User reviews

I voted more because of the idea conveyed by this movie, even if it is not the best. I did not like the title All Catholics are not Pedophiles, all Muslims are not Terrorists! One can not mix religion and evil people. This movie - a fiction - is excellent to remind viewers that good Muslims are suffering too. Terrorists are like leaven poisoning the world with false teaching.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

This curiously old fashioned (in terms of style and presentation) thriller was released in 2007 but has the look of a film from about 1997. However old it looks, though, it's got a story torn straight from today's headlines with it's themes of suicide bombings and brain washings of young muslims into fanatical extremism, and even more so about them being homegrown. The opening gambit of an innocent man being shot by armed police is also an obvious slant with the real life shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes. However, none of it is presented in a dark, foreboding sort of way, more in the style of a slick, efficient thriller like in the style of an episode of The Bill. While none of it offers any serious food for thought, it's well made and enjoyable enough on this level. ***

We live in strange and turbulent times. The rise of terrorism in the Western world changed our lives forever. Needless to say, movie that tries to tackle this extremely complex topic is more than welcome. Sadly, " Shoot on Sight" is a wasted opportunity.The creators, apparently were'nt sure what they wanted to say.We get the usual clichés about racism and Islam, but no courage or even clear message. The movie was made very cheaply, which isn't necessarily a problem, but the shabby look, unclear artistic vision, and confusing and illogical plot made this film nothing more than average Sunday night thriller. Pity, it had way more potential.

The story telling, acting and overall directing are a bit ankward for such a topic, very "hot" in 2007, two years after the terrorists attacks in London and six years after 9/11 tragedy. But it tries to be honest, trying to analyze the tensions between Muslims and "European" communities in the most factual way. The screen writers tried to do their best, we can't deny that. There is no good Europeans and Bad Muslims scheme here, that is the main strength of this movie, that we can add to the list of other features such as SORRY HATERS, FIVE MINARETS IN NY, TENTACLES 8, UNTHINKABLE; all post 9/11 movies, interesting material that makes you think about many many things.

I'm failing to understand how anybody could give this more than three or four stars. Everything about it reeks of ITV drama; the entire premise has been simplified to a ridiculous point and the presence of serious budget restrictions are hard to ignore. Anyone who has complemented the soundtrack should get their ears checked, along with the rapid scene changes it just adds to the undue sense of melodrama.

I was going to give one star but the performances of the lead characters deserve more than that. However the supporting cast are just shocking - although I feel a lot of this is due to the unnatural dialogue in the script.

How this ever made it onto the big screen is beyond me.

I just came from the cinema from watching "Shoot on Sight".

I have to say that the tag line cached my attention since I first saw it, being interested in the movie itself, and what was it about. Being a Criminology student, it's not hard to find interesting how people react to racism, and how people sometimes overreact to it. Some good points are made on that respect (when Ali learns about the wife of the "racist" cop, for example).

Now, getting into the movie itself, it looks like a TV-drama. It's not a judgement, it's just an opinion that doesn't either make it good or bad. Some of the plot related elements look a bit forced, in order to make the characters more "popular" amongst the public, I guess. The pace is steady, and the movie doesn't refrain from giving some "shock moments", which I particularly love. This makes the whole thing a bit real. However, don't expect great shoot-outs, people jumping on the air whilst firing two guns, or people shooting to the air and shouting "AAAAH" (see Hot Fuzz). It has action, understand me, but in a more steady way.

However, the important thing about the movie (and basically what I went to see it for) is the plot, and what it deals with. Islamic terrorism is something quite present on British society, and even more present in London, and even talking about it might be seen by some as racism. As one of the characters say, not all Muslims are Islamic terrorists, but all the Islamic terrorists are Muslim. Again, not being racist, just realistic. The film manages to stay in a neutral position, and not failing in a pro-Islams/anti-Islams position (which I feared, to be honest). It is neither a terrorist manifesto, nor an auto-criminalisation of all Muslims. Stays well balanced in very unstable grounds.

I gave it a 8/10. Worth watching.

Watching this I was reminded of "Who Dares Wins" (a paean to the SAS film from the early 1980s) blended with "Sapphire" (UK film on the late-50s race riots and the police response to them) - it's all very earnest and trying to balance (and it succeeds in the latter) but there's too much BBC2-school acting on "terrorist subjects" for it to seem new or fresh - there have been plenty of episodes of "Spooks" covering the ground only they are limited by BBC timidity of being seen to take a side (note for overseas commenters; the BBC is the UKs "national" state TV station and BBC2 is the previously artistic and cultural arm which has been drastically dumbed down), and Greta Scacchi and Brian Cox are disappointing (the Cox character would have been out of date in a film from the 1970s!) The comments likening it to a made-for TV are spot on - I don't see exciting film making here, just stacking up the pros and cons and trying to make cheap points rather than presenting the nuances through the film - the script is certainly written with a broad brush.

I watched the film 'Shoot On Sight' at Dubai festival and I must say it was one of the best films I have ever seen on the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century. No western filmmaker, so far, has been able to understand why Islamic terrorists blast others and kill themselves. But director Jag Mundhra depicts the diatribe of hate-preachers in a powerful as well as chilling style. Om Puri's performance as Imam gives you goose pimples, particularly, when he incites mobs not to treat westerners innocents. He puts a spin on who is and who isn't innocent. He asks that those who kill and maim in Iraq and Palestine- are they innocent? I came out of the theatre so shocked and well-informed in a positive way.

The great thing about 'Shoot On Sight' is its pace. It moves like a taut thriller but at the same time offers incisive understanding of how Islamic terrorists are recruited. And, yet the film is largely sympathetic to Islam and its followers.

The film offers memorable performances by Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri. Greta Scacchi, Ralph Ineson, Brian Cox and Laila Rouass also came up with credible performances. Sadie Frost, I'm sorry to say, was disappointing and so was the music of the film leaving much to be desired. Frost was expression less and Altman's music had no Islamic or for that matter South Asian soul.

I'll give four stars out of five to 'Shoot On Sight' because it documents the menace of Islamic terrorism in such a powerful, entertaining and yet

...on both sides. I like movies, that dare to go places. This little film, does that too. It's not afraid and it's not pulling any punches. You get to see both sides of a coin. It's not only about the terrorists and/or the Police/western world. It doesn't show you, that one side is right and the other one isn't. Life is grey and this movie is too, in many ways.

It tries to do justice to every aspect of a real life incident (happened in London) and although I am kind of fed up, by movies with the "based on true events" movies, this one does it's title justice. As good as that is possible. Of course there are flaws (and I'm not talking about the budget or the documentary feel that it has, it's obvious this ain't Hollywood), but with a hot topic like that, it's just not possible to do everyone justice and/or satisfy everyone. If you want that, you have to watch other movies too, to get many sides and other perspectives on that subject matter. You could start with this one of course ...