Tir à vue

I saw this movie when it first came out. I had seen the novel in the base exchange and since I was sticking around base, I read it in a few days. Interesting characters and plot, a Deliverance type of ethical dilemma and the inclusion of some good actors, I thought it would be a good movie. I was disappointed at seeing many of the characters wooden and shallow, unlike their motivations in the book. Several of the characters were WWII vets, with a Vietnam vet thrown in. Interesting in the book, slow and dragging on screen. When the final encounter happens, it is well done and it was shocking to see. It was one of a series of movies made in the 70s with a stark realism to its look, but the story line was far-fetched. Nothing I have read or done would lead me to believe that the novel or the movie though were based upon Soviet spetznaz incursions from Canada into the U.S. Just a good novel not particularly well done to screen.

This hard to find drama about two hunting parties that decide to wage war on each other after a party member is killed from a previous encounter, seems at first promising, but after a ponderous snail-paced middle act, patchy characters and a somewhat unbelievable story to begin with, 'Shoot' begins to lose it's credibility with each slow moving scene.

Despite a half decent cast of it's day, the likes of Ernest Borgnine and Henry Silva have little to do, the pale script seemingly stretched just a little too thin for the film's running time, in fact the film seems a lot more suited to TV of which director Harvey Hart is more accustomed to. Cliff Robertson admittedly pulls off a hard driven performance as the unhinged Major Rex, however his character's actions do seem a little unbelievable and unintentionally funny at times as do the escalating events that lead the hunting party into more conflict.

Though an interesting premise, that could be easily mistaken for a John Woo plot if there ever was one, 'Shoot' suffers the most by it's shallow unlikeable characters and it's slow yet meticulous build up to the final bitter act, which when finally surfacing leaves the viewer feeling undeniably shortchanged.

With Cliff Robertson, Ernest Borgnine, and Henry Silva on board, I was expecting a lot more than "Shoot" delivered. Character development is virtually nil, and Silva's part could easily been played by a no name actor. Sandwitched between the opening ambush and the final shootout in the snow, is some filler that has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the movie. A chatty widow and a friend's wife throwing themselves at Cliff Robertson feels like nothing more than script stretching. "Shoot"'s similarity to "Rituals" and "Hunter's Blood", two other "Deliverance" clones is unmistakable, but they are far superior movies. A BIG letdown. - MERK

I saw this flick years ago when TV was still cool and they had late night movies on most stations instead of ridiculous talk-shows and infomercials. It was probably only on because it was Canadian, and stations were required to have so much Canadian content and back them Canadian movies were for the most part bad or non-existent. It had all the cursing blanked out but still I was old enough to infer what was said. But I was most impressed with this back then! It took me a lot of years to track down a copy of this on video, and now that I did and watched it again, I still thought that it was awesomely cool (even though I knew what the ending would be). The story is pretty simple. A group of hunters bored because there is nothing left to shoot, meet another group of hunters in the same situation. Then just like that, a firefight erupts leaving one of their group injured and one of the other group dead. From then on, it builds up from 'should they report it' to 'they be after us for revenge' and every level in between. So the hunters get all the guns and gear and able-bodied men they can and go back to the spot the following Saturday in anticipation of the other hunters being there to ambush them. Will they be there or is it just paranoia? I'm not saying but the ending is a surprise.

This film was well hyped when released, with trailers and ads talking about the power and efficiency of the Ingram sub-machinegun, what happens when hunting trips go wrong, and revenge. The movie only lived up to the hype in the first, and last scenes, but the concept is still sound. This is a story that could be remade, or explored in a new film.

The story starts out with a great set-up when a group of friends (very good actors - Cliff Robertson, Ernest Borgnine, Henry Silva) venture out hunting in the Canadian wilderness. The story shifts when they encounter a "rival" group of hunters in the distance. After an accident of sorts, both sides retreat. When no one reports the accident from the other side, ex-military Major Cliff Robertson becomes convinced the other guys are plotting against them. Great set-up so far.

Here is where the film bogs down, way bogs down. It's like they had about fifteen minutes of information, and spread it out over the next hour giving us unnecessary details on character development, and wordy dialog that didn't properly explore the ethics of the hunter's situation and dilemmas. By the time the climax approaches you're almost asleep wondering what the heck too so long. However, when the final scenes finally do arrive and the story picks up steam again, it commands attention and will not leave you disappointed.

If you get a chance to see this movie, pay close attention to the beginning, don't worry about popcorn or potty breaks during the middle, and wake up for the ending.

As of August of 2006, you're going to have to look for this on Cable TV, or Ebay, as the VHS is long out of print, and the film hasn't be released on DVD, which is too bad considering all the junk that is out there.