acadianjoe I know this is a badly done movie but it is done in that special bad 1970's way that somehow makes it a tolerable odd movie that once you see it you will not forget it. I still remember seeing it the first time and it was so bad and such a dumb movie I recalled it in vivid detail. After seeing a second viewing decades later it was even worse then I recalled and I remembered it being truly awful. Yet once I again I sat and watched it for a second time. I was fascinated by just how idiotic the entire group was, they had to be some of the daftest characters ever brought to screen. There is just no rhyme nor reason to why they whole movie plays out as it does, It makes no sense why any of it happens.Now with all that being said if you have not seen it you should. Give it a watch, it will confuse and baffle you but one thing is for certain you will never forget it.

ofpsmith I could understand how this movie could be social commentary on masculinity or gun enthusiasm but the choices these characters make just seem unrealistic. The story is that a group of World War 2 and Vietnam veterans are all hunting in the forest when they come across another group of hunters. Instead of saying hello or waving, they stare at each other before one of the other group inexplicably shoots at the main characters. It erupts into a short fire fight before both groups disperse into the forest. After this occurs, Rex (Cliff Robertson) decides against calling the police for some reason and decides to make plans to go back and seek revenge. They're all in the National Guard so they somehow are able to get permission to mobilize their unit to go into the forest and get revenge. When they get to the forest the other party is waiting and shoots first. This movie raises so many questions. Why did they get shot at? Why do they want revenge so bad? Why don't they call the police? How were they able to use the National Guard to get revenge? It makes no sense. The choices that these characters make are beyond belief and it's really no wonder how they ended up wounded. It's not a bad movie but it's not good either. Moreover it's really just a bore. I don't really recommend it a whole lot.

inspectors71 As the reviewer Snowleopard points out, the premise for the Canadian film Shoot is a good one, the accidental gunning-down of a hunter by a member of another hunting party, and the subsequent ramping up of a revenge attack on the opposition the next time they're out in the wild. But good ideas sometimes run afoul of sloppy direction and lack of production cash.Shoot sounds good, but looks cheap. Yet, even when you've given up on the movie, when you don't even care anymore that the film has some great talent (Cliff Robertson, Ernest Borgnine, and Henry Silva), you're still rooting for some sort of justice or even just a violent closure to the tragedy that sets the stage for the film.You get the impression that this is just one more of those earlier Canadian films that were thrown together to compete with American products, but didn't have the expertise or the financial backing to pull it off. This isn't an insult to Canada; the skill that Canadian film-makers exhibit is excellent, but skills take practice to acquire and Shoot looks like practice (watch Russian Roulette with George Segal to get a feel for a film industry finding itself).Anyway, as a 19 year old, I was astonished by the ending of the film. Thirty years later, I would probably see it coming a mile away. Unfortunately, I can't find Shoot, but I would suggest that if you can acquire a cheap copy (or even see an edited version on TV), you should do it. The performances are tense and the scenery is stark and beautiful.My recollections are from HBO in 1979 or so, but I do have an affection for this movie. There is a place in Spokane, Washington, under the T.J. Meenach Bridge, on the way to Spokane Falls Community College that will remind you of the river scene in the climax to Shoot. Covered with snow, with icy river water rushing by, you can imagine the climactic shootout in this movie taking place right in front of your eyes.It's a pleasant memory of a mediocre movie.Not a bad thing.

Warren Hawkes 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.