Sniper: Fuego oculto

As former military, I'm particular about realism. Although this movie had it's share of cinematic liberty, for a sniper movie, it was actually quite good. As soon as I saw "Billy Zane" in the opening credits, I groaned a little. He has matured quite a bit since "Sniper"...plus, they didn't play up the role of GMSgt "Gunny" Beckett too much (the lead role is his son, Brandon Beckett), so that made it less like a sequel and more like a continuing story line. It was just a good, action-packed "heavy on the sniper action" flick. If you like military movies, specifically sniper movies, you'll enjoy it. You won't say it's the best sniper movie ever, but you'll watch it to the end without puking.

Not as good as Shooter (Mark Wahlberg), not as good as the original Sniper (Tom Berenger), but a darn close third place, with every other sniper movie falling way behind IMHO. A little too much cheese at times, but countered with some slightly comedic moments (the Russian talking about John McClane from Die Hard...yippie-ki-yay, MF'er, etc). It had it's snicker moments for sure, but pretty much action-packed from beginning to end, which I love.

Overall, a definite watch. Maybe not a "keep forever and watch again and again", but unless you're one of those people who want to dissect cinematography (really well done here), or the director's mood or previous works and how it compares, you'll enjoy it for what it is. Lots of sniper shots, lots of "Semper Fi" moments, and just a decent movie. I'd watch it again, but not anytime soon.

So, i was disappointed that they didn't say how the enemy got the equipment.. was kind of expecting that. Like if that was the main thing holding up the story you think they would talk about how the breach happened and what they did to fix it.

Also this requires a minimum amount of characters in order to leave a review, so allow me to use the rest of the space as a fill-in. Thank you for taking the time to read my review, and I hope it finds you in good spirits. This movie was good but overall I would not watch it again as pieces of the plot could have been addressed better. But the actors did well.

Some performances not so good, one or two special effects could be better, quite a bit of corny dialog. Would have been really good if not for those things. Well worth watching as long as you don't take it seriously and you like action movies with lots of shooting and blood. Some reviewers have said some of the things would never happen like that. They probably didn't like Die Hard either.

I happened to stumble upon the 2016 movie "Sniper: Ghost Shooter" by random chance here in 2023. And seeing Billy Zane returning again to the "Sniper" franchise, of course I opted to sit down and watch what director Don Michael Paul had to offer.

As for the storyline and script in "Sniper: Ghost Shooter", then writers Michael Frost Beckner, Crash Leyland and Chris Hauty put together an enjoyable and entertaining enough script. It wasn't the best of storylines in the "Sniper" franchise, but it was enjoyable for what it turned out to be; that being a rather action-packed storyline. There wasn't any twists or plot surprises for the 99 minutes that the movie ran for, which made it a fairly predictable and a bit generic storyline, actually.

The acting performances in the movie were good, and it definitely was nice to see Billy Zane return to reprise the role of Richard Miller again. The movie also had some other familiar faces on the cast list, with the likes of Chad Michael Collins and Dennis Haysbert. All in all, I will say that the entire cast ensemble in the movie put on good performances to bring both the storyline and the characters to life on the screen.

There is actually a good amount of action throughout the course of the movie, to the extend where it starts to feel like a war movie, given all the skirmishes that the snipers were in, fighting against adversaries with fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers. It was a shame that the writers opted for this approach, as it became more of an action-oriented movie, instead of the lie-in-wait-and-wait-for-the-shot movie that the 1993 first movie "Sniper" in the franchise was. Sure, the action was good, and the movie was certainly entertaining enough for what it was. Just don't go about expecting an archetypical sniper type of movie.

My rating of "Sniper: Ghost Shooter", from director Don Michael Paul, lands on a five out of ten stars.

I watched this on a bootleg site that was all written in Arabic. The copy of the DVD had Arabic subtitles. I couldn't help wondering how that audience receives a movie like this, let alone do they enjoy watching it? Maybe they don't care, they just pirate the movies and make their money.

Anyway, I've been out of the "Sniper" loop since about the second one (What are we on now? 12?) so I needed to do a little catching up. I have to say that this wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Sure the visual fx were pretty cheesy and the dialog was, at times, embarrassing. But over all it far surpassed anything Steven Seagal has done in the last decade or so (with the possible exception of The Cockpuncher) So, in doing a little research I discovered that just about anyone associated with these films is either trying to get a career started or pretending their career isn't yet over.

There was, in fact some decent acting. You can tell a good actor when he delivers the cheesiest line in a way that almost makes you believe him (or her)

But the one overlying factor was that whenever Dennis Haysbert was on screen I kept expecting him to say, "That's Allstate's stand. Are you in good hands?"