Comments on: 1993 - Point of Impact

By: HammerNH

HammerNH — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:19:06 +0000

I just finished 47th Samurai & have to agree with Ian. Oh, it was a good read. And it ended with the bad guys dying and good guys winning. But Bob the Nailer not shooting? That, as Mr. Spock would say, is not logical.

And no, Marky-Mark cannot be considered cloe to right as Bob Lee Swagger, especially with gratuitous shots at the Bush Administration as part of the re-write.
For that reason alone I skipped a movie that otherwise I would have liked to pay for. I hope the check cleared Mr. Hunter.

Now if there are to be more faithful (ie patriotic, country boy) versions in the future, why not try Viggo Mortensen as Bob Lee - or as Earl in some of the other books? Timothy Olyphant could pull it off too, I think. Or possibly Thomas Haden Church.
Make a true-to-the-plot & action version of these books and Steven Hunter’s name will become like Ian Fleming’s (yes I know most Bond movies are nothing like the books). I am talking about creating a folowing for the movie versions - something the lefty hollywood treatment cannot do.

By: ian

ian — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:37:44 +0000

I found a copy of this in a hospital library many years ago.
Point of Impact may not be the greatest novel ever written. Tolstoy? Steinbeck?
But for me it is arguably the most entertaining book I’ve ever read. Just about the only book I’ve ever read more than once. The only one I’ve read three times. And I’m about ready to give it yet another perusal. Bob the nailer. This guy is truly one of the great American heros of our time.
The movie didn’t work at all, but then I knew it wouldn’t long before it came out. Wahlberg? Gimme a break. Tommy Lee Jones or Clint Eastwood when in their late 30’s to early 40’s. Maybe Tom Beringer or Nick Nolte.
The 47th Samurai?
Bob Lee Swagger with out a firearm in his hand is a concept almost too ludacris to even mention. The idea he could learn how to handle a katana in a few short weeks, months, even years also seems a bit loco. Plot wasn’t bad.
characters well fleshed out. But Bob the nailer trying to be samurai? Mr. Hunter,
if I had a son I wouldn’t love him the way I love you, but gee whiz. Come on now,really!

By: Trixie6

Trixie6 — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:08:55 +0000

My Dad recommended Point of Impact & I’m so glad he did. I loved it! I’ve decided against seeing the movie, though, because I just don’t think Mark Wahlberg is a good Bob Lee. In the book, Hunter writes that Bob Lee was 26 in 1975 when he left the military. That would make him 44 in 1993. Mark Wahlberg is just too young & not quite rugged enough to pull off Bob Lee. I’m curious as to what those who have seen the movie think of him as Bob Lee?

By: ditchdoc

ditchdoc — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:30:08 +0000

First of all: My first sentence in my last post said “no censorship intended” That should have been enough for most people. Some just want to argue. Secondly: I said “critics” and by that I meant the professionals (Mr. Hunter excluded, since he CAN, obviously, write). Those of us who pay our hard-earned cash for books and movies are not the ones I’m speaking of. Thirdly: Mr. Hunter sold the movie rights for HIS book to the film company. I’m pretty sure he knew what he was getting into. If he doesn’t have heartburn over the final movie–I don’t either. Finally: “Hollywood types”?? What OTHER kind of movie makers are there? Gee. I wonder who I’ll piss off next.

By: hazmat

hazmat — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:07:34 +0000

Ditchdoc.. I find your double standard humorous. It’s not okay for a fan of a well-loved book to express their negative opinion(valid opinion, positive OR negative.. it is an opinion, after all) without it being considered as follows:

“They are invariably people who cannot act, cannot write, cannot direct or produce. So what do they do? They criticize people who do. Just listen to them. They regularly pan very popular action movies or popular fiction, and talk-up some highbrow, boring, period piece.”

However, it’s quite fine for you to pan and criticize that opinion. Interesting. I’m not trying to start an argument, just give the folks who have read and love Hunter’s books the same consideration you’re willing to give the Hollywood types who took far too many liberties in the creation of this movie.

