NemkeSRB I watched first part of "Sniper" movie and it was decent. But this part 2 is just retarded! I needed like 45 mins into movie to figure out who is the "bad guy", where he's from, where's this movie taking part, why are they talking different language than supposed and how did they manage to place Serbian town Požaervac into Hungary, how the hell muslims lived 600 years in Eastern Europe etc.For all of you who don't know the facts, let me help you:1. This movie is filmed in Hungary, the story of the movie is taking place in Hungary too, but it's supposed to be taking place in Serbia 2. Actors speak Hungarian language, but they are supposedly Serbs 3. They transport imprisoned Cole from Hungarian town to Požarevac (Serbian town), like those 2 towns are in the same country and there are no borders 4. Sophia's brothers have Serbian names, but they speak Hungarian 5. That rifle isn't German Mauser by the way 6. It's not the muslims (Bosnians) who lived there for 600 years, but Serbs and Croats 7. It's not Serbs who were killing and expelling Bosnians but vice versa 8. That "Serbian" general they want to kill doesn't have Serbian name at all and he's obviously a Hungarian according to his name 9. A helicopter which "Serbian" special forces used in film has 'SFOR' inscription on it, which means "Stabilisation Force" and it was NATO's "peacekeeping" force, not Serbian 10.This is just another biased anti-Serbian movie, made to once more represent Serbs as terrorists, heartless murders and worst peopleBottom line: this movie insults the intelligence of average man. I put it into top 3 worst movies I've seen in my life. I don't know is it director's ignorance and stupidity, but knowing how America wants to represent Serbs I bet this is just another biased movie funded by American imperialists and masons, probably by George Soros, who himself is Hungarian. So many misleading and wrong historical facts, language replacement, countries swaping, geographical errors.IF YOU READ THIS - DON'T BOTHER WATCHING THIS CRAP MOVIE!

Comeuppance Reviews Thomas Beckett (Berenger) is called back into action because not only was he "The Best", but he's still "The Best" all these years later. He thought he left his sniping days behind, now that he's taking yahoos on hunting trips. But the government offers him anything he wants to go to Serbia and assassinate Valstoria, an official who has been behind some sort of ethnic cleansing. Sensing a trick, because if the government is offering him anything, they think he won't return alive, Beckett simply asks for a restoration of his rank. So they team up Master Gunnery Sergeant Beckett with a prisoner, Cole (Woodbine), who has a chance to earn his freedom if he backs up Beckett on this mission. But as we know, Beckett has a history of losing partners. Can they execute their mission...and their target? It's easy to think this installment in the Sniper series was made sometime in the 90's, right after the first movie. It seems very 90's. But surprisingly, it was released in 2002. Seeing as the first Sniper was released in 1993, why the filmmakers thought that fans were clamoring for a new Sniper vehicle nine years after the fact remains a mystery. And thus, Sniper 2 does have a "this never needed to be made" kind of feeling throughout. They probably thought it would be worthwhile to have Beckett talk about such things as al-Qaida and Guantanamo Bay, and say things like "Freedom isn't free", thus dating the proceedings to the Bush administration. By comparison, the first Sniper movie has more of a timeless feel, not dating to any one era.It seems like a Nu-Image movie, and it was shot in Hungary instead of Bulgaria. Not helping matters is the awful CGI, which was worse - if such a thing is possible - in 2002 than it is today. So points have to be detracted for that. Come on, that's a betrayal of everything Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Beckett stands for! He shouldn't have to tolerate CGI stupidity. It should be only the real deal for him. He has enough problems as it is (there's some good continuity from the first movie regarding his injuries from torture he suffered). Woodbine, as the backup this time around, makes a worthy foil for Beckett, and he has a very distinctive voice. He should really do voice-overs and cartoons and such. His voice carries his performance here.Director Baxley, who we're normally a fan of, because of Action Jackson (1988), I Come In Peace (1990) and Stone Cold (1991), seems to be taking kind of a paycheck assignment here. He's a competent director, and that shows, but he should have brought the same verve he brought to the aforementioned three movies to this one. He should have made Beckett be able to stand alongside Jackson , Jack Caine, and John Stone as some of his more memorable men of action. Berenger does do his normal high-quality job, but something seems to be missing.As it stands, Sniper 2 is okay. For a movie that doesn't need to exist, it's decent. It's not offensively bad, it's just a bit dull and unnecessary. It's good that it isn't jokey, and we appreciate that, but there's no need to run out and see this.For more action insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

