Krieg im Frieden

I suspect the book this Canadian indie was based on is far superior to this low-budget adaptation. Two hunting parties cross paths in the Canadian woods, which ends with a man being accidentally killed. Cliff Robertson leads a group of military veterans, and when nothing is heard after the fact about the killing, he figures in his own bent way that the other party will be coming after his men and their families. He decides to take the offensive and leads his men back into the woods, this time armed with automatic weapons and full combat gear. Dull movie, mostly guys standing around talking. A great cast is largely wasted here, including Ernest Borgnine, Henry Silva, Kate Reid and Helen Shaver. Reid steals the show midway through as horny, drunken widow. But it's not enough to redeem this flick, which might have been better offered upas a made for TV job.

It feels more like a telemovie than a feature film, and yet the performances of Robertson and Borgnine in particular are still very watchable, even if somewhat uneven.

Robertson's unravelling happens too abruptly, and Borgnine's moral compass seems to be all over the place; one minute he's in, the next he's out, it's hard to keep pace. At least you know where you stand with Henry Silva, so no surprises he's the trigger man whose initial marksmanship either saves or condemns the hunting party to their fate, depending on your perspective.

Aside from a key scene-stealing performance by distinguished stage actress Kate Reid, Helen Shaver makes a brief sultry cameo perhaps just to further emphasise Robertson's immorality, and familiar Canuck thespian Les Carlson is also on-hand for some added firepower and Gung-Ho machismo.

The messages are fairly overt, there's no 'hidden' agendas here so you'll either agree or disagree with the treatment depending upon which side of the 2nd Amendment you camp. There's reasonable tension, and plenty of 'human drama' which some reviewers have labelled tedious, it's just a shame there wasn't a bit more time spent on the action which could've reduced those heckles.

Other reviewers have compared this with Deliverance, and I'd also throw "The No Mercy Man" in there for similar themes at a similar scale. Well-made, but overall impact is disappointingly average.

I'm watching "Three Days Of The Condor" right now and started thinking about a movie I saw long ago called "Shoot". A very interesting story line that could today be much better, The Shooting in the woods with the hunters is classic,(happens even today), the ending about all the home boys going back to finish, is great. But the hour in between this movie is lost. What is this crap about having to use 10 lines!!! The movie does not deserve ten lines!! OK i'm going for ten lines or I do not no what the Hec I'm doing!.

Just a Thought

Andy

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.

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.