marsh876 I feel a little embarrassed disliking this movie because all of the other reviewers liked it. I will mention some of the good points. There were occasional beautiful camera shots, but an occasional beautiful camera shot does not a good movie, or in fact, a movie, make. It was delightful to see the main actors in action, they have truly wonderful careers. However: As someone else pointed out, most of the scenes are very claustrophobic. Or cluttered. Perhaps the director was trying to make the audience uncomfortable. Or trying to show how the husband and wife were so stressed out. But the result caused me to greatly dislike most of the movie for just this point. In my opinion, this was the work of a bad, egotistical director. "I don't care what anyone thinks or likes, I'll do it my way." Sure, buddy, do it your way. Your way stinks.Along with cluttered scenes, most of the scenes were loud, screeching, with terrible sound. Again, trying to make the audience uncomfortable? Is this how the couple felt inside, always screeching and yelling and discomfort and pain? That's how I felt watching this movie. Even the ocean sounds were harsh. Also, the childish piano playing grated my nerves. Was this intentional? Or was this a bad sound job? The only way I could watch most of the movie was to turn the sound way low and use subtitles. It wasn't as bad as Catch 22, but bad enough.That the kids were always talking at the same time and the mother always yelling at them was very unrealistic. This observation was from a professional social worker who has made a long career of working with dysfunctional families.The racism and antisemitism was disturbing, with the mother's lawyer. More pie in the face to the audience. I think, with the lack of worthwhile police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the idea communicated was that these people didn't live in society, that they could do anything they wanted without consequence. Of course, the ultimate would be murder. Why didn't they cheese up the plot (what little of it there was) with this, then have the father say "sorry", and we're all listening to the Rolling Stones again and laughing and dancing.The lack of police and lack of consequence for violent action was insulting to the audience. The only time a policeman showed up, toward the beginning, the policeman seemed weak and ineffectual. The police weren't called when the several violent scenes occurred. This, and many other scenes, stretches the suspension of belief that movies always require. So, the show becomes a comic book, with one meaningless random scene following another.In another ridiculous scene, the parents are having sex at a hotel with the kids in the next room, and they don't lock the door, so one of their children walks in and sees them in bed. I suppose the kids walked in on them having sex when they were all living together? Isn't that in itself a form of child abuse? Other reviewers say that the father slowly fell apart due to the divorce, till her was nuts at the end. Sure, people go nuts, but this degeneration was too much and too silly. He essentially lost all moral sense. Was he smoking crack? Oh wait, did they have crack then? The movie gave the message that it's OK to yell and cause a fight in a restaurant, OK to beat your daughter with a hanger, OK to break and enter, OK to kidnap, OK to do property damage, OK to beat someone to death or nearly so, and all one has to do is say "sorry", and everyone will forgive and we'll all be buddies. They even make fun of this when the daughter points this out to the father, yet she, the physically abused child, still forgives him in an oh so touching scene, (oh so nauseating scene). The movie gives the message that child abuse is OK because everyone is hunky dory afterwords. No one is willing to take responsibility, in fact, no one can take responsibility. We live in a big comic book where anyone can do anything to anyone else, and it all turns out well in the end.We're left hanging at the end. Does the wife forgive the husband? Does he live? His yet again appeal for forgiveness and compassion after he was the total bastard was again pitiful. The children, including the beaten one, all rush to him. What does a father have to do before the children and wife say enough? Kill all of them and himself? So they don't have to listen to the terrible sound background of the movie anymore? At the end, I wondered, what was the point of having watched this movie? The movie seemed to be a poor man's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. Albert Finney certainly was an imitation Richard Burton, and I think he did a good job copying Burton. Diane Keaton kept slipping into her Annie Hall persona. Fortunately, she showed us she could do more in this movie. The constant yelling and emotional violence (and physical violence in this movie) reminded me of Virginia Wolf. But in that movie, there was some sort of reconciliation and understanding of the underlying conflict. As another reviewer pointed out, there was no understanding of the roots of the conflict, just a lot of yelling at each other.

LouisaMay For me the key to this great film was the scene where Finney and Keaton end up in bed together. In their conversation at this tender but honest moment after their marriage has ended, they wonder aloud what happened to them. He says, "I'm not a kind person." She says, "I'm not kind either." These soft spoken admissions, amid the chaos of the violence, and screaming emotional upheaval woven through the film, provided an answer to what went wrong in the marriage. It's clear they still love each other --the whole film is an illustration of this bond, and he says so to his daughter near the end of the film. But they've run into the mundane problems that eat away at long term marriages without means of overcoming them. What are these means suggested by the film? Kindness and compassion. Neither has kindness toward or compassion for the other. They love their children, and they're "good" people, not immoral. But they have no compassion, not even for their children. Without compunction they say and do things in front of the children that can harm them for life. Neither has any compassion for the other's suffering, or any ability to put themselves in the other's shoes. So at the end (SPOILER) when he lies bloody and beaten with his hand up for comfort from her, she refuses to take his hand, and the camera freezes on this moment.

mmitsos-1 If you haven't seen "Shoot the Moon", see it. It is very difficult to find, as it appears to be out of print. To a degree, it reminds me of "The Pumpkin Eater" (Eng., 1964), with Anne Bancroft and Peter Finch. Both films deal with bad marriages, in which the husband cheats. Also, the husbands in both films are writers (Peter Finch plays a screenwriter, Albert Finney plays a novelist), and the wives are very supportive, up to a point. However, comparisons seems to end at this point, as "Shoot the Moon" really portrays the emotional stages of divorce and its effects on the entire family and others in their environs whereas "The Pumpkin Eater" focuses mostly on the character of Jo Armitage, played by Anne Bancroft, and her proclivity to have children and find most of her self-worth in raising children.Diane Keaton and Albert Finney play the husband and wife in "Shoot the Moon", and they are both absolutely superb in their roles. Ditto for Dana Hill, the actress playing their oldest child (very tragically, this very talented actress died in 1996 due to complications from diabetes). This film is so realistic, and the acting, all the way around, is so natural. Diane Keaton's scene singing in the bathtub is particularly moving, as is the scene in which Albert Finney wants to give his eldest daughter her birthday present. This whole latter scene was portrayed very realistically....no sugar-coating here, and for that, I applaud Parker and the cast. Keaton's scene with Peter Weller (who plays Frank) on their first "date" was also very realistic and low-key, considering the emotions her character Faith is going through, just re-entering the "dating" scene since her husband left her. Faith's announcement of her knowledge of her husband's affair, to her husband, in the middle of talking about running out of orange juice, was also so realistic. This screenplay was simply very well written all the way around. I might not agree with the ending entirely; but, it was a story option that was plausibly pursued. On a few other notes, the soundtrack offers a nice throwback to the '70's (Bob Segar, etc.). Also watch for a young Tracey Gold, who would later star in "Growing Pains" and a younger Tina Yothers, who would later star in "Family Ties". I highly recommend this film....a very good story and great acting together provide for a thoroughly enjoyable cinematic experience. In retrospect, it was sorely overlooked on Oscar night.

mrcaw1 Shoot the Moon (1982) Dir: Alan Parker Co-starring with Albert Finney, Diane Keaton plays a woman going through the throes of a bad divorce. Another chance for Keaton to broaden her artistic repertoire and she makes the most of it. The movie is right on the money and never goes for the easy pat way out of a dramatic situation. It's an overlooked film that is truly moving. Finney, for a change, earns his reputation as one of the best actors out there. The ending is the only place in the movie, where the writers chose to play it safe. But other than that, the characters and situations are true-to-life, showing people in all their complicated messy best. Definitely watch it with a box of kleenex.