MovieChat Forums > The Hurt Locker (2009) Discussion > The sniper scene

The sniper scene

posted 13 years ago by josh-coomber
43 replies | jump to latest

Is it me or do American directors love to kill off British personnel when it comes to movies that involve war. I really wouldn't be complaining if there wasn't so many things wrong with this scene.

Lets start of when Ralph feinnes gives away his position whilst firing the sniper rifle and gets killed by the enemy in the small brick hut. One shot and he misses and gets himself killed right.

Now an American steps up who hasn't shown he can use a sniper rifle. He is basically part of a bomb squad, and through out most of the movie we see him with an assault rifle in his hands. No one can just step up to a sniper rifle of that caliber, or any for that matter and just no how to use it and use it well. Maybe he does no how to handle a sniper rifle, but we are just not told about it. Which is just bad directing. It's like an assault trooper on the ground stepping into a helicopter and flying it just like that.

Ok so now Sanborn pulls himself upto the exact same position Feinnes was in when he got killed. Problem number one. If you're going to take up the exact position in where someone has just been shot and killed by a "SNIPER" then you've probably been smoking something. How in gods name is the enemy marksman not going to see someone else crawl up to a mounted sniper rifle when he would still have his sights on the same position after killing someone seconds before.

Problem number 2. When Sanborn fires the sniper rifle at the enemy and misses, he is literally doing the exact same thing feinnes did to get himself shot. Give away his position with a cloud of gun smoke without hitting his target. Now obviously Sanborn is in the same position when firing the weapon so the enemy marksman will no exactly where he is. But somehow the enemy sniper doesn't back an eye lid and gives them atleast 2 minutes to fetch another clip, whilst first class william james screams out at the top of his lungs "ELDRIDGE WE NEED MORE AMMO." That's basically like telling the other sniper "HEY I'M OVER HERE!!! THATS RIGHT IN THE SAME POSITION YOU SHOT THE LAST GUY WITH A CLOUD OF GUNSMOKE AND MY LOUD VOICE POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS!!" But still the enemy marksman doesn't back an eye lid.

Problem number 3. 3-4 minutes after Eldridge hands them another clip (Whilst still maintaining the same position as a dead man.) Sanborn fires at the enemy on the roof of the hut killing both of them. The marksman inside the hut almost has around 6 odd minutes to kill Sanborn, but still doesn't fire a single shot. I mean seriously, is he playing with himself in there?

This whole scene is just an American director bastardizing a british force to make the American soldiers seem like heroes. It's an absolute load of bolox. And a situation which is pathetic. You don't crawl up to a dead mans position seconds after being killed from a sniper. And the enemy marksman doesn't just sit there for 10 minutes whilst they casually get some ammo and shout out each others names. Giving away there position more than three times.

The rest of the movie i like. And don't get me wrong I'm not calling out a debate on what force is better and what isn't. But god this just would never happen. I mean if the enemy marksman started firing back and missing Sanborn then you'd think it would be at least a little reasonable. But no, he doesn't fire a single shot. And when he does finally go to fire he gets killed straight away.

[–] zacharyrobinette 13 years ago

Well said, and also, I didn't want to have to type all that. I totally agree, and was biting my lip through the whole thing. I kept saying, "same spot, really!?" Obviously the Iraqi sniper was a crack shot, so the only real answer is that yes, he must have been playing with himself. My only note, I think the phrase is "BAT an eyelid."

Z

[–] josh-coomber 13 years ago

I think the phrase is "BAT an eyelid."

I thought i wrote that, never mind. =]

[–] surround_sound 13 years ago

that they didn't move or relocate was interesting. There are scenes which depict tedium of war and this is certainly one of them. My only other thought was in the special feature on the DVD the actor playing Sanborn relates that there is a superhero aspect to depiction of soldiers in film.

[–] Ate_Arms 13 years ago

Its great when someone posts something you would have wanted to post but either dont have time or cant be bothered. Nice one op couldnt agree more.

I mean, it was a ridiculous scene, The fact they dragged it out to increase the tension just made it even more daft, The Iraqi had some shot on him but doesnt fire again...in about ten minutes..at a guy in the same spot..ok

[–] josh-coomber 13 years ago

Glad you feel the sameway.

