Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
The Marksman (2005)
If You Are Even Remotely Knowledgeable about the US Military - AVOID THIS!
This movie is a disaster. That is my primary "spoiler." It is unbelievably awful.
It's also a little depressing that Wesley Snipes now appears in crap like this.
If anyone knows why the title of this is called "The Marksman," please tell me. Is it because he "marks" a target? Are they kidding me? He's referred to as a "painter" the whole movie. Even "The Painter" would make more sense - but only a little. Since when did "painting" a target become some sort of unique military specialty? If you throw a grenade are you then "The Grenadier?" More on "painting" a target later.
There are several problems with this movie that indicate a complete lack of understanding about the military, and it REALLY hurts the movie. It is almost as if someone just watched "Top Gun" and attempted to write a movie based solely on that information.
Most atrocious is a dialog scene on board the fictitious aircraft carrier, the USS Oakla, that appears to be intended to depict interservice rivalry for no apparent reason. In this scene:
1. The Oakla captain is wearing a ball-cap that reads "USS Oakla SSN 798." "SSN" is the designation for a nuclear powered attack submarine. "CVN" would be the designation for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Also, the next hull number scheduled for an aircraft carrier would be 78, so 798 would be WAY off even for a fictitious hull number for an aircraft carrier. At the current rate of numbering since WWII, CVN 798 should arrive around the year 2620.
2. Two lieutenants in the scene are Army (a military branch that does not operate jet fighter aircraft) officers who are supposedly qualified to fly F-14s (a Navy jet fighter). Both of the officers are wearing Infantry crossed rifle officer insignia, Expert Infantry Badges, and Airborne jump wings which make it even more unlikely that they are able to fly F-14s. This stretch snaps the movie big time.
Other aspects of the movie are annoying as well. For example:
1. The Army Rangers refer to enemy personnel as "bogeys" which is a term that would normally be associated with unidentified aircraft. A little closer would have been "bandits," since that is at least the term used for aircraft identified as hostile. Terms like "bad guys" or "enemy" would normally be used. I suppose if someone wanted to sound more "military," they could have referred to them as "enemy personnel" or "OPFOR," but using an aircraft term like "bogey" or even "bandit" is just ridiculous.
2. I suppose that Army Rangers can operate in small teams like those depicted, but this would be much more common for SEAL or Delta teams or even the Army Special Forces. It seems as though the filmmakers just thought "Rangers" is a generic term for special operations forces.
3. If anything, Army Rangers are known for their high level of discipline. They are not like the independent-minded type of soldier that would be found in Delta, so some of the scenes are just ridiculous.
4. There is a lot of reference to "painting a target" that in this movie means planting some sort of homing device on a target. In actuality, this refers to firing a laser and keeping the target "painted" with the laser, so a precision munition can hit it.
Other people mention the implausibility about some of the explosions or whatever, but that can be said about almost any action movie.
Whoever wrote this movie did ZERO research. What kills this movie is almost total ignorance of what is supposed to be going on.
But most of all...
ARMY INFANTRY OFFICERS ARE NOT ABLE TO FLY F-14s!