Shoot on Sight

Don't let the tagline deceive you"

The film attempts to portray a complex issue, but ultimately falls short. It suggests that sympathizing with Muslims automatically equates to sympathizing with potential terrorists. This is a harmful stereotype that reinforces Islamophobia.

The tagline is misleading. While the film does explore themes of racial profiling and the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings, it ultimately reinforces rather than challenges existing prejudices. For example, the scene where a white police officer interrogates a young Muslim man using racist language is problematic. While the film attempts to justify this behavior by revealing the officer's interracial marriage, it does not adequately address the systemic issues of racism within law enforcement.

Furthermore, the romantic subplot between the cousins feels unnecessary and detracts from the film's more serious themes.

It's important to note that the director's religious background does not inherently determine the quality or accuracy of the film. However, in this case, the film seems to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Muslims, which is disappointing.

The story telling, acting and overall directing are a bit ankward for such a topic, very "hot" in 2007, two years after the terrorists attacks in London and six years after 9/11 tragedy. But it tries to be honest, trying to analyze the tensions between Muslims and "European" communities in the most factual way. The screen writers tried to do their best, we can't deny that. There is no good Europeans and Bad Muslims scheme here, that is the main strength of this movie, that we can add to the list of other features such as SORRY HATERS, FIVE MINARETS IN NY, TENTACLES 8, UNTHINKABLE; all post 9/11 movies, interesting material that makes you think about many many things.

I watched the film 'Shoot On Sight' at Dubai festival and I must say it was one of the best films I have ever seen on the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century. No western filmmaker, so far, has been able to understand why Islamic terrorists blast others and kill themselves. But director Jag Mundhra depicts the diatribe of hate-preachers in a powerful as well as chilling style. Om Puri's performance as Imam gives you goose pimples, particularly, when he incites mobs not to treat westerners innocents. He puts a spin on who is and who isn't innocent. He asks that those who kill and maim in Iraq and Palestine- are they innocent? I came out of the theatre so shocked and well-informed in a positive way.

The great thing about 'Shoot On Sight' is its pace. It moves like a taut thriller but at the same time offers incisive understanding of how Islamic terrorists are recruited. And, yet the film is largely sympathetic to Islam and its followers.

The film offers memorable performances by Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri. Greta Scacchi, Ralph Ineson, Brian Cox and Laila Rouass also came up with credible performances. Sadie Frost, I'm sorry to say, was disappointing and so was the music of the film leaving much to be desired. Frost was expression less and Altman's music had no Islamic or for that matter South Asian soul.

I'll give four stars out of five to 'Shoot On Sight' because it documents the menace of Islamic terrorism in such a powerful, entertaining and yet

Watching this I was reminded of "Who Dares Wins" (a paean to the SAS film from the early 1980s) blended with "Sapphire" (UK film on the late-50s race riots and the police response to them) - it's all very earnest and trying to balance (and it succeeds in the latter) but there's too much BBC2-school acting on "terrorist subjects" for it to seem new or fresh - there have been plenty of episodes of "Spooks" covering the ground only they are limited by BBC timidity of being seen to take a side (note for overseas commenters; the BBC is the UKs "national" state TV station and BBC2 is the previously artistic and cultural arm which has been drastically dumbed down), and Greta Scacchi and Brian Cox are disappointing (the Cox character would have been out of date in a film from the 1970s!) The comments likening it to a made-for TV are spot on - I don't see exciting film making here, just stacking up the pros and cons and trying to make cheap points rather than presenting the nuances through the film - the script is certainly written with a broad brush.

...on both sides. I like movies, that dare to go places. This little film, does that too. It's not afraid and it's not pulling any punches. You get to see both sides of a coin. It's not only about the terrorists and/or the Police/western world. It doesn't show you, that one side is right and the other one isn't. Life is grey and this movie is too, in many ways.

It tries to do justice to every aspect of a real life incident (happened in London) and although I am kind of fed up, by movies with the "based on true events" movies, this one does it's title justice. As good as that is possible. Of course there are flaws (and I'm not talking about the budget or the documentary feel that it has, it's obvious this ain't Hollywood), but with a hot topic like that, it's just not possible to do everyone justice and/or satisfy everyone. If you want that, you have to watch other movies too, to get many sides and other perspectives on that subject matter. You could start with this one of course ...