Straw Dogs (1971)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Mild-mannered mathematician David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and his sexy wife Amy (the delectable Susan George) move to the rural English village where Amy grew up. With her nipples proudly on display, Amy soon attracts the attention of the rough and ready locals, especially her old fling Charlie Venner (Del Henney), who is quick to reacquaint himself. Wrapped up in his equations, David repeatedly fails to assert himself as Venner and his loutish pals carry out a campaign of harrassment, much to the frustration and disappointment of Amy, who obviously regards her husband as less than a man.Things go from bad to worse when David, keen to appease the yokels, agrees to go on a shooting trip. While David is left standing on the moors, Venner pays a visit to Amy, forcing himself on her. Amy resists at first, but Venner's bold masculinity-in contrast to David's meek nature-wins her over and she acquiesces. To Amy's horror, a second man turns up and joins in the fun, but she is unable to stop him. When David returns home, Amy pretends that nothing has happened, ashamed by her behaviour yet angry at her husband.In the film's final pivotal act, David and Amy, driving home from a church social, accidentally run down village idiot Henry Niles (David Warner). They take the injured man to their home, unaware that he has inadvertently strangled local strumpet Janice Hedden (Sally Thomsett), and that a drunken vigilante group, led by thug Tom Hedden (Peter Vaughan) and including Charlie and his pals, is out for Niles's blood. After David refuses to allow the gang into his house, the angry locals try to force their way in. Local magistrate Maj. John Scott (T.P. McKenna) tries to reason with the men, but is shot dead by Tom during the altercation. With David and Amy witness to the murder, the scene is set for a brutal showdown, David rising to the occasion to protect his home and his wife.Director Sam Peckinpah's controversial thriller Straw Dogs is a film designed to appeal to the viewer's basic instincts, and it does so brilliantly. As soon as we clock bra-less George brazenly flaunting herself in front of the slack-jawed yokels, we desperately want David to speak up, either to his wife, who clearly has little respect for her husband, or to the drooling menfolk, who do nothing to hide their lustful gaze. When David keeps shtum, the frustration is palpable. Peckinpah slowly but carefully cranks up the tension, with David's repeated inaction making the viewer sympathetic to Amy's plight. When David is finally pushed over the edge and fights back, there is an immense feeling of release, the orgy of violence that follows satisfying at the most primal level. A smile from David in the closing moments reveals that he himself is proud to have finally stood his ground.Hoffman is absolutely brilliant as the pacifist pushed too far, George is effortlessly sexy, and an excellent supporting cast ensures that there are no weak links (my hat is off to Jim Norton as ratcatcher Chris Cawsey, a more irksome villain you'll be hard pushed to find). Peckinpah's direction is perfectly paced, slowburn at first, carefully building to the crescendo of graphic brutality, with bloody shotgun blasts, boiling oil in the face, and a mantrap to the head all guaranteed to please his fans.

This disc had been sitting on my shelf for over ten years after its first or second viewing, and I'd been reluctant to re-visit it for some reason, until last night. Now I realise why, because although I hadn't really forgotten it, its deep-reaching and thorough unpleasantness must have seriously turned me off, and warned me away.Somebody likened it to "Irreversible", and I see what they're saying. Peckinpah, although just as over the top, is more realistic and everyday, however. Whatever his themes, you have to admit he regularly gets superbly convincing performances from his actors. In spite of the way he seems to treat them, he also gets very considerable loyalty from many of them. In this case Susan George.He apparently said that it was not about a wimp, but a failed marriage. It's also been said that most of his films are about some kind of treachery or disappointment between buddies. In this case it's the conflict between Hoffman and his totally incompatible wife, with whom he obviously has nothing constructive in common, except sex, which dooms it from the start. This union was clearly a profound mistake, and its disintegration is almost comic. Chess is not going to unite this couple.The only positive outcome of the events depicted is that the odious yokel played by Peter Vaughan never discovered what happened to his pesky little daughter Janice. Impressive work, but not recommended viewing, unless you enjoy torture. The remake is obviously a disaster.

You know, for a movie often referred to as "one of the best home invasion movies ever", it certainly takes a long freakin' time to get to the actual home invasion, 85 minutes actually. Until the guy gets hit by Dustin Hoffman's car, the movie has next to no conflict, just British people not liking an American because he's not one of them. The villains aren't even given proper introductions, making all of them blend together and not unique in any way. The only two distinguishing factors between all of them is that one was Amy's ex, and another one is the town drunk who has a beard. That's it, every other antagonist in this might as well not exist, in fact, the movie would be way better if it were just those 2 guys attacking Hoffman's house.Amy isn't particularly likable either. Aside from one or two scenes she's either annoying, complacent, moody, or mad for no reason. The only real relatable character in the whole movie is the cat, and it gets killed like 35 minutes in. Hoffman's performance is alright, but he's mostly just a mumbling coward. I'm sure he was written that way because he's supposed to just be a normal guy, but I don't find that interesting until the climax. Also, the rape scene serves no purpose, at all. Amy gets raped by her ex, and then her ex's best friend, only to not mention it to her husband. Um, I'm pretty sure rape is a serious invasion of your personal space, shouldn't you at least tell your husband that your ex sexually assaulted you? No? Why? Oh, to cash-in on "A Clockwork Orange's" controversy, give me a break. The rape scene in "A Clockwork Orange" actually had purpose, and it was actually brought up again after it happened. This just has a rape scene because it doesn't want to give these characters personalities, so now we can relate to Amy because she was raped, right? Wrong.The climax is the only good part of this movie, and it's not because of the suspense, it's because it's a rushed, R-rated version of "Home Alone". The traps Hoffman sets are pretty neat, but you have to wait almost 90 minutes to get there. How does this sound, if you stare at this blank wall for 90 minutes straight, I'll give you a Jolly Rancher. Does that sound like a deal? That's the closest thing I can compare this movie to. Utter boredom, with a tiny little reward at the end. Normally, I would see if the remake is a better version, but both movies apparently follow the exact format, unlike the two versions of "Dawn of the Dead", so I'll just have to watch another season of "Breaking Bad" to get my mind off of this garbage. A complete borefest that thinks it's a clever social commentary.

I saw this movie when I was in my teens and decided to watch it again after I heard there has been a remake (which I have chosen not to see--I have always been suspicious of remakes. Ha ha).This movie is basically a social comment on the lower-middle class of Britain (or shall I say of England, since the movie is set in Cornwall, England), how vulgar, primitive, and uncouth the values and mores of average lower middle class there had been in the late 1960' and early 70's, under the veneer of apparent civility. The townspeople including the reverend, taunt the protagonist (played by Hoffman)who is an American, with remarks on the racial tension or the nuclear bombs of the U.S. (insinuating 'moral hazard' and the threat the U.S. posed to the humankind, with the implication that they the British people were morally superior relative to the Americans.) Well, actually the Britishers turn out to be not so morally superior as the plot develops--they murder, rape, steal, cheat and harass people from outside. (The movie had been banned in Britain until 2002. I suspect the supposedly 'controversial' rape scene was not the real agenda for the ban.)Britain has been and is basically a class society, probably even more so than the pre-1917 revolution Russsia. The lower class live vulgar and the 'upper class' live pretending to be not so vulgar--however they are all the same--as Sam Peckinpah portrays the 'reverend.' The English are dangerous people to trust--They are treacherous, under veneer of civility. If you are stranded in a lifeboat with them. They will kill and eat you. Do not trust them just because they sing opera aria.