Sniper is a 1993 American action film directed by Luis Llosa. The film stars Tom Berenger and Billy Zane as snipers on an assassination mission in Panama. It is the first installment in the Sniper film series, and was followed by eight direct-to-video sequels: Sniper 2, Sniper 3, Sniper: Reloaded, Sniper: Legacy, Sniper: Ghost Shooter, Sniper: Ultimate Kill, Sniper: Assassin's End and Sniper: Rogue Mission. It was shot in Queensland, Australia, and debuted at number two in the United States.
From thrilling war epics to heart-pounding action thrillers, snipers have provided filmmakers with plenty of material to work with. But which movie is the best for depicting these fearsome warriors? Here are our picks for the best sniper movies ever made.
Private Ryan has been frequently cited as a significant influence in battle and action films, owing to its use of desaturated colors, hand-held cameras, and tight angles. However, an actual war and sniper movie fan should not miss this fantastic thriller by Steven Speilberg.
Even though this comic-action thriller depicts unrealistic swinging bullets and regular sniper shots, it earns a position on our best sniper film list because it is jam-packed with stunning action with a full-on killing spree.
Men generally love to watch sniper movies. Why? They tell exhilarating stories of crime heroes and top-caliber war protagonists that won long, hard-fought battles against life-sucking terrorists who mercilessly bomb thousands of innocent souls to the afterlife.
This Cruise movie sets off when an ex-US Army sniper is primarily accused of going ballistic and killing five people for no apparent reason. The police immediately caught their suspect who comes by the name of Barr.
Despite that this comic-action thriller shows unrealistic stunts of swinging bullets and systematic sniper shots seen in a pure science fiction movie, it certainly deserves its spot on our best sniper movie list as it is packed with spectacular action full of vicious assassins.
This Steven Spielberg film makes it to our list of best sniper movies in that it memorably underscores some sniper sequences that feature an enthralling short sniper duel. Spielberg nailed his Oscars for Best Director for this epic WWII cinematic masterpiece.
However, this war movie is loosely based in terms of its main character Vassili Zaitsev, a highly skilled marksman in the Red Army played by Jude Law. From being an ordinary soldier, Zaitsev rose to a higher rank for his impeccable sniper skills and his key role in winning the war against the German forces.
Guns of August? by Arnaud de Borchgrave. For the first two weeks of August, the Internet buzzed with "inside knowledge" of an Israeli airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the month. One of most quoted warnings came from Philip Giraldi, a polyglot former CIA operative who writes for the American Conservative and is no friend of Israel. "We spend $100 billion on intelligence annually and then ignore the best judgments on what is taking place," Giraldi wrote on his blog recently and "might as well use an Ouija board. Not only would we save a lot of money but with an Ouija board there is always the chance you could arrive at the right decision." Five years ago, Giraldi wrote, "it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration that brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran." U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he wrote, had tasked the Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another Sept. 11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan was for a large-scale air assault on Iran (never mind if Iran wasn't involved) employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. More than 450 major strategic targets were listed in the plan - evidently leaked to Giraldi by "appalled" senior U.S. Air Force officers. Tehran's propaganda machine has taken a leaf out of Bush 43's lexicon - "bring 'em on." The Pasdaran, or Revolutionary Guards, trotted out their latest acquisition - the 51-foot "Bladerunner," the world's "fastest warship," capable of 82 mph. The Iran Times, published in Washington in both English and Farsi, reported only two such "high-tech" speedboats had been built and that Iran was now planning to mass-produce them. The one acquired by Iran was purchased in South Africa and loaded onto a container ship. The Financial Times said the United States was prepared to board it but the operation was called off without explanation. One Bladerunner was used to set a record for circumnavigating the British Isles in 2005, when it averaged 61.5 mph over 27 hours. For the past 20 years, Iran's seagoing Republican Guards have been accumulating small, swift boats with a view to swarming U.S. warships going in and out of the Hormuz Strait, and to mining the narrow waterway used by supertankers that move 40 percent of all seaborne traded oil (which is 20 percent of all oil traded worldwide). Moving through the mile-wide exit channel is also three-quarters of all of Japan's oil needs. Iran also has an endless supply of seagoing suicide "volunteers." Hundreds were used to walk across minefields during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88). Hormuz is the world's most important chokepoint and Iran's principal naval base, Bandar Abbas, is smack in the middle. The Defense Intelligence Agency knows from a former Iranian naval intelligence officer that there are detailed plans to close the strait to supertankers that move some 17 million barrels a day to the rest of the world. Oil would then quickly shoot up from $80 a barrel where it is today to $400 or $500. In January 2008, five Iranian speedboats darted in and out of a line of three U.S. warships as they entered the Persian Gulf through the Strait, dropping white boxes ahead of the vessels, forcing them to take evasive action. The USS Port Royal, a 9,600-ton cruiser, the 8,300-ton guided missile destroyer USS Hopper and the 4,100-ton frigate USS Ingraham were prepared to blast the Iranian boats out of the water with close-range, rapid-fire Phalanx Gatlings but word came from the Pentagon to hold their fire. The white boxes were designed to simulate mines. There is little doubt one or two U.S. warships could have been damaged and the United States would have found itself involved in a third war in the