Just got back from seeing "Shooter," based on author Stephen Hunter's book "Point of Impact." It goes without saying really that the book is better. It had been nearly a decade since I'd read Hunter's book, so I picked up a copy of it and read it last week. It took me less than two days to rush through it and it was every bit as good as I remembered it.

The movie? Well, it's not horrible. Probably worth a matinee, no more.

The major difference between the book and the movie is political -- and that's sad, but to be expected when you're talking about Hollywood.

The book isn't really very political. Though it references a fictionalized atrocity in El Salvador -- as opposed to Ethiopia in the movie -- the bad guys are a not part of the government. Tolerated by some in the government, yes, but not part of the government.

The movie gives us speeches about "the haves vs. the have-nots" and other standard stump speeches of John Edwards, but it distracts from the movie more than it adds. The filmmakers would've been better off portraying the bad guys as the current demonized versions of Blackwater USA or Halliburton -- it would've been more believable.

The film does take several shortcuts -- to be expected anytime you're turning a several hundred page book into a two hour movie. If you've seen the movie, it doesn't ruin the book too much -- and frankly the resolution in the book is a heck of a lot more satisfying.

The shortcut I was most disappointed in was the absolute evisceration of the character of Nick Memphis. He is such a deep character in the book and in the movie -- well, it's not clear why the secretary (played by the beautiful Rhona Mitra) would stick her neck out for this guy. In the book it's very clear.

*Very minor spoiler*

For those of you who don't want to see the movie because of its political baggage, there is one big upside -- Danny "I love dictators" Glover is killed at the end.