[–] mike171979 13 years ago

The scene was ridiculous, but the simplistic director was just making a statement. If you go after 2 guys for 500,000 pounds, and for no other reason than 500,000 pounds, then your going to die because your nothing buy a bounty hunter taking advantage of a war.

Now, personally, I don't think theres anything wrong with bounty hunters, during war-time or not. I was pissed off when the director killed him off just to make her stupid, liberal, peace-loving, naive, statement.

[–] surround_sound 13 years ago

But to James, war is a drug so is he any different? At least they might make a profit!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ate_Arms 12 years ago

Aye, couldnt feel any other way.

[–] josh-coomber 13 years ago

Obviously you're american and would subject to dismissing these views automatically. When really you've come up with no valid explanation.

It is poor directing that an assault trooper like sanborn can use a sniper rifle with out any detailed backround of being able to do so. No one can just stand up to a 50 cal sniper rifle and use it well. Especially when we see sanborn carry an assault rifle around with him through out the entire film.

So you're going to dismiss the fact that the rebel sniper managed to pull of and kill ralph feiness with one shot of a sniper rifle. But when Sanborn steps up, the rebel sniper goes into a retarded stand still and all of a sudden can't seem to fire his weapon at the target in the same location he killed the other. Yes that makes complete sense seen as he's already done it once before. So what your saying is, even though the rebel sniper has already killed someone from the same distance with one shot, that now he's going to struggle to do so again.

There are many thing's wrong with your argument. The rebel sniper would have a perfect shot at sanborn as he stepped up to the same location as a dead man. So knowing the rebel sniper can pull of one shot and kill ralph feinnes from the same position. Do you really think it'ts going to be hard for the rebel to pull of the exact same shot. If he's that good enough to do it in the first place he'll have no problem re-enacting the same motions. Also take into consideration that all of a sudden the rebel sniper just decides he doesn't want to fire his weapon. This doesn't make sense what so ever. With in seconds of feinnes being killed, sanborn steps up to the mounted sniper rifle. Now i'm no sniper myself. But you don't have to be a rocket sciencetist to figure out that in reality, the rebel would still be aiming down his sights after killing someone. Or in this case he decides to play with himself knowing there are more people with in range of his first kill.

Your last comment just sums it all up. We all know americans are patriotic people. What a way to up one on a british force than to do it in a movie.

[–] mario10zeus 12 years ago

OP has a strong point. Sanborn steps into the exact same position as Fiennes, basically suicide. And the Iraqi sniper is pretty good, he just killed Fiennes from a distance of 800 meters. Also his rifle might be Ameircan-made. Don't forget that the US govt sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s.

I'm not a military expert, but if Sanborn was at one point a sniper, would he switch to EOD?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

I realise that they were bounty hunters or mercenaries. Considering Ralph Feinnes was clearly british it is understandable that the rest of them were as well. You do realise that most mercenaries come from military backrounds. As was seen in Libya when british mercenaries formally from the SAS went in to aid the rebels. This is just another occasion when that might of happened.

I completely disagree with you when you say the directors aim was not to bastardize a british force. When clearly nothing in this scene made any sense in a sense of realism. It was to highlight american patriotism at it's finest. The director doesn't need previous encounters of this kind of movie making to be slandered for her patriotic act. It was all down to this scene which identified it to be so. Now i'll read the rest of your comments on my apparent "Wall of text." But you're going to have to come up with a miracle to defend this scene for everything wrong it stands for.

Ralph feiness skills don't need to be taken into account what so ever. It's simply down to the fact of wrongful realism. No man would step up to a dead mans position and mount a sniper rifle. It has nothing to do with way Feinnes can handle it himself.

