There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

This is been one of my all-time top favorite movies since I saw it when it came out Bob Lee Swagger a sniper retired gets framed for the attempted assassination of the president and has to go through a series of events to try and clear his name Nonstop Action pulse-pounding Mark Wahlberg in his prime and at his best

Movie Review: "Shooter" (2007)Director Antoine Fuqua sends star-actor Mark Wahlberg, at age 35, on a rebounding retaliation mission to clear his name after a viscous assassination attempt on the anonymous-held U.S. President of the United States. Utilized with a special skill sets in sharp shooting, combat as survival techniques, the Ex-military main character Bob must go through civilians, here given face by convictions-as-suspicions-sharing actress Kate Mara teaming up with the FBI-fugitive, hunted by agents as Nick Memphis, played by Michael Pena and plotting governmental insiders in supports sublime with Elias Koteas, Rhona Mitra and Rade Serbedzija coming all into play with lethal encounters of sniper Bob, when "Shooter" delivers full throttle action thriller entertainment of 120 Minutes, edited by "Titanic" (1997) editor Conrad Buff IV, leaving no dull moments for a single ride of Hollywood motion picture satisfactions.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Shooter (2007) This is a conspiracy action thriller that follows a veteran who is framed for murder by a rogue secret private military unit. It is based on the novel Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. The film stars Mark Wahlberg with Michael Peña, Danny Glover and Ned Beatty. It did moderately at the box office and got mixed reviews by critics. Some critics mentioned that its lack of plausibility took away from the film. This is a common error most critics make when reviewing movies. They forget what the film is supposed to be and the audience it is geared towards. This is first and foremost an action thriller. We are expected to suspend some beliefs. Compared to most films of the genre, I don't feel it did anything unreasonable. Hell, I've seen some stupid stuff in action films far worse than anything here. The film has done far better in the video market. It has even spawned a decent television show of the same name. It's a decent action flick with a touch of conspiracy.

I quite enjoyed the struggle of the abandoned sniper left in No Mans Land as an expendable asset, just like a piece of toilet roll or a tissue.The fact that the CIA/FBI or whatever guy knew that a sniper would never poke his gun out of a window was a pretty nice breath of reality.However, what I don't like is how many times this film got pretty easy facts wrong. With a sniper like a M107, firing at a range of, at most, 1,500M, travel time would be, rounded up, over 2 seconds. Yet Swagger seems to think that all rounds travel at the same speed. And, in the very first scenes, his Spotter uses what looks like an M4 with an M203 and a scope of some sort, yet he can accurately engage men at, as he quoted, 900 yards. Various plot holes as well. When the attack helicopter made it's first run, it didn't use it's rocket pods, which would have killed both men. And, Swagger would have known that a 7.62 from an M24 wouldn't stand much chance of penetrating the canopy of a helicopter outfitted with rocket pods and guns that I didn't bother identifying, yet he decides that instead of using a M107 to engage, he would just fire his 7.62s at it, letting his friend die.But of course, it's only a film, so I shan't pick at it any longer. I did like the soda can suppressor....Wait a second.*Siiiiigh*. He called it a silencer. I immediately hate him more.There is no such thing as an actual silencer. They suppress gunshots but the shot is still really loud, but of course this, again, is only a film, so I'll overlook it.Also, love how the guys at the start of the film immediately know where the rounds are coming from, and set up a mortar for indirect fire accurate to about 20 feet of their position. That isn't them firing blind, that's just shell dispersion. The shots should be going all over the cliffs, considering it wouldn't be a stretch to have him in an outcropping anywhere on the face.So, all in all, good action film, but horrendously bad at having it's facts straight.