guy's out in the open, running across a field yet the bullets and RPGs always seem to land inches away from his heels.
Advice to elite sharp shooter Navy Seals: Try moving your guns an inch or so to the right!!! 

My question is what the "love interest" did for the bullet to the hip??

Why always a love interest?  When will Hollywood change the formula?

[Whitese]

Advice to elite sharp shooter Navy Seals: Try moving your guns an inch or so to the right!!! 

LOL...i would just email them..not face to face///

[jeffreybehr]

"... 100 heavily armed Navy Seals dropping from helicopters...

Uhh...not exactly.  There were 2 dozen, not a hundred, and they were not Seals, they were South American commando-type troops.

Not that it makes much difference.  As I wrote earlier, I'd change things, but it's a good actioner, and I've ordered the HD DVD.

[Rob Babcock]

I loved the movie.  It wasn't high art, but I like Marky Mark!   I thought it was an excellent popcorn-muncher.

[Turnandcough]

"... 100 heavily armed Navy Seals dropping from helicopters...

Uhh...not exactly.  There were 2 dozen, not a hundred, and they were not Seals, they were South American commando-type troops.

Not that it makes much difference.  As I wrote earlier, I'd change things, but it's a good actioner, and I've ordered the HD DVD.

Only 2 dozen, with helicopters, and RPGs? No wonder they didn't stand a chance against Marky Mark. 
I wasn't really paying enough attention to notice whether they were Navy Seals, SA commandos or Tibetan Monks. But I was captivated enough to watch the whole movie from start to finish which means that it is what it is - a decent "check your brain at the door" action flick. Or maybe I'm just desperate for entertainment.

[Ears]

You have the "Synchronized plans that ALWAYS work"

Ya gotta love those! 

What's up with Glover? He talks as if somebody just punched him in the mouth throughout the whole film. 

I though the movie was OK.

Cheers

I watched the Blu-ray version with my 14 y/o son who asked if Danny Glover had a speech impediment.