By B. James Johncox
I should begin with a caveat. This is not a review of a film. I am not a film critic. Furthermore, God knows that Rotten Tomatoes and I disagree on what constitutes a good movie more often than we don’t. This is a sniper analyzing a movie about snipers. Essentially, it is an attempt to determine the accuracy in tactics and equipment. Personally, I enjoy this particular movie, despite the film critics.
I first saw the movie Sniper, starring Tom Berenger and Billy Zane when it was released on VHS in 1993. It was a Friday and like every Friday, my parents had taken my sister and I to the movie rental store and allowed us each to choose a movie to rent. It might seem odd that I can recall this particular Friday in August some 31 years ago, but I was extremely excited about this movie. We could not afford to go to the movie theater to see movies on a regular basis back then, but I thought renting them and watching them at home was better… I still do.
I do not know how, at ten years old, I knew what a sniper was, but I just did. At least, I had some kind of idea. After watching it, I was completely blown away. The good guys were quiet, and sneaky, and had special guns and special camouflage uniforms that allowed them to blend in seamlessly with the jungle. It was that moment that I knew what I wanted to be when I grew up… a sniper.
I believe myself to be like most American boys born in the 80’s. I was rough and tumble, building forts in the woods, fashioning primitive weapons out of twine, sticks, and rocks. I could often be seen riding my bicycle around the neighborhood with a “Rambo” headband wrapped around my brow. Most likely it was a result of that era of film.
The action movie era, as it were, was chock full of A-List super stars, to include: Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester “Sly” Stallone, Chuck Norris, even Jean Claude Van Damme. They were pretending to be what I wanted to be when I got older… namely, the hero. The rest is history. While my peers grew up to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, salesmen, and mechanics, I became a soldier… and then I became a sniper.
I never forgot that initial introduction to what would become my profession. In my head, during my training, I often wondered when they would teach us to sand our trigger finger’s fingertip to “better marry our finger to the trigger break.” I was obviously much older by that time and knew that there were often stark contrasts between what was shown in the movies and what was reality, thus I never spoke my movie related queries to my cadre.
At any rate, I recently re-watched the movie that started my path all those years ago and I wish to provide an honest review. Does the movie that inspired my life hold up to scrutiny?
First, one has to accept that a certain degree of reality has to be suspended in order to truly enjoy a movie. No portrayal of any profession is going to withstand close scrutiny. That is to say, a large amount of sensationalism has to be added to keep it exciting. Otherwise, a sniper movie would be incredibly boring. No one wants to watch a grown man “skull drag” through the dirt for two hours. Furthermore, adding fresh “veg” to a ghillie suit does not a thriller make. Therefore, there must be a certain degree of forgiveness built into the review.
Let’s jump in.
The movie opens with Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Beckett, portrayed by Berenger, creeping through a jungle that we later learn is located in Panama. He and his spotter, Corporal Papich, are “kitted out” in their ghillie suits and are crawling through the dense forest floor. When it comes to paying attention to details, Berenger did his homework. He is performing a high-crawl, during which he is gripping his rifle near the sling swivel with the stock laying over the back of his hand as he crawls… This is a proper technique, and although most would not pay attention to something as seemingly small as that, a sniper will pay extremely close attention to the details.
This is the case throughout the film.
When there is a fine detail that most would not notice, Berenger aced it. Even something as inane as applying camouflage face paint, Berenger utilizes a camo stick… the vaunted “camo crayon” that every soldier cringes at the thought of using. At the same time, Billy Zane’s character, GS-9 Richard Miller, is using the “camo compac.” The camo compac was a Clothing and Sales “goody,” and the concept that non-military personnel would opt to use it adds credibility and practical realism to the film. It was much easier to utilize to apply camo with the compac, but it was not officially “approved” for use. Most NCO’s did not care if a soldier used it, but its color palette was better suited to Halloween face paint than practical camouflage.
Another detail that was not overlooked is the incredible trigger discipline. If our heroes were not about to fire a weapon, they kept their booger hookers off the bang switch. It seems that almost no movie gets this right, but Sniper did.
Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely small discrepancies, but one would have to pay very close attention in order to catch them.
In a scene where the pair were to take out a “target of opportunity,” an ex-CIA spook gone rogue, Master Guns Beckett begins dictating environmentals to Agent Miller. He makes mention of the wind coming off of the water… this is what real snipers do. Snipers know that amateurs study trajectory while professionals study wind. However, Beckett tells Miller, “one click right… make that two clicks…” Miller then makes an adjustment to his scope’s elevation turret… not the windage turret.
I wanted to reach through the screen and slap his hand, as my instructors once did to me.
