56
Metascore
11 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 75Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertChicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertShoot to Kill is fast-food moviemaking - quick, satisfying and transient.
- 70The New York TimesJanet MaslinThe New York TimesJanet MaslinThis is essentially a formula film, and as such it's nothing fancy. But it has crisp, spare direction, enormous momentum and a story full of twists and turns. For anyone who thinks they don't make spine-tingling detective films the way they used to, good news: they've just made another.
- 67Christian Science MonitorDavid SterrittChristian Science MonitorDavid SterrittThe action is rousing and the suspense is relentless in this adventure yarn about a San Francisco cop and an Oregon mountain-man chasing a psychopathic killer through the wilderness. [19 Feb 1988, p.21]
- 63Washington PostDesson ThomsonWashington PostDesson ThomsonActually, Spottiswoode's film has its moments.
- 63Miami HeraldHal BoedekerMiami HeraldHal BoedekerPoitier is Poitier, and that, after such a dry spell, is reason enough to see the movie. [12 Feb 1988, p.C5]
- 60Time OutTime OutNice to see Poitier back and full of pep, albeit in a routine thriller.
- 50Chicago TribuneDave KehrChicago TribuneDave KehrHis first confrontation with Berenger allows Poitier to display the overwhelming, nearly palpable moral force that was his great strength as a performer, but the balance of the film makes very little use of his special skills. [12 Feb 1988, p.A]
- 50Portland OregonianTed MaharPortland OregonianTed MaharDespite the avoidance of fundamental surprise -- there are a few good ones along the way -- Shoot To Kill is still an OK suspense adventure. Director Roger Spottiswoode (Under Fire, The Best of Times) makes the most of the wild, sometimes vertical terrain, and the acting is fine. [15 Feb 1988, p.C04]
- 50Tampa Bay TimesHal LipperTampa Bay TimesHal LipperA half-baked FBI drama in the 48 HRS.-Lethal Weapon buddy-buddy mode. [12 Feb 1988, p.7]
- 40Los Angeles TimesSheila BensonLos Angeles TimesSheila BensonThe movie is grisly, illogical, contradictory, borderline tasteless, riddled with plot holes--and at the same time, decently photographed, cleanly edited and crisply directed. All in all, the waste it represents--of talent, of intelligence, of fine craftsmen and of the audience’s good will--is enough to make one howl like a dog.