And i don't see how you can't visualize the similarities of difficulty and standards from manning a helicopter to a sniper rifle. Fair enough both are completely different forms used in warfare. But see past the fact that one has propellers and the others a rifle. And you'll find out that each has there own way of expertise. No man can just fly a helicopter. Just like no man can just step up to a sniper rifle. Especially one of high caliber we saw in the movie. Fair enough sanborn can use an assault rifle. But yes I'm no expert. But there are groups of soldiers aligned for each class of weaponry which takes a sophisticated amount of training in that certain field. You think an assault class can automatically engage himself to recon and use a sniper rifle that well. Or as well as sanborn did. I highly doubt that. And the fact it wasn't explained to us in the movie whether he is good in that field or not is bad directing. My assumption stands by the fact he is holding an assault rifle in his hands through out the whole movie. And the only backround check we get from sanborn is that he was in the rangers. If perhaps sanborn was asked " How do you learn to use a rifle like that?" Then maybe i wouldn't bring up this flaw. Just because someone has been in the military for a long time doesn't mean they know everything.

Sanborn still mounts the tripod at a dead mans position. Fair enough he's lower prone than feinnes was. But if sanborn can look through his sights and manage to kill the sniper with in the hut. Almost certainly that sniper will still be able to see sanborn. Especially after taking up the exact same position from his last shot. Yet the sniper in the hut doesn't fire a single round. Which makes no sense what so ever. Take into account how many people sanborn kills before he decides to go for the man in the hut. And james screaming out of the top of his lungs for more ammo. You really think after all that time the enemy in the hut is going to be oblivious to sanborns position. He shouldn't be in the first place as i've explained before. The sniper in the hut should still be aiming down his sights after feinnes was killed. It's clear the enemy encounters a whole group of people and does not just take aim at feinnes knowing he's the only person there. If you knew others were in the same position mounting themselves behind cover. Would really take a cigarette break and decide there's no point in keeping your sights trained on that position. Just incase someone so happens to reach for the sniper rifle of someone you've just killed. And somehow so happens to use it. Even going back to this part of the scene is ridiculous.

And also does it really mater what language they are speaking. I mean seriously are you that stupid. The enemy doesn't need to know what there enemies are saying. "Oh quick he's gone to get more ammo, kill him quickly." You're completely missing the point here. It's the simple factor of james raising his voice to give away a position which should of been spotted along time ago in the scene. But still nothing. Oh and that small dust storm you're talking about isn't there. Not forgetting the fact that if it was suddenly sanborn has thermal imaging attached to his retinal. Oh the enemy can't see through the dust storm but sanborn can? That makes complete sense. IF this were the case, which it isn't. Then the enemy would clarify sanborns position much more easily if they couldn't see him. You think a dust storm is going to stop voices from being heard. Well if sanborn couldn't see the enemy and the enemy couldn't see him. Then raised noises would be the perfect source for spotting. But you obviously don't know what a "Dust storm" is. Compared to that of a small dust devil or small grains of sand slightly wisping through the air. If there was a dust storm pal then none of them would be able to breath let alone see and shoot more than 4 enemies from a distance with a sniper rifle.

Lol I'm not being a dick here. But dog the bounty hunter is a long bearded american that puts people in prison for dodging court. Mercenaries are completely different people that are used as bounty hunters. Scroll to the top of this reply and you'll find out exactly what i mean.

And even if this wasn't a British force. They're still British. And that's enough for the americans to bastardize.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

Oh bugger off Toni. Your whole argument was based upon slightly insulting me by calling me an idiot. You don't have to type the words for me to read between the lines.

I can have a good conversation with people. But this isn't a conversation is it Toni. It's an argument.

I'm not a c()nt. And i would apologise if you didn't take the words i type on a keyboard to seriously. And calling me a prick and telling me my parents should be proud, as if i'm five years old doesn't really help either. If you want to reply then do so. I'll read it but i wont reply back because i don't want to argue continuously.

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

ToniHunterOne

You wrote:

People like you can never manage an adult conversation without making a personal attack. Your parents must be so proud. What a pr ck!

I too was drawn in on another thread by a remark made by josh-coomber. I responded in measured tones but like you I have learned (and it is by no means a new lesson) he is an ignominious and irksome individual incapable of stringing a cogent sentence together and representative of the majority of IMDb posters that believe by sharing their ruminations on these boards they are imparting wisdom to all that bother to read their thoughts. Time and again it's the same old thing: such users have all the wit and charm of a chimp given a typewriter.

I just want to echo your stance and reiterate how sad it is that when no marks such as our friend coomber are faced with alternative explanations and viewpoints they are unable to address those points in an adult matter and as you say cannot manage a mature discussion.