region. The suicide boat attack against the 8,600-ton USS Cole, at anchor in Aden Harbor in October 2000, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and immobilized a $1 billion warship for two years of repairs, demonstrated vulnerability to small craft laden with explosives. To demonstrate that fresh international sanctions won't weaken Iranian resolve, Tehran published a new law mandating the production of higher-enriched uranium and further limiting cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. At the same time, Iran and Russia announced they would begin loading "before the end of August" Russian-supplied fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant. A cacophony of tweets amplified Giraldi's Guns of August scenario. If Israel has decided to strike against what most Israelis see as an existential threat, it would presumably wait until the U.S. Congress' return from vacation Sept. 10. A resolution (HR 1553) is winding its way through Congress that endorses an Israeli attack on Iran, which, writes Giraldi, "would be going to war by proxy as the U.S. would almost immediately be drawn into conflict when Tehran retaliates." Leading neo-conservatives pooh-pooh Iran's asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities as overblown anti-Israeli rhetoric. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a neo-con commentator, predicts Iran's response would be minimal and recommends Israel attack Iran to "rock the system" to make the regime "lose face" and suffer a military defeat from which its recovery would be doubtful. This reporter first began covering Iran in August 1953 when the shah fled a revolutionary upheaval (returning 10 days later after a military crackdown and covert CIA assistance). There is little doubt that an Israeli attack on Iran would trigger mayhem up and down the Persian Gulf and trigger a third war that would be yet another force multiplier for the U.S. deficit: Federal spending is now at $3.6 trillion; the national debt, $13.4 trillion; cost per citizen $43,000; cost per taxpayer $120,000. Check the debt clock online - in real time. Gulf and other Arab rulers who wish secretly for aerial bombing action against Iran's nuclear facilities will be the first to denounce Israel and its only ally when and if the first Iranian target is hit. [Borchgrave/UPI/17August2010] Why Gates Seems Set on a 2011 Departure, by Jim Watson. So Robert Gates is set on retiring from government - for the second time. Or so he says. In an interview with ForeignPolicy.com, he has repeated more firmly than ever his desire to resign as secretary of defense sometime in 2011. Why would he decide on 2011, and not 2010 or 2012? Strange but true: the arcane workings of the Pentagon budget process are one of the key factors behind his timing. Drawing up the annual defense budget - especially one now totaling $719 billion - is so complex that each exercise actually takes close to two years. Thus, the defense budget for 2012, the last year of President Obama's term in office, is already taking shape. Its unveiling in February of next year will place a capstone on Gates's extraordinary career. The first time Gates retired was in 1993, when he stepped down as CIA director. He was called back to service by President George W. Bush at the end of 2006, to rescue an Iraq war on the brink of defeat. He thought he would be in the Pentagon only for the two years remaining in Bush's presidency. To his real surprise, Obama asked Gates to stay on - the first time an incoming president had ever made that request of a defense secretary. Now Gates seems to have decided, in effect, to see Obama through the midterms. Each defense budget takes so long to prepare that a defense secretary coming into office with a new president finds his hands all but tied: the Pentagon budgets for the next two years have already been laid down by his predecessor. But Gates was, as he sometimes remarks, his own predecessor. His two years under Bush meant that he will be only the second defense secretary - the first was Robert McNamara in the Kennedy/LBJ years - to have shaped all four defense budgets of a presidential term. In the first of his budgets under Obama, Gates took an ax to multiple big-ticket weapons systems; preparing his last, he has announced his intent to hack away at the bloated defense bureaucracies. That battle - to slim down a defense establishment far bigger than it was during the Cold War - is going to consume every gram of political capital Gates has built up in Congress. Legislators, however much they say they support defense cuts in principle, oppose them when their own constituents are affected. Gates will probably win the coming battles - he's won almost every skirmish so far - but he'll emerge as damaged goods, and he knows it. For that reason alone, it may be time to let Obama choose a new defense secretary who can smooth ruffled feelings on Capitol Hill, and to prepare for a second term if Obama wins one in 2012. Quitting in 2011 will leave enough time to avoid what would inevitably be savagely partisan confirmation hearings for Gates's successor in the preelection frenzy. Policy reasons also argue for a 2011 departure. Next year Obama will be confronted with big decisions on U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. He'll have to decide whether to begin a substantial drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in midyear, as he has pledged to do. He also needs to decide whether to agree to an expected request from Baghdad to keep forces in Iraq beyond the currently agreed-upon deadline of the end of 2011. Having been through multiple reviews of both wars under Bush and Obama, Gates should be forgiven if he decides to leave yet further reviews to someone else. As a firm believer that if America is in a war, then America must win it - a conviction that may argue next year for extended commitments in Afghanistan and perhaps in Iraq - Gates may also wonder whether his views would collide with Obama's political necessities. Supporters and cynics unite in casting doubt on Gates's determination to quit. His press secretary, Geoff Morrell, issued a brisk reminder: "Bob Gates has proven to be a miserable failure at retirement. It remains to be seen whether his sense of responsibility trumps his desires as in the past." Cynics within