This from no less than SFWeekly.com:
Wittily adapted by screenwriter Jonathan Lemkin (The Devil's Advocate) from the first in a trilogy of Swagger novels by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter, Shooter is a generically titled studio action picture that turns out to be a surprisingly deft satire about Americans' loss of faith in their government following the 2000 election, the 9/11 attacks, and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Betrayed by Uncle Sam both at home and abroad, Swagger starts to seem like the last honest exponent of old-fashioned American virtue — a John Rambo for the Bush II generation — and the more he learns about the conspiracy that has taken hold of his life, the further he sees that it reaches: That everything really is about oil money and that, in the words of the movie's fat-cat Red-state senator (a wonderfully smarmy Ned Beatty), there are no heroes and villains or Democrats and Republicans — only haves and have-nots. Cannily programmed at the start of the 2008 election season, this rampantly amoral and Darwinian film persuasively argues that, in today's America, it's every man for himself and commerce against all. Allow me to be the first to propose: Bob Lee Swagger for president.A-freakin'-men!
12 comments:
Ahhh! I see, this is another America is bad movie.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to give it a pass.
So does that sound anything like the novel that Hunter wrote?
I agree with post above, No money from me.
It's a movie. Pure fiction. I tend to ignore 'political' undertones and enjoy the story. Besides, I'm curious to see how this differs from the book.
BTW, if Bob The Nailer is President, does that make you the Secretary of the Interior, Michael?
At least we know what the Rules Of Engagement would be under President Nailer: Bad guys get shot. Right now.
Their review is based on what they want to see. I like to think it is about a real American standing up for what's right. I'm going. And if it sucked, I'd still go to try and help Hunter. I want to see more of his books made into movies and that will only happen if this is successful. Just like voting, go early and go often.
I suggest everyone click on the review link and read the entire review. Then consider the author and the papers 'bent" if you will.
Only then can you make an informed decision regarding the merits or not of the film.
Walt Rauch
Not to disagree with Sir Walt, but screw the reviews. Very seldom do reviewers and I agree on anything.
I think we should all see the film then decide if it sucks or not. I agree with the anonymous poster who said that Hunter's success would mean more movies.
I'm all for that!
kmitch200
I'm in the middle of the novel now. I doubt the movie will be as good the book, few if any movie ever is, but I will go see it.
The most amazing thing for me as an author was seeing one of my books, the autobiography of Hank Williams Jr., being turned into a movie. It was like falling through the rabbit hole — and Hank Jr., as he constantly pointed out, was a REAL LIVE PERSON.
Example: "Is it okay if we combine wife two and three, then give her a different name and have her die of natural causes?"
My response was...the check cleared, make her the bastard offspring of a panda bear and the Space Alien for all I cared. Hank Jr. looked at the number of zeroes on his check and shrugged it off.
The big plus was that the teevee movie was premiered on the big screen in New York City and my date was...Naomi Judd, who had a small part in the movie. When we came out of the movie theater — the flick was actually pretty good — the director saw me and, I swear, threw his hands over his face and shouted, "I was true to your vision! I was true to your vision!"
I said, dude, chill...the check cleared...I'm here with Naomi Judd...there's champagne...what's to dislike?
Michael B
How about Greshem's take on Wahlberg's felony rap.
I nominated you for a Thinking Blogger Award, more details at Dakotaranger
Online Banking
Post a Comment