Rating: 
Summary: who wants to live in England anyway
Review: Visceral...that is this film in a nutshell. The main question is how in the world Hoffman and George's characters EVER got married. They have no chemistry and absolutely nothing in common. But get beyond this relationship and this film builds with wonderful intensity. It is a test for both Hoffman's character as well as George's to have the marriage be rocked by the old male "freinds" and to see Susan George's character slowly slip away from David because he is not "man enough" to put an end to the Brits' unacceptable behavior. She has lost her civility now that she is back on her home turf (a real irony since they came from the USA, where we are so much more barbaric than our UK bretheren). Only when the constable is killed and you really feel that all hope is truly lost does Dustin hop into action. And he really takes over and "proves" that he is a real man. Okay, so it is sort of a macho trip, but it is one of the most intense films of the 70s, certainly Peckinpah's best in my opinion. This DVD version is a rehash of the laserdisc, the print is identical to the Japanese letterbox import laserdisc. I bought Hoffman's character all the way. The locals are wonderfully menacing in a covert way. Very well done...and a lot of credit goes to the editing for this pacing.
Rating:
Summary: Sam Peckipah's Real Masterpiece
Review: Though the film's graphic violence created quite a stir upon its initial release and therefore got most of the critical attention, this is a movie with surprising depth of character and meaning. There is so much going on just beneath the surface that you might want to view it several times to let it all sink in. I think this is Peckinpah's finest film--one that raises vital questions about violence and the people who must resort to it. STRAW DOGS is an underrated masterpiece, just as powerful now as it was in 1971.
Rating: 
Summary: Once Upon A Time in The West Country - WARNING: plot spoiler
Review: Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs is set in deepest darkest Cornwall among a collection of yokels and idiots that would give the inbreds from Deliverence a run for their money the half witted sexual deviant stakes. Leaving aside obvious grievances that the Cornwall Tourist Board will have with the film, what lies beneath the surface of this slick and stylish Western-by-the-sea ia a far more intriguing, puzzling and reasonably disturbing proposition. Taking residence in the quiet, backwoods (surely backwards?) english county with his english wife, Amy (Susan George), mathematician David Summer (Dustin Hoffman) is hoping the peaceful rural surroundings will help him finish a theory he is working on. Only problem, this is Amy's birth place, and the couple are soon stirring the attentions of the locals, particularly Amy's ex-boyfriend. And the attentions are not exactly welcome.
Peckinpah's odyssey of masculine enlightenment is troubling in a number of ways. There, is of course, the now infamous rape scene, itself considered too daring by UK censors for the best part of twenty years due to its "she likes it really" philosophy. This may grab all the headlines, but the real trouble here is with the issues this, and the later siege at the cottage, present to the audience.
Straw Dogs is essentially a film about the empowering effect of affirmative of affirmative action, of violence. In its exploration of primal urges and instinct it probably shares more in common with a film such as Fight Club than the 'Rape' films of its era, such as Clockwork Orange, with which it is constantly and unfairly bracketed. Peckinpah's film is a much darker and more intriguing piece than Kubrick's modern morality fable, but intrigue does not always guarantee satisfaction. He is grappling with a serious and sensitive idea here, and he has to applauded for his bravery in doing so, although Peckinpah was never one to shy away from 'difficult' issues. But for all his intentions (good or otherwise) it is maybe this gung-ho, no holds barred balls in hand attitude that is the films flaw. The final scene, in which David, who has for the majority of the film been avoiding any kind of conversation, much to the annoyance of Amy, dispatches the various locals who are attempting to break into his house in a variety of gruesome ways, is probably the most troubling. As he drives away from the scene, David allows himself a self-satisfied smile. He has become empowered, more of a 'man'. This allied, to the rape scenes "she likes a bit of rough" sentiments seem to create a rather simplistic and quite ugly moral philosophy. Amy is raped by her ex, who to her is the symbol of the rugged primal male psyche which she has for too long been deprived of from David. Men should be men and anyway thats how women want them to be anyway, regardless of whatever deeper implications others may place on the film, seems really to be its message.
The blame for this can really only be pointed at one man, Sam Peckinpah. Peckinpah is one of America's greatest directors, but his mysoginistic tendencies hamper his handling of a complex matter. The film is fascinating, watchable, interesting and nigh on essential for followers of cinema, but it is hard to watch it without being confused by its intentions, and without taking away a slightly sour taste in the mouth.
It would be difficult to call the film an honourable failure, so an interesting one would be more appropriate. Still, imagine what would have happened if Hitchcock had directed it... I dread to think.
Rating: 
Summary: They also serve who stay at home and wait.