the Pentagon point out that his coming battles with Congress will need the unflinching support of the White House. How better to ensure that, they ask, than for Gates to play hard to keep - requiring Obama to appeal to him to stay on? Certainly, Gates is conscious of tasks yet to be done. He is also mindful of the perils of being a lame duck. The defense establishment pins its hopes on outlasting him, assuming that any successor will back away from his sweeping plans for reform. Gates knows that too. On the other hand, he has given the job his best shot. He has set strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan that give at least a promise of success, begun to set the military on a new course for the challenges of a new century, and seen to the promotion of like-minded officers within the services. He thinks what he has set in train has a good chance of surviving his departure. Meanwhile, the job is exhausting and emotionally painful. He spends most evenings writing personal notes to the families of those killed in the wars he runs. Gates knows the maxim that graveyards are full of indispensable men. He has already had one of the most remarkable careers in the history of American government, a career that began 44 years ago, when he joined the CIA in 1966 as a junior analyst on the Soviet desk. He ended his CIA career at the top, as agency director - and on the way he served a spell as deputy national-security adviser in the White House. That service has now been capped by four years as defense secretary. In that time, he is proud of saying, he's served eight presidents. As he relaxes on two weeks' vacation at his home on an island off the coast of Washington state, he may believe he has served enough - and that, at 66, other challenges beckon. But who could take his place? Replacing Gates would be hard for Obama, and not merely because of the secretary's unique across-the-aisle appeal as a Republican appointee in a Democratic administration. If there is a suitable candidate within the Defense Department, it's probably Ashton Carter, who as undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics - a vast portfolio - has been an indefatigable point man on many of Gates's initiatives. But Carter lacks a political base, and he would have to relinquish a tenured position at Harvard from which he is currently on leave. That might not be prudent, given Obama's uncertain chances of reelection in 2012. That uncertainty also likely rules out any candidate from Congress, such as Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an Army veteran who is on everyone's list as a potential future defense secretary. One or two candidates talked about back in 2008 have already taken themselves out of the running - for example, Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Clinton. The likeliest course, or so insiders reckon, is that Obama would choose a veteran Democratic politician who could be relied on to foster good relations with Democrats on the Hill and in the party at large. The name most often mentioned is Leon Panetta. Currently CIA director, where he's reckoned to have done a first-rate job healing the scars of the Bush years, Panetta has perfect political credentials for the Pentagon: he was a 15-year congressman from a California district with significant defense industries; then, as White House chief of staff from 1994 to 1997, he was critical in keeping the Clinton administration on track after Gingrich Republicans won control of the House. And Gates's own plans? After he retired the first time he ran Texas A&M University, and also wrote a volume of memoirs, From the Shadows, praised for its nonpartisan observations on successive presidencies. This time, Gates has told friends, he plans two books. The first will be a memoir of his spell as defense secretary. The second will be an instructional volume on a topic he thinks his years at the CIA, Texas A&M, and now the Pentagon have uniquely fitted him to address: how to force change on large organizations. [Watson/NewsWeek/17August2010] Investor's Business Daily: China's Spy Games. Forget about the Russian spy ring the FBI broke up that stole mostly headlines (as opposed to U.S. secrets) for their amateurish methods. This is no joke. These Chinese moles mean business. And they're stealing highly sensitive military secrets. At least 44 of them have been quietly prosecuted in the last two years alone - a figure that dwarfs the number of Russian spies expelled last month. And those are just the ones we've caught. The Chinese agents are serving time in federal prison on espionage-related charges. They stole sensitive weapons technology, trade secrets and other classified information bound for China. Some of the cases involve agents operating on behalf of the Chinese government or intelligence. Earlier this month, a former B-2 stealth bomber engineer in Hawaii was convicted of selling military secrets to China. He sold stealth cruise missile technology to Beijing during trips there. The growing espionage threat comes on the heels of the administration's decision last year to downgrade our own intelligence gathering on China from "Priority 1" status, alongside Iran and North Korea, to "Priority 2." The decision sent shock waves throughout the U.S. intelligence community, according to China expert Bill Gertz. So while China has deployed an army of agents to spy on us, we've reined in our spooks. That means our intelligence about China's military buildup will only suffer, adding to an already dangerous gap there. "China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity every year," said Adm. Robert Willard, the new commander of U.S. Pacific Command. "They've grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities." Added GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee: "China is aggressively pursuing military capabilities and aggressively conducting cyberattacks" against the United States. Gertz says the downgrade came after Beijing lobbied Obama's intelligence czar, Dennis Blair, who once called Taiwan the "turd in the punch bowl" of U.S.-China relations. Let's hope this administration's soft China policy doesn't produce the kind of mass transfer of secrets to Beijing and security breakdown we witnessed under the Clinton administration. [InvestorsBusinessDaily/17August2010] 2b1af7f3a8