Skip to main content

Bob Lee "The Nailer" Swagger?

This makes me nervous.

I love the Swagger books by Stephen Hunter. Hell, I like all of his books that I've read. The man can right scenes of violence that make you gasp, yet they never feel gratuitous.

Shooter, the movie, is back on the book Point of Impact. As is endlessly discussed and explained, lots of things have to change during that transition of book-to-movie. So I know going in that I'm not going to see the Bob Lee on the screen the Bob Lee I read about. For one, in the book he's much older, a burnt out, semi-disabled Vietnam vet. In the movie he's played by Mark Wahlberg, and he's anything but old, burnt out, or disabled.

Does he have to be? Well, for the book he had to be, because that's why the bad guys recuited him. He's a master sniper, second to none. His war wound and the way he was treated by the government upon his return have made him fairly bitter. It, presumably, also makes him easier to manage. Naturally, in the book the bad guys get it all wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be sufficent plot; Swagger would just end up dead.

The film, according to its website, takes a different tack. He retired from the military after a botched mission, details not given. Otherwise, who knows why the bad guys want to recruit him for their double-cross. There's all sorts of idiot villain lines in the film's trailer, which are just too cliche for words.

On the plus side, though, is the director, Antoine Fuqua. I wasn't terribly impress with Training Day, his major claim to fame, but at least enjoyed King Authur, and really liked Tears of the Sun (in many ways a modern rendition of Dark of the Sun (aka The Mercenaries), which I'm dying to see on DVD). If nothing else, he's respectful of men in the military, so that gives me reason to hope he does Swagger and the Marines proud.

I'd feel better if Danny Glover wasn't in it, or if Ned Beatty didn't mutter that inane line in the trailer, but I guess I can't have eveyrthing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.