ivica985 Sit down,"F-" from Geography and History (which is on Serbian clearly "1-" or Insufficient Minus)!!!!! Terrible! ! ! ! Miserable! ! ! ! Sad! ! ! ! Dirty! ! ! ! Nastily! ! ! ! Trash! ! ! ! Desperate! ! ! ! Fuj,bre! ! ! !aw·ful/ˈɔfəl/ –adjective 1. extremely bad; unpleasant; ugly: awful paintings; an awful job. 2. inspiring fear; dreadful; terrible: an awful noise. 3. solemnly impressive; inspiring awe: the awful majesty of alpine peaks. 4. full of awe; reverential. 5. extremely dangerous, risky, injurious, etc.: That was an awful fall she had. He took an awful chance by driving here so fast.

A_Roode Let's not beat around the bush: 'Sniper 2' is a very lame, clichéd mess that isn't worth your time. I enjoyed the first movie but hardly thought it qualified for sequel treatment. I think the two main weaknesses for 'Sniper 2' are the acting of essentially the entire supporting cast and the writing itself. The script is just plain awful. I watch a lot of movies, and I know my clichés -- hey I've got one in the opening line of THIS REVIEW!! Mine was intended to be ironic. Many of the ones in 'Sniper 2' were not (no, they opted for unintentional humour instead). As I write this, I am desperately trying to drive all memory of the film out of my memory. Hilariously clichéd drivel abounds, from Cole (Bokeem Woodbine) telling Pavel that he and three of his fellow special forces soldiers were called 'The Four Horsemen,' to the stunningly unsurprising revelation that he was the horseman ... you guessed it, called Death. Earlier in the film he explains to Beckett (Tom Berenger) in a misguided attempt at ironic humour that everyone should "Join the Marines, travel the world, make new friends... and kill 'em." There are many others. Only one made me laugh though. Without getting into the ridiculously overwrought and poorly delivered plot, Cole wants to explain to Beckett why he once killed a man. This was the exchange:Cole: "You never asked me." Beckett: "Asked you what?" Cole: "WHY I KILLED THAT MUTHAF*expletive*!!!" Beckett: "That's because I don't care about you enough as a person to be interested."The humour there is actually double-layered. It is one of the series' and Beckett's signature trademarks: irascible Beckett gets to zing his sidekicks with witty one-liners. On a second level it is depressingly honest about the main flaw in both the performances and the script. You don't actually care about any of the characters with the exception of Beckett. In a film about two men trying to free a political prisoner, do YOU think that they've succeeded from a writing and acting perspective if you catch yourself cheering more strongly with each frame for the death of every character on screen? Or maybe your own so that you don't have to watch anymore? Not to diminish the acting ability of Bokeen Woodbine (probably not just saying that because he could crush me with his martial arts ability, and dare I say it, unleash the four horsemen of the apocalypse and death on me) but he just isn't a strong enough actor to have a meaty part like this. No, not even in a shameless low-budget money grab like 'Sniper 2.''Sniper 2' is saved from being a disaster and dragged kicking and screaming up to mediocrity by two things. The first is the ever under-rated Tom Berenger. Berenger is just awesome in this and great fun to watch. Although the really great roles haven't fallen out of the sky for him lately, you can still see that he's great fun and a big talent on screen. Surrounding yourself with stilted, wooden and completely inept performances helps, but Berenger is worth watching. The second thing is an extended sniper battle in the final act of the film. It goes on for quite some time and I thought that it was very well staged and filmed. Whether the wait in getting to that point is too much or not, I don't know. I would be inclined to suggest that anyone interested in finding out should probably reconsider. I wish I had.