Sure, books and movies are intended for escape and entertainment, that’s fine. We all were entertained by the exploits of Bob Lee Swagger and escaped into his world while we read the books… this is why we all have read them multiple times and were jiggling in our seats when the movie was announced. We wanted to go back there, see it live and in our faces. Instead we were given a worked over treatment of Point of Impact that stayed tight to the plot for the most part but deviated terribly from the picture Hunter painted for us all in the book. Loved it, hated it, enjoyed it for what it was… that’s all fine and good, to each their own. Nobody’s wrong and nobody’s right. Personally, I prefer my Bob Lee Swagger as a veteran of Vietnam, hard-nosed Blue Eye, Arkansas boy. Instead we got a pony-tailed Boston Swagger fresh out of Afghanistan… with a COMPUTER in his shack!!!! It wasn’t true to the character that first got me hooked on Hunter’s writing and I was disappointed. Without having read the book(the case with several of my friends) I would possibly have loved this movie. As it is, it could stand on its own without being directly connected to a fine novel. I just wasn’t satisfied. Pardon me for being a fan.

Haz… who cannot act, write, direct or produce, but who can have an opinion of a beloved work of fiction that has been “given the bid’ness” by Hollywood

By: ditchdoc

ditchdoc — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:26:27 +0000

No cencorship intended. But, honestly, how many movie book adaptations have you EVER seen that were as good as the novel? It’s pretty much impossible to get the depth of character or plot nuance accross in a movie. People would be a lot less disappointed if they went to see movies for entertainment and not some redeeming social value or personal expectation. I’ve always had a problem with critics, in general, whether they are book or movie critics. They are invariably people who cannot act, cannot write, cannot direct or produce. So what do they do? They criticize people who do. Just listen to them. They regularly pan very popular action movies or popular fiction, and talk-up some highbrow, boring, period piece. They, like a lot of us, miss the point of movies and books. Escape and entertainment.

By: WIN2535

WIN2535 — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:01:20 +0000

I never asked Mr. Hunter to give up writing his books.

I think he is a great writer and has kept me up passed my normal hours because I was unable to put the book down. Earl and Bob are two fantastic characters. How Mr. Hunter writes, has drawn me into every book, so far.

My main comment was that due to the political BS placed in the made for movie adaptation of one of his very good books, I was completely disappointed.

It’s a comment, negative but still valid unless we are dealing with censorship here?

By: ditchdoc

ditchdoc — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:18:06 +0000

Well, let’s all hope that Mr. Hunter does not give up writing the Swagger novels just because WIN2535 didn’t care for the movie adaptation. I can guess that Mr. Hunter did not have much input into the final cut of the movie.We never get everything we want. You’re out a few bucks and a couple hours of your life. Live with it.

By: WIN2535

WIN2535 — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:39:10 +0000

The movie was a sham compared to Stephen Hunters book. Political attacks at our standing President make me feel like Michael Moore directed this movie.
Due to this absolute trashing of the original text and story I can only say that I will not see another one of Stephen Hunters books made for the screen by anyone attached to this last film.
To Mr. Hunter. If what was made into the movie was agreed on by you, I will not invest anymore time with your books.

What a complete waste of time and money.

By: Keith Crow

Keith Crow — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:24:08 +0000

I first read this book in 1994 and have read it countless times since then. I got my wife to read it and she couldn’t put it down. We really looked forward to the movie but were extremely disappointted. The movie plot strayed so far from the book I can understand why it did not do well at the box office. The only thing that I really liked was the development of FBI agent Nick (Pork) Memphis and Danny Glover as the colonel.
Bob Lee Swagger is a hard-nosed marine that still wears his hair short and dresses in out-dated cowboy attire when he goes to the “city”. Showing a scruffy looking guy with a pony tail had me laughing. The movie did not build Donny’s character and the depth of their friendship. It completely left out the attorney (Old Sam) and the court room scene. It also left out FBI supervisor “Howdy Doody”. In the end it makes Bob Lee a murder by killing a room full of un-armed men. In this book and all the others that followed, he never did that.
It struck me that the book was converted into a California “cool” movie… U.S. military leaves combat team in desert to die, the U.S. government is murdering entire villages for the oil companies.
Bottom line; the movie messed up a really great book.