Dreadfully Boring

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Blistering performances.

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.

Yes folks, when a hunter shoots at first sight, I did fell in love with this film the very same way, in the early eighties, when it was released in France in VHS. I rented it and made a copy just after the first viewing. A film as I love. It reminds me SOUTHERN COMFORT, DELIVERANCE, WOLF CREEK, OPEN SEASON, in summary another kind of survival, a men's tale. ONLY for men. And I also have read the novel that inspired this authentic gem. Very interesting too. With a real character study, an offbeat study which the ending makes more important; watch it and you'll understand why. A hit right into the face.The film is very faithful to the book, except the novel emphasizes more on the characters. But it is a very unusual story, entertaining, even totally unbelievable. Nothing realistic here. Nothing. But who cares?I'll never be tired to watch it again and again.

The IMDb doesn't have a great reputation these days for a number of factors which I won't bother going in to ,but if there's a film that the majority opinion has got right it's this one . SHOOT has a rather Luke warm reception with comments saying it's a film that's never as good as it could have been , or is a mediocre movie or is unrealistic . Certainly it's a film I'd never heard of until accidentally stumbling upon it and considering it has two big name actors in the shape of Cliff Robertson and Ernest Borgnine that alone tells you there's a reason as to why it's so obscure SHOOT is certainly a film with great potential . DELIVERENCE had spawned a subgenre that subsequently become known as " Backwoods brutality " . The Vietnam war had just ended in inglorious defeat for America so right away you're watching a film with massive potential for structuralism and political comment . For some strange reason any political subtext remains unexplored and when someone states " They look just like us " when the two hunting parties come across each other you soon come to realise this is probably coincidence rather than writer Dick Berg making a wider anti-war statement . Instead of making any subtle points the film concerns itself far more with setting up a totally unlikely and melodramatic plot turn featuring revenge that'll have you shaking your head as to how this would probably never happen in real life and then nodding your head that the IMDb reviews saying that this is an unrealistic movie are correct Another annoying aspect to the film is a very cheap budget which gives the impression that it's a TVM , so much so that when characters start swearing it almost comes as a shock to the system . The bleak , murky , grimy cinematography also adds to this impression . Would I be correct in stating this is a badly directed movie ? Regardless of this the majority opinion on this page that it's a ridiculous mediocre movie is correct

Cliff Robertson was involved in some pretty decent movies in 1976 – "Midway", "Obsession" and the TV movie "Return To Earth" spring to mind. The same cannot be said for Ernest Borgnine for whom 1976 was an 'annus horriblis' in terms of film work. Not only did Borgnine find himself in the dire Italian sex film "Natale In Casa D'Appuntamento", he also co-starred with Robertson in one of the very worst films of the year – the utterly wretched anti-gun thriller "Shoot". You will have to look far and wide for a more boring, obvious, unappealing and morally muddled film than this Canadian offering from director Harvey Hart. It doesn't even fall into the so-bad-it's-good-on-a-curiosity-level category.By day, Rex Jeanette (Cliff Robertson) runs a successful furniture business, but he really lives for evenings and weekends when he and his buddies run an army club and go deer hunting in the nearby forests. One weekend, four of the regular deer hunters travel up to Rex's woodland lodge for a Saturday shooting expedition. Besides Rex himself, there are his pals Lou (Ernest Borgnine), Zeke (Henry Silva) and Pete (James Blendick). Whilst out in the forest they encounter another group of hunters, but for no obvious reason the other group open fire on them and Zeke shoots back, killing one of the opposite group's guys. In panic, Rex's group return home and contemplate their next move – Lou wants to report the incident to the cops, but Zeke is worried that he might be jailed for killing a man, and Rex himself thinks the other group won't report the incident because it was them who shot first. As the week progresses it becomes clear that Rex is right – when the story of the hunter's death finally appears in the newspapers, it turns out that his friends have fabricated a story about how he was killed by an accidental stray bullet. Rex realises that the other group want to have revenge their own way, and figures that the two sides are expected to revisit the site of their earlier encounter to shoot it out. Strangely excited at the prospect, Rex recruits extra men and gathers extra ammunition for the second shoot-out, almost turning the whole affair into a weekend military war game. But when the confrontation finally comes, which side will be most prepared?......For about ten minutes, "Shoot" gives no indication of just how poor it is going to be. The opening sequence in which Rex and his hunting pals run across the other hunting party is put together with enough competence to suggest that a half-decent outdoor thriller might be on the cards. But from there forth, the film is a long-winded bore. We trudge through the whole week leading up to the second shoot-out, watching Rex and his buddies going about their daily lives, meeting up after work to plan their attack. This section of the film goes on and on and on, stumbling from one pointless debate/argument/meeting to another. Watching paint dry is preferable to sticking with the film through this particular segment. When the final shoot-out comes it is over faster than you can blink, and culminates with a pretentious "twist" that has been obvious for the entire length of the film. At any point you might think to yourself: "what if the other group are preparing themselves better? What if they want it more? What if they arm themselves stronger? What if they plan their attack with greater cunning?" If any of those thoughts occur to you, then you're smarter than Rex Jeanette…. and you're infinitely smarter than director Harvey Hart expects you to be!