Straw Dogs (1971)

Beautiful, moving film.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Sam Peckinpah's British Western is impossible to review without mentioning all the furore surrounding it here in the UK. Only recently released on DVD, it was banned for almost two decades due to the disturbing rape sequence which takes place around the middle of the film. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. The entire sequence could have been cut and the film still would have worked, and George's later flashback moments would have been all the more shocking.Aside from that controversial moment, this is typical Peckinpah territory, as the director explores themes of violence and what it means to be a man in a new setting: Cornwall, a long way away from his typical Wild West settings. Still, violence doesn't change, and the story of what happens when Dustin Hoffman's mild-mannered American makes enemies of some country-bumpkin thugs is engaging from the very start. Peckinpah's direction is great, and the film has a nice visual feel to it that makes the best out of some isolated settings. The plot is simple in the extreme and things are set up along the way for the last half an hour, which is a siege sequence in a remote farmhouse a la NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. This is a talky film, with plenty of dialogue to further the characters, although some of it was a little weird and didn't work (Hoffman's comment about eight year-olds, for instance; what the heck were they thinking?). Technically, it's great, with fine editing and a good score, and the acting isn't too shabby either – for the most part.The various actors playing the village thugs are suitably menacing, led by two actors giving fine performances: Del Henney as Charlie, the ringleader, and Peter Vaughan as Tom. Vaughan in particular is superb, getting to chew the scenery with relish, and it's a change from the subtle performance he gave in the following year's A WARNING TO THE CURIOUS adaptation. David Warner, uncredited because he wasn't insured during the production, also gives a very fine, understated performance, but then I've liked this actor in everything I've seen him in – even tat like BEASTMASTER 3 and WAXWORK. Dustin Hoffman gives what I think is a career-best performance in the leading role, and his transformation during the film is amazing stuff. I wasn't so impressed with Susan George, whose character, Amy, is never more than vacuous. George seems uncomfortable in the role, unsure of herself, and in many scenes I just don't think she cut it. When she gets hysterical at the end, she's more convincing, but not before.Action fans will love the vengeance-fuelled climax, an expertly staged siege sequence that finally lets out all the tension the film has been building up to then. Instead of using firearms, Hoffman utilises household goods to fend off the attackers – wire, boiling whisky, a huge bear trap that's been hanging above the fireplace for the film's duration – and his ingenuity in defeating multiple opponents is fantastic. Brief, brutal spurts of violence add to the shocking impact and my heart was racing in these last closing moments – a classic finale, close to THE WILD BUNCH, for an above average thriller.

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.

Looking back at Straw Dogs a film that was never shown on UK television for several decades, you get to see how influential it is. Without this movie there would had never been Home Alone!Director Sam Peckinpah might had been contemplating the brutality of the Vietnam war, the rising tide of violence generally in the 1960s counter-culture or just the inherent brutality of man especially when an outsider appears with a local girl.Dustin Hoffman is a mild mannered American university maths professor who have moved into a farmhouse in rural Cornwall where his wife grew up. His wife (Susan George) is flirty, younger and provocatively dressed at times which arouses desires from her ex boyfriend (Del Henney.)The locals are hired to repair the farm house but soon tease the couple, Del Henney takes advantage of George by forcing himself on her and soon she is also raped by one of his friends.When a simpleton local (David Warner) is accused of abducting a girl from the village and ends being protected by Hoffman in his house, the band of locals descend on them and terrorise them. Hoffman realises he needs to fight back in order to protect his wife and Warner.A lot has been said about this movie, the inbred locals, the brutal rape where the victim might have enjoyed part of it, the level of violence.It now looks rather dated, it is a slow burn film, you know where it is going and there is the explosion of violence in the last act with Peckinpah even adding some black humour as two of the thugs chasing each other in kids bicycles. The plot is actually thin and the film felt plodding to me. Hoffman's character seemed to want to integrate with the thuggish locals, maybe to prove he can mix it with the Alpha males, although you have to question how did he end up marrying someone flighty like George who even when the house is under attack wants to runaway from Hoffman who rightly suspects that she will be killed.The film has a curiosity value but I felt that it would not had been highly regarded but for its reputation and banned from a video release for so long by the British censor.

I was a 16 year old girl (maybe 15 cant remember) I read about it in the TV guide and decided to give it a go. I recorded it (too late for me) then watched it one cold winter evening alone in my bedroom. I remember what scared me the most! Tom Heddon, that big scary fat man! When he did his intimidation to David in the pub I was literally shaking thinking this is my idea of hell being around such scary violent people. And one thing that also scared me was when Janice's cousin dragged her inside, I felt scared and glad I wasn't in her position, being stuck at home with these scary rapist men. And I remember thinking when I saw Amy and how young she was and how she reminded me of myself, how I wondered why she wasn't scared of anyone. I thought wow, shes a stronger girl than me, and I never wanna be in her or Janice's situation. Just watching it on TV scares me! I watched the film a couple more times in my 20s and I wasn't scared at all and neither of the idiot men really scared me, I suppose back then I was just an innocent teen! Just thought I'd share my little story.