Tyutchev *** May contain spoilers ****Definitely contains criticism****I won't go into the specifics of the movie, as several other reviewers have done a good job of that already. The film work was OK, but the dialogue and plot needed some serious work on it, because a lot of it doesn't make sense. For a start, there was no tactical reason for the terrorists to target the group. None of them were near the camp, and a simple Road Closed sign, along with a couple of trees across the road would have sufficed to deter casual travelers. Killing 5 men has a very high risk of discovery - yet they engaged them nonetheless. Not very tactical. And are we to believe that 'secret' training camps have well established gravel roads leading to them ?Although they're being hunted, all the characters gob off like they are in a busy Starbucks, instead of being in a valley where sound will carry for miles.One of the survivors, showing complete unfamiliarity around firearms (and common sense), is still able to kill several trained terrorists. Despite telling the CIA agent he doesn't trust him, he continues to keep him around, instead of taking the gun, and then leaving him behind. Why ? It just doesn't make sense.I'm not sure what point the director was trying to make, but two of the three survivors are so obnoxious in the first 5 minutes (and continued to be), I was disappointed they weren't killed in the initial ambush. In fact, the lack of empathy for the characters and their plight gave me little reason to finish watching this movie. I really could not care less if any of them survived or not. In the end, I turned it off because I could not suspend disbelief long enough to persevere. I appreciate I may not be the target audience (excuse the pun) but if you have a love for indie films, and can tolerate poor dialogue, leading characters who are whiny morons, and can see gems where others see flaws, you may enjoy this because the film work is decent, even if the script needs some vigorous polishing.

Jason Stewart I was lucky enough to see Target Practice some time ago and am very glad to know it is out in the wild for all to enjoy. A spiritual sibling of the great male-bonding gone way, way South movie "Deliverance", Target Practice moves the action into a post-9/11 world where the band of bro's out for a fishing trip are faced, not with sodomite hillbillies, but with home-grown terrorists training for all manner of nefarious acts.Director Rich Riedel steers clear of Boorman's "men have lost touch with their caveman selves" pathos and, instead, focuses on the action. He knows how to frame a shot and edit the hell out of a scene to maximize the tension. The cast is professional across the board and relatively believable while doing all manner of violent acts. The picture is gorgeous to look at and the wilderness setting really pops in high def.Do yourself a favor. Gather your closest male buddies, buy a couple cases of beer, fire up the BBQ, and watch Target Practice!

imdb-932-279398 It is rare that I actually register on a website to leave a review on a movie. This is that movie. It was by far the worst film I have ever seen. I want 90 minutes of my life back.While the premise is sound, the execution was horrible. The acting was bad, the directing was bad, the script was bad, the editing was bad, even the sound engineering was bad. I could find nothing good at all in this film.It seems like the whole movie was shot with one hand-held camera in shaky-cam/random-zoom mode. In one scene, the camera was not even focused on the actor that was speaking.I was surprised by the 'good' reviews that this movie seems to have everywhere. They are not deserved. Do not waste your time on this movie.

zaphold I feel sorry for the makers of this movie for what I am about to write. Better luck next time.I watch a lot of indie movies, and I don't think a big budget necessarily makes a good movie. However, the action genre is probably not the place you'd want to start out in with a super-low budget, and I must say that it was sub-par to most other indie flicks I've seen. The only thing that stands out in a good way is the gory parts with effects/makeup.I have trouble deciding if the poor acting was due to bad directing, scripting, bad actors but probably a combination of all. Only the Al-Qaeda leader character was somewhat realistic. All other roles felt like a group of ten-year-old boys in grown-up bodies arguing with each other. Already in the first scenes I am asking myself "How are these people even friends?", because they behave like a dysfunctional family where nobody has any respect for each other whatsoever and will start shouting like crazy over nothing. This repeats throughout the movie. Not even the CIA agent can keep his cool (this is a person who is supposed to have had years of background checks and psyche evaluations?).The unlikely group of people traveling together behave like if they want to get in trouble (kind of like in horror movies where half naked girls walk out in the forest alone shouting "is there anybody there?"). Very irrational. See a car at the side of the road with bullet holes? - don't walk into the woods.Also not likely: * The homegrown terrorists are using Kalashnikovs(?) I don't think they are very easy to come by in northern America, and they have horrible accuracy. According to experts they are only an advantage when the enemy does not have a gun at all, or for shooting into crowds. Not something you would use for target practice, or be able to make those long range head shots. If you are making a movie about terrorists - at least know this much about them. * After the first shoot-out the terrorists simply give the unarmed civilians a 5 minute head start to run away and hide. * Nobody would in real life go back and fight 17 trained killers, when they have the option to flee and get help. Especially if you have no training yourself. This guy does not even know how to hold a rifle. Still he manages somehow to outs-shoot all of the terrorists.(Footnote: I took interest in this movie after reading the existing reviews on IMDb (12/21 2010) (all positive), but after watching the movie I must say they were in my opinion most probably strongly biased (written in promotional fashion and 9/10 score). Everyone have the right to their own opinion in a review, but at least be genuine. IMDb admins - feel free to remove this foot note if you disagree.)