Shoot or Be Shot

'The King of Comedy' meets 'Living in Oblivion'

Another of the small, but growing, number of Lo-No budget movies about Lo-No budget movie-making. Think of 'Living in Oblivion', 'The Independent', etc. etc. Aspiring writers are constantly told "write what you know about" so it's not surprising that aspirant movie writers write about aspirant movie writers and the frustrations they face.

The basic premise of this movie is simple, schlock movie producer wants to make an more upmarket "arty" movie, an aspiring director wants to make a serious anti - violence movie but with no script using an experimental improvised (very cheap) shooting method. The Producer's former leading lady, and lover, wants to prove she can really act, disguises herself, auditions and gets a part in the movie. Together with a small crew they head out to the desert to shoot the film. There they meet an escaped lunatic with a script in one hand and a gun in the other. He hijacks the crew and forces them to start shooting his script.

Except he doesn't. The whole film takes so long to get to the point where the story really starts, ie the moment where Shatner's maniac scriptwriter and the crew meet up, that there is no time left to tell it and the movie quickly descends into gun-play before abruptly ending in a short series of twee happy-ever-afters for all the characters.

Shatner gets all the good lines some of them are genuinely funny, the man has a nice comic touch, but an hour after watching the film I can't bring to mind any of them. A slight, light little film. It drags in places but doesn't outstay its welcome. It could have been better but easily could have been a hell of a lot worse.

In 2005 this film was released on DVD in the UK under the title "Shooting Stars" by Digiview Productions with a run time of 91 minutes 36 sec. Cert 12 Aspect ratio 4:3

Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.

William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.

The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.

"Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.

I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?

Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.

This movie spends most of its time preaching that it is the script that makes the movie, but apparently there was no script when they shot this waste of time! The trailer makes this out to be a comedy, but the film can't decide if it wants to be a comedy, a drama, a romance or an action film. Press releases indicated that Shatner and Hamlin made this movie because they loved the script (what were they thinking?). If you like William Shatner (I do) see "Free Enterprise" instead.

OK, a film about a film that takes a crack at Video movie making could be entertaining. Could be, should be, funny, edgy, even controversial, or at least interesting, and yet... This film is the bizzaro negative version of that. Hamlin was entertaining as a 'B' Film producer. Shatner played crazy yet likable, and had all the best lines. The rest of the characters were boring, predictable, boring, underdeveloped, boring and boring. The production value was lame. You'll actually see the boom come down in one scene. The sound was awful in some of the scenes. Hey I'm a big fan of Shatner's and of Hamlin now, but their talents are wasted here. At least the story had a clichéd ending.

This film is a funny rant that slightly knocks at the Dogma style of film making. This may or may not be intended and other slight jests at films (like Saving Private Ryan) fall flat, but for the most if you buy into the gimmick you should enjoy the ride.

The gimmick is a new film making style where you don't write the movie, it writes itself. Er-go, you stage an event (or location) and let the actors make up the story as events interact with them. There are no special effects and no sets that are not natural. Basically, this is Dogma film making (see Lars von Trier or a film like Idioterne (1998) aka Idiots), or rather a film about a film using the Dogma style, only in this movie its called something different.

The rest of the movie feeds off of the gimmick as Shatner, as an escaped mental patient whom wants to be a screen writer, provides the "event" as the actors and director are held hostage and forced to shoot Shatner's movie, the producer films the events in the style mentioned above.

There are funny lines and bantor (mainly Shatner), but the main part is you must buy into the gimmick.

If you do, it is funny, but granted not specacular. If you miss the gimmick, like Dogma film style is stupid, or don't know what it is, then you movie will most likely be a dud in your eyes.

Rating: 6