Review: With the attention this long-delayed release is getting in the British press, I decided to view it after avoidance for three decades. The film is emotionally complex (you might watch it alone so you can deal with your conflicted feelings) and somewhat flawed in editing and logic. Nevertheless, as a study of two imperfect humans--the newlyweds David (Hoffman) and Amy (George)--as they deal with a crisis that strikes at the core of their personal shortcomings, I think the film is quite good. Despite David's emergence as a "real man" fighting the invaders of "his" house, I think Amy is the more interesting character. They have retreated to her father's country house where every chair, she says bitterly, is "Daddy's chair." After her longing for the intimacy that David cannot provide goes horribly wrong, her sarcastic retort that evening when David complains about being snookered on the moors is a classic of rueful experience. David, as usual, is impervious to her meaning. When at the end of the film David drives off with the village idiot in tow, leaving Amy in a house full of dead men--with one or two perhaps still alive--he is as emotionally inaccessible to her as ever. This is a good movie about how flawed humans respond in extreme situations. The moral and emotional ambiguities inherent in their characters and actions make it all the more interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning!
Review: Straw Dogs is very powerful film-making. Especially the final scenes where the music (bagpipes) plays like a funeral dirge...the action flows and one gets the feeling that all the violence is inevitable, set on a course of pre-destined fate. as for the misogynistic (spelling?!) tone of film...i have to agree. unfortunately, without that tone i don't think the film would have worked as well.
Rating:
Summary: Peckinpah's Work of Art
Review: This review refers to the VHS Collector's Edition, Widescreen Presentation released by Anchor Bay......You may or may not be familiar with the films of Sam Peckinpah,If you have found yourself here I suspect you are. Peckinpah's films(The Wild Bunch, Pat Garret and Billy the Kid) are usually violent and controversial but brillant and captivating. This film is all those things, but this is not a western (his ususal genre), this is set in rural England in the early 70's.
David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman), a brillant mathematician, and pacifist is married to Amy (Susan George), she is young beautiful, sexy,and childlike. To get away from the violent atmoshpere occuring in the States, they moved to her family home in rural England. They employ some local antagonists, all of which seem to be the unemployable types, to do handy work around the property. Of course the men all knew Amy from before and still lust after her. Amy does not do much in the way of disuading them, in fact the more David works and spends time away from her, the more flirtatious she becomes with the group.
A deadly cat and mouse game ensues between the workers and David. He is forced to protect his home and his wife. When they try to break into his house, it becomes a battle of wills. At first David goes about methodically and logically securing his house but eventually he must turn to violence to accomplish this goal. The scene becomes very suspenseful and violent. DON"T watch this one alone!
As I mentioned there are some very violent scenes and there also are some scenes of rape, this would not be for the sensitive viewer. But if you like Peckinpah you will want to see this one for sure.
This edition is widescreen(1.77:1), and has be digitally mastered. The sound and picture are very good. It came in a hard plastic casing.
Go For It..........Laurie
Rating:
Summary: Honey, I shrunk the village
Review: Blimey, here's a story for the lead characters to tell their grandchildren. "Honey, do you remember that summer down in the country when I slaughtered half the population of a village for breaking and entering? You suffered a bit of that yourself. Do you remember how I left you alone in the house to take the crazy guy home and forget all about that guy who only had a bit of his foot blown off and so was probably still alive and dangerous? I think they call it a plot hole, sugar. Say, this pasta is great." Mind you, their relationship would have been hard pressed to have survived all that, so grandchildren would have been an unlikely prospect.
This film sticks out like a sore thumb even for the Seventies. There's no film quite like it. Incredibly, it has only just been cleared in the UK by the film classification board after years of banning despite once being freely available. I have a video copy. I'm embarrassed to report that the board consultated a couple of psychologists as to whether they thought the rape scene might be harmful to the public. I love democracy, don't you? An un-elected body consulting a profession that can't even agree if there is such a thing as personality disorder or an Oedipus complex to decide for millions what they can and can't see certainly takes the proverbial dog biscuit. Luckily for us, quack central past the scene as not harmful. Yes, but what if you already have a personality disorder? Still, you can now speculate about the notorious scene for yourself, soon. Was she faking it because she feared for her life? Did she have split loyalties right from the start? Gosh, I'm not touching it with a bargepole. The film, I mean. No, that's cowardly. Basically, when confronted by a bully you have two options, one of which is appeasement. Amy takes this option and is then taught a traumatic lesson. Still not willing to confront the lesson she attempts to repeat her mistake until her husband stops her and spells out what would happen to the pair of them if she carries out this option. Only when finally forced to take up arms does she qualitively learn. Is this the only way ultimately to deal with terrorists? There's little doubting the director's perspective, but what's yours?
The atmosphere of Straw Dogs is horrible from the start. I rarely watch it because of this. The editing is brilliant, the script strong and it lacks that distancing effect you get with most films. It is uncomfortably real. Should this have been