There is another problem with this scene, as far as I am concerned. Considering the equipment of that particular time period, both Beckett and Miller’s scopes would have utilized Minute of Angle turrets… a.k.a. M.O.A. Typically, these are graduated in ¼ minute increments. Some earlier models, like the Unertl 10 X Sniper scope that would have been used on the M40 rifle that Beckett was carrying, had ½ MOA graduations… or, should have. Without easily visible markings, neither Miller’s scope nor Beckett’s scope were easily identifiable. At any rate, most snipers would avoid saying the word “click” or “clicks” when talking about making windage or elevation adjustments. We mostly try to be very precise. Thus, in a realistic situation, Becket would have more than likely said “half minute right… Make that one minute…”
There is a massive hiccup in this movie.
That is the incredibly bad visuals utilized for the scope reticles. The only one that was even close to being accurate was the “bad guy” sniper’s scope, minus the Cyrillic lettering on the right-hand side that loosely translates to “D F J.” I’m not sure what that was about other than it looked Soviet at a time when the Soviet Union had only recently crumbled. Still, it did resemble the PSO-1 bullet drop compensated reticle that was specifically designed for the SVD. I think the worst has to be Miller’s scope. His rifle, the HK SR9TC (Target Competition) was utilizing what appears to be a Kahles model scope. If you pause the movie during the helicopter gun fight, you can see the side of his scope says, “Made in Austria.” But, the reticle is laughable. Beckett’s M40 was less irritating, being that it featured a simple duplex reticle with a weird zig-zag line at the end of each crosshair.
I believe there are a few reasons this was done.
Filming in the early 90’s was not as technologically advanced as it is now, thus the “looking through the scope” scenes was just camera footage that had a graphic superimposed on it after the fact.
The creators seemingly decided to make each reticle a “character,” so to speak, in the film. First, to differentiate whose scope the audience is witnessing and second to demonstrate the “high-tech” Miller scope vs. the “Old Salt” Beckett scope… future vs. past and all that allegorical non-sense that goes along with it.
When considering the limits of filming in the 90’s it is forgivable. After all, it is not as though any of the ranges that the sniper’s in the film referenced were even close to being correct… at one point, Beckett appears to be aiming across the street, some 30 yards, as he announces the range to be 650 (he doesn’t say yards, meters, or feet. Not that it matters, it was nowhere near close to any of those.) If the creators had actually tried to film from 650 yards away, the audience would have seen nothing but blurry silhouettes trotting across the screen and it would not be quite as exciting or dramatic.
The icing on the cake, as it were, is the classic sniper movie trope… shooting an enemy sniper in the eye, through the scope.
Well, it is considered a trope now… but not so much then. Sniper was the first movie to depict such a shot. Carlos Hathcock reportedly made such a shot during the Vietnam War, but there are those who would contest that such a shot could be made. It is a touchy subject, especially among Marines, and I’m not about to pick a fight with my jarhead brothers…
Perhaps in a later article.
At any rate, it definitely makes for an entertaining movie.
So, now we come to it.
How did Sniper, starring Tom Berenger and Billy Zane, do?
The answer might surprise you.
Insofar as the actors are concerned, and their portrayal of professional snipers… they got it mostly right. From movement, to applying fresh veg to their ghillie suits, these fellas did it correctly… mostly.
I saw Billy Zane flag Berenger’s back with his rifle once, and at one point, Berenger flags Zane with a Sig Sauer pistol… had that not happened, they would get an A+.
In fact, I was so impressed, that I researched both of the Military Advisors utilized for the filming of this movie, one of which was a Marine Corps Sniper who saw action in Vietnam.
As far as the story itself is concerned, that is up to you to decide. Movies are designed to entertain and shed light on something that the rest of the world might not otherwise get to witness.
This one, in contrast to other action movies of that decade, and within the constraints of the available technology, did its best to portray realism and accuracy when it comes to snipers.
Unlike the other action movies of the 90’s, this one demonstrated subtlety while simultaneously paying close attention to details… this attention to detail, in my opinion, contributed to the excitement of the film.
James Johncox brings an unparalleled perspective to the history of American snipers in his upcoming release “Sniper’s Discretion: Unveiling America’s Sharpshooter History“, drawing from two decades of service as a former sniper and current instructor. His career spans the United States Army and law enforcement, offering him a unique vantage point shaped by real-world experience and a deep commitment to his craft. Driven by a passion for truth, James pursued a degree in Military History while working full-time, where he encountered a pervasive liberal bias even within his field of study. Determined to set the record straight, he authored this book, combining rigorous academic research with firsthand insights to reveal the untold story of American snipers. James’s work is a compelling and unflinching account of the challenges faced by these elite marksmen, both on the battlefield and beyond.