Shoot or Be Shot

While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?

As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.

While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.

Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".

Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.

If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.

"It's an Aleatoric film."

I attended the premier in Austin, Texas. I enjoyed it immensely, especially meeting the cast members for questions afterwards. Sure the edit could use a bit of tightening, but the dialog was witty to sarcastic.

Harry Hamlin and William Shatner delivered solid performances. I have friends and family working in independent film and they completely got into this movie. Sad news folks. those people really are crazy. The real question is "what is crazy in relation to film making?" If you are making an independent feature, you are pretty close to certifiable already.

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 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

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.