Thomas Beckett (Berenger) is called back into action because not only was he "The Best", but he's still "The Best" all these years later. He thought he left his sniping days behind, now that he's taking yahoos on hunting trips. But the government offers him anything he wants to go to Serbia and assassinate Valstoria, an official who has been behind some sort of ethnic cleansing. Sensing a trick, because if the government is offering him anything, they think he won't return alive, Beckett simply asks for a restoration of his rank. So they team up Master Gunnery Sergeant Beckett with a prisoner, Cole (Woodbine), who has a chance to earn his freedom if he backs up Beckett on this mission. But as we know, Beckett has a history of losing partners. Can they execute their mission...and their target? It's easy to think this installment in the Sniper series was made sometime in the 90's, right after the first movie. It seems very 90's. But surprisingly, it was released in 2002. Seeing as the first Sniper was released in 1993, why the filmmakers thought that fans were clamoring for a new Sniper vehicle nine years after the fact remains a mystery. And thus, Sniper 2 does have a "this never needed to be made" kind of feeling throughout. They probably thought it would be worthwhile to have Beckett talk about such things as al-Qaida and Guantanamo Bay, and say things like "Freedom isn't free", thus dating the proceedings to the Bush administration. By comparison, the first Sniper movie has more of a timeless feel, not dating to any one era.It seems like a Nu-Image movie, and it was shot in Hungary instead of Bulgaria. Not helping matters is the awful CGI, which was worse - if such a thing is possible - in 2002 than it is today. So points have to be detracted for that. Come on, that's a betrayal of everything Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Beckett stands for! He shouldn't have to tolerate CGI stupidity. It should be only the real deal for him. He has enough problems as it is (there's some good continuity from the first movie regarding his injuries from torture he suffered). Woodbine, as the backup this time around, makes a worthy foil for Beckett, and he has a very distinctive voice. He should really do voice-overs and cartoons and such. His voice carries his performance here.Director Baxley, who we're normally a fan of, because of Action Jackson (1988), I Come In Peace (1990) and Stone Cold (1991), seems to be taking kind of a paycheck assignment here. He's a competent director, and that shows, but he should have brought the same verve he brought to the aforementioned three movies to this one. He should have made Beckett be able to stand alongside Jackson , Jack Caine, and John Stone as some of his more memorable men of action. Berenger does do his normal high-quality job, but something seems to be missing.As it stands, Sniper 2 is okay. For a movie that doesn't need to exist, it's decent. It's not offensively bad, it's just a bit dull and unnecessary. It's good that it isn't jokey, and we appreciate that, but there's no need to run out and see this.For more action insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

OK, let's get started here. The plot itself is decent. Kill a renegade general responsible for ethnic cleansing and then escape. But that is only the beginning. What is screwed up is that Beckett, who is the main character, is called back from retirement into service, even though he lost his index finger he uses for shooting (and has to use his middle finger for shooting). And Beckett is teamed up with a guy named Cole, who was in jail for killing an officer he suspects betrayed them (he rants about it in the movie in the middle of a battle). The only real good part of the movie is when the Serbian general (who really is Hungarian) is assassinated. The makers of the movie must be on weed. They think that no one will notice that the Serbs are all speaking Hungarian (which has no connection at all to Serbian language even though both nations share the same borders together). Of course, they thought wrong. And since when was a Mosin-Nagant, which Beckett uses, a Mauser? Beckett claims that it's a Mauser. And I thought military personnel were to know their guns. The mission itself supposedly takes place after Milosevic was overthrown in 2000, yet the Serbs claim in the movie they are victims of so-called UN-backed atrocities, but Serbia rejoined the UN after Milosevic was ousted. The acting is poor in many cases as well. For example, Beckett throws his arm up in the air just to look at his watch and when he gives Cole a 'serious' lecture, Cole is about to laugh but holds it in. Had the makers actually PUT serious effort into making this movie I would enjoy it. But unfortunately this is not the case.Overall a 4/10

Unbearable.I couldn't believe how hard it was to watch everyone in that movie making a fool of themselves.Like they're trying to achieve their military objectives,yet they're so delusional they don't even know what country they're in.Hungarians and Serbs maybe neighbours,but they are worlds apart. It's like making a film about WW2 Germany in Paris,France and in french.I just shows how little America knows about Europe,its peoples and languages...and if they know so little,why on earth do they even bother?

Though I like Tom Berenger as an actor, i must say this movie is almost appalling with its contempt of correct/authentic details. The expert don't use the correct names/brands of the gun they are using, nut much worse is, that all Serbians speak Hungarian and the city (supposed to be somewhere in Bosnia) is actually Budapest, which rather easy to notice to anybody who knows the city (you can even read it on tram signs) or Hungary. That alone gives you the feelings, that the producers treat the audience as ignorant, clueless morons being unable to tell one European country from another (in the case of 2 ethnically and culturally rather distinct countries not even neighbouring each other).