Sniper 6: Tireur fantôme

A fair supporting cast doing a mediocre job for a very stiff main carachter.

The" love" interest angle was awful as it didn't make sense as does part of the plot but you realize the reason for the 1st half while watching the rest of it. It was just poorly planned, or written and directed. It fought itself.

The movie only comes together during the 2nd half, if you get that far, as technically the gunplay doesn't make sense either, that is if you have any military or police experience, so make sure to turn off your brain (or have a very strong alcoholic beverage so you don't care.) Remember to turn on the 'closed caption' at the beginning otherwise you won't get any of the dialog as the loud ethnic music drowns out the speaking parts and you spend most of the movie thinking 'wtf did he just say?' Oh, and the main carachter speaks with clenched teeth which doesn't help his dialog and it comes off forced and uncharismatic, instead of tough. Haysbert and Zane, and the foreign counterpart assigned to the team are what hold the film together but I couldn't refrain from thinking throughout the whole thing that I could have been watching reruns of "the unit" and had a better time.

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.

It's amazing that the Tom Berenger / Billy Zane thriller Sniper (1993) franchise has made it this far. Has this series cultivated a secret fanbase? Or do the producers believe there is a fanbase and keep on making sequels anyway? It just seems hard to believe that the first film would have made such an impact on viewers. It was well executed movie yes but the crew attached didn't have filmmakers like Steven Spielberg or Clint Eastwood in the director's chair. The man behind the first film was Luis Llosa, the director of The Specialist (1994) and Anaconda (1997). These were both films that people viewed as fairly silly movies. This is probably Llosa's best entry in American cinema but it still won't hold a flame to a lot of other well made popular films. When a series like this has gotten this far in making sequels with no public critical reception, it truly is an anomaly. So how does this sixth entry hold up in the array of sniper films? Well it certainly isn't unwatchable,...yet. Thankfully it works but it has warning signs.

Directed again by Don Michael Paul from Sniper: Legacy (2014), fans are once again brought back to Sgt. Brandon Beckett (Chad Michael Collins) in the field doing what he does best. Unfortunately after hesitating on an assignment and lashing out at another officer, Richard Miller (Billy Zane) puts him on probation with Russian sniper Andrei Mashkov (Ravil Isyanov). Meanwhile the Colonel (Dennis Haysbert) and assistant lead Robin Slater (Stephanie Vogt) try to find a "ghost shooter" by the name of Gazakov (Velislav Pavlov) who's looking to stop a certain business pipeline. Written this time by Chris Hauty, the screenplay works to some degree but fails to make certain connections clear and answer some questions. For Hauty, this is his fifth writing credit of which this is his first related work to this series. This is possible as to why not everything is clear, but Hauty has written for three other sequels so he should have had some idea as to what constituted as a narrative that continued the story at an engaging level.

Unsuccessfully this isn't the case here. Hauty's inclusion of the probation period for Beckett was okay until it became unnecessarily extended for an action shootout sequence. That in fact could have been substituted in for time with Beckett's other team members like Barnes (Enoch Frost), Cervantes (Nick Gomez), Aungst (Presciliana Esparolini) or just cut it out completely. Ravil Isyanov as Mashkov does have some comical quips with Beckett but the development really should have went to somebody closer. Then there's no explanation for missing persons. What happened to Sanaa (Mercedes Mason) from Sniper: Legacy (2014) or even Beckett Sr. (Tom Berenger) for that matter? Where did these characters vanish to? Where's the consistency? When starting the second trilogy, you brought on Billy Zane, then dropped him for Tom Berenger and then did the reverse again? Fans should demand to see Billy Zane and Tom Berenger on the same screen again. Those are the two old men who started it all, so get them on the same screen.

Now although Zane and Berenger are still not on screen together, Billy Zane returning as Richard Miller is still acceptable. Zane still looks like he's having fun in the role and enjoys playing the sarcastic wise cracking supervisor of Beckett's son. Miller even has a few comments that don't even really make sense but the way he says it is anyway. When it comes to Beckett Jr.'s team, few of them get much development. Sure they have a few moments of flare but nothing really makes the viewer want to see more of them and hope they survive all the shootouts. Of the members, only Cervantes (Nick Gomez) has some kind of arc. Everyone else is just kind of there. As for other actors, there's also appearances from Dominic Mafham and Navid Negahban as a blind connection to Gasakov. Negahban playing a blind man had a great look. Foggy contacts make him look like someone who's real clever and full of knowledge. Mafham as Bidwell "Bulletface" sadly gets less screen time than he did before but when he is shown, it's good to see him.

Action sequences were well executed again. There might've been not as much carnage edited in but it still got fairly messy. The shooting throughout this film is quite abundant so there's bound to be explosions and RPGs. In addition, there are also drones in which are used in firing missiles. Those perhaps are the weakest looking parts because obviously they wouldn't have real drones. The camera-work provided by Martin Chichov looked good. It wasn't easy to tell what was green screen and what was actually filmed. Much of the scenery looked authentic and shot on sight. The film also may not be the ultimate widescreen but there is a number of establishing shots that get a lot of the landscape and it looks great. Composing the musical score for the second time in this franchise was Frederik Wiedmann. Regrettably again, Wiedmann does not have or bother to create a memorable main cue for this franchise but that thought seems to have died long ago. As for music in general, it's decently composed with guitar and Middle Eastern instruments.

Now that this series has completed its second trilogy, maybe the producers and filmmakers can get back to basics once more. The main actors, music, action and camera-work are fun but it's all brainless. The connections are lazily tacked in and some scenes could've been utilized more efficiently.

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.

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.