And I wonder why I post so infrequently on the boards these days.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

" I responded in measured tones but like you I have learned (and it is by no means a new lesson) he is an ignominious and irksome individual incapable of stringing a cogent sentence together and representative of the majority of IMDb posters that believe by sharing their ruminations on these boards they are imparting wisdom to all that bother to read their thoughts."

I didn't realise that when typing a sentence that long it doesn't need to contain any commas what so ever. But it's nice of you to come here and be hypocritical of my grammar.

Also your point of coming here to agree with someone who thinks i'm a child and incoherently agreeing with it is quite nice of you. Seen as you had to write in another thread I've posted in to get my attention, when i have nor read or replied to your last post. I'm such a child aren't i.

Oh and if you're going to try and crave more attention then please feel free to reply to this post in your own defense. But again if it has nothing to do with the title of this topic i won't read nor reply to it. So go ahead and have a Field day for the sake of arguing like everyone else. ;]

In fact because you're a moron trying to get a point across that isn't there, to gain brownie points from people who won't read what you have written in your defense to make you not look like an idiot in front of the eyes of people that do read your bull *beep* I'll ignore you and you can read mine.

Oh and if you're going across my reply to look for mistakes because i mocked your so called sentence, feel free to do so if it makes you feel better. <3

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

Of course you didn't realise, josh-coomber. Why would you?

With your grasp of the English language and atrocious spelling being as it is, I’m not the least bit surprised to learn you’ve never heard of “run-on” sentences. I’m an editor and have worked for a publisher for a number of years. The sentence you quoted requires no punctuation; in fact the insertion of commas would undermine its intent.

Do you even know the difference between “it’s” and “its”? Reading one of your posts is painful to the eye; picking apart your fragmented sentences, subject-verb agreement errors, comma splices, missing apostrophes in possessives, unnecessary apostrophes in plural words and numbers. That is to say nothing of the consistently appalling use of a lower case “i”.

Have you ever read a stream of consciousness novel? Have you ever read a book written by Joseph Heller, Bret Easton Ellis, Chuck Palahniuk or even Anne Rice, to name but four randomly plucked from the air? I suspect you might still be stuck on comics but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve maybe read a few books, even though I can tell a novel such as Catch-22 would have you reaching for a dictionary every couple of minutes.

Going on the overly generous assumption that you have read a full length novel authored by a contemporary writer, perhaps you noticed some long sentences bereft of punctuation, perhaps not?

One thing’s for sure, you’re obviously unaware that many accomplished and educated authors frequently write sentences that spill over into a hundred or more words with no punctuation. It’s true such writing styles don’t pander to conventional English as it’s taught in grade school. Does it render the author’s writing style incorrect, incoherent, or irrelevant? Of course not but how typical of you to focus on this and whine like a reprimanded child, unrelenting in the misinformed conviction of your specious drivel.

With regards to mocking my sentence, that’s very funny. Others have pointed out your shortcomings on this and other boards and you’ll need to up your game several leagues before you even think of approaching me, you silly little boy.

Incidentally, “what so ever” is one word: like so... “whatsoever” and “careless” as used in the context of the quote to follow is two words. But let’s not get pernickety and bogged down in your errors; I don’t have an entire day to waste picking apart your tediously garbled and incomprehensibly banal ruminations.

Instead, try and concentrate on a reply to this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081070/board/flat/200379043?d=207161131#2 07161131

Note that my reply ended on that thread ended with the words “The fact that your English and grammar are appalling is neither here nor there and is not something I would ever bring up unless the other party points to it, as you predictably have here.” The bold type is to emphasise a point you’ve conveniently missed. You were the one to focus on punctuation and grammar; very rich coming from someone with an average Flesch–Kincaid score of 6.2 (sorry, I had to take a sample of your posts to find that out).

You drew attention to yourself in your post time-stamped Sat Nov 17 2012 19:54:30 writing:

Heavens forbid you might even try to correct me on my spelling and grammar. Sorry to disappoint but i couldn't careless.

Oh contraire! Clearly you more than “care less”. You’re clearly rattled and very upset about the matter.

Should I be surprised by your response and personal insults? No, not really. Amused? Highly, and thank you so much for the entertainment.

While you’re still recovering from my response time-stamped Sun Nov 18 2012 07:22:00 regarding The Long Good Friday that unfurled your bullshït and parlous understanding of anything to do with this or any other film, you might want to reconsider your next move. Suggestion: stick to The Muppets board and pay for some English lessons.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

What a shame you're on ignore and i have no idea how to turn it off.

Oh well at least in the hope of chance someone else might read your utter bolox. Or they might just comment on the topic in hand like everyone else has.

But again people like you that crave the attention of an argument will go ahead and make another account just to do so. ;]

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

Oh dear, poor old josh-coomber replies to herself in order to have the "last say" and limps away like a lame dog that needs putting down. LMFAO!

If you really felt as you state, you'd have walked on by paying it no thought. By putting me on Ignore, if you really meant it you'd follow that rule through and would've continued ignoring me but like the dog that returns to its vomit, here you are getting in your parting cheap shot as if your life depends on it (sadly, it probably does).

Congratulations, you just made it out of nursery into the playground. Keep clinging on to that feculent piece of shït floating down the river that is your pathetic life.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eonaxes 12 years ago

yes the sniper scene was one of the most retarded things I ever seen in a movie. The british sniper dies, you take his gun and just calmly sit in the exact same position for like 10 minutes looking at the enemy sniper who knows you are there but because this movie is dumb, decides not to shoot you. Come on!
Its clear the female director dont know a thing about war.

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

Pity it won best picture because of a "Female" director.

The film isn't bad, but in no way does it deserve 6 oscars. Especially when the best picture was contending with Avatar, which should of won it hands down for the visual experience and the improvement on James camerons ability to use CGI in a good standard.

In my opinion Avatar is a horrendous movie written of the back of Dances with wolves. But Still The Hurt Locker should not have won the oscar with scenes like this.

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

Allow me lend you a hand. Just use this link: https://secure.imdb.com/register-imdb/delete

Laughs at the moron.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

You see it would be nice to share opinions on what I've just said about the topic of this post. However it seems you cannot grasp the use of an ignore option.

I assume you're continuing to argue with my opinion here as well. It's quite obvious I've made you angry as you feel now you have to question everything i write.

If you'd like you can follow me to another topic in the future and maybe hold my hand.

Or if you'd like being the kiddy wink you're, you can question this post and i won't be able to read your reply. :]

Pretty much proven my point though haven't you pal. Even though you're on ignore you argue for the sake of it. Would you like a hug? Wait don't answer that because i won't be able to read it. But you will because your cute like that.

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

[–] josh-coomber 12 years ago

Oh look at that, i found out how to take you off ignore. And no kitten the chimp didn't say anything, he wrote it. And on a side note your link wouldn't of done me any good if i couldn't read your post reply on ignore now would it. And you called me the moron?

Well this moron has grown fond of you. He managed to turn you into a child in less than 5 replies by acting like one himself. Love you babe xx

On that note I'll put you back on ignore and wonder of this topic until someone else actually has an opinion on why this scene is or isn't stupid. Like yourself basically who can't grasp the English language with out using Microsoft words bastardization of it.

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

Quote 1:

I found out how to take you off ignore

Quote 2:

... your link wouldn't have done me any good if I couldn't read your post reply on ignore...

Corrections in red.

There's your circular reasoning going full throttle. Again.

I love getting under the skin of kids like you.

How long did you manage to keep me on Ignore before you got the all-over fidgets?

Now I’m back on Ignore.

I’m off Ignore again.

You put me back on Ignore... and so it continues. Am I making you nervous?

I think it’s very sad when it comes to this and you prove I’m all you have to give your life meaning.

I wasn’t far off the mark when I said... sorry, wrote... sorry, I forget; I have to lower myself to your level of pedantry. Allow me start over: I wasn’t far off the mark when I typed:

By putting me on Ignore, if you really meant it you'd follow that rule through and would've continued ignoring me but like the dog that returns to its vomit, here you are getting in your parting cheap shot as if your life depends on it...

I was right on the money. Here you come again, sufficiently recovered after licking your wounds and using the same old hackneyed insults in your most feeble attempt yet to denigrate my character. Quelle surprise!

It never ceases to amaze me when an idiot is exposed, as you’ve been, how quick you are to insult me with the same shortcomings that restrict your progress and to which you appear to be irrevocably subjugated. I’d love to see you perform my job for a day. You’d be out the door before lunch time; your P45 dropping through the letterbox within a week.

A friend of mine recently posted a link that was both relevant and funny concerning another poster, and while you’re not in the same league of füçkwitted dimwits as the person that was under discussion, your apparent aspiration to edge closer towards it with such speed is admirable, that is if you wish to continue watering the seeds of your contumacious nature, but I digress. I’m going to borrow his link for your benefit. When you open this, all you need do is study it for a moment (might take a bit longer in your case) to understand this is a reflection of you.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/law_of_drama.png

Incidentally, no one has anything to say about your comments but as far as I can ascertain, everyone else on this thread... hold that thought... everyone on IMDb that has the misfortune to come across you doesn’t need much time to figure out you’re an ill-educated, semi-evolved simian with all the charm of a well-groomed rat.

In particular, this post by Orgasmatronics time-stamped Fri Sep 14 2012 12:34:53 in reply to you, really tickled me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094535/board/flat/204464466?d=204524772#2 04524772

Didn’t have anything to say after Orgasmatronics picked you apart like the ten-piece puzzle you are, did you?

By the way, here’s the link again, y’know, for the next time you decide to take me off Ignore, which won’t be long because you can’t do without me in your life:

https://secure.imdb.com/register-imdb/delete

Or, will it be the nth time you manage to keep me on Ignore but remain diligently monitoring the thread waiting for this post but all you see on your shrink-wrapped screen is, “This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list”? That’s all it will take to prompt you into replying to one of your previous posts and clutter the board with more prattling and inconsequential drivel.

My money’s on the latter but whichever way it goes, keep it up; I’m enjoying the sport.

By the way, I’m still waiting for an intelligent reply to this, which let’s not forget, is where it started.

I know you can’t reply because the nasty man hurt your feelings by shattering your misconceptions about The Long Good Friday and putting you to shame on a number of other counts. Yes, you’re ignoring this thread now, aren’t you? You’ve nothing left to say in the face of facts and reason; under these circumstances it’s better and more satisfying for you to throw your toys out of your pram, isn’t it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081070/board/flat/200379043?d=207161131#2 07161131

Tip: if you want to be a good writer, concentrate less on your Flesch Reading Ease scores and work on Flesch–Kincaid Grade Levels. At the moment you’re scoring less than 5, which means only pre-teens can decipher your guff but for those with English qualifications, your writing looks like someone stomped on an ant nest and they scuttled all over the screen.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

Get yourself a room, chimp.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] ragingdemon 12 years ago

Get a room gaylords.

That aside the OP's point is 100% watertight, the sniper scene was a joke, the director messed up.

------:
The crime is life, the sentence is death!

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

You'll never know, will you, but I'll spot you easily enough. Time to crawl back where you came from.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] ragingdemon 12 years ago

Get a room gaylords.

That aside the OP's point is 100% watertight, the sniper scene was a joke, the director messed up.

------:
The crime is life, the sentence is death!

[–] Critical_Beatdown 12 years ago

That’s rich coming from the jerk who saw fit to step into an argument that has nothing to do with you. Are sure you’re not the dude arguing in the lobby? You got me all wrong, pal but I know if I see a shouting simian with knuckles dragging on the floor it’s gotta be you.

This:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/shayhiri/pleven.jpg

And calls me a gaylord with this photo reeking of latent homoeroticism in your profile.

Thanks for the lulz, kid.

Suicide, it’s a suicide

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alaninho 9 years ago

Critical Beatdown: possibly the most pompous self-aggrandising cockroaches I've ever had the displeasure of witnessing on a forum. Give me an illiterate person with a point to make over people like you any day.

You DEFINITELY got bullied at school, and deservedly so (proof that not all bullying is bad).

[–] nerhal1 12 years ago

The main character use to be a ranger in the film and supposedly means he was trained how to use a sniper rifle. The film is an exaggerated case of a lot of true stories that actually happened.

[–] RodneyAnonymous 12 years ago

Being a Ranger in no way guarantees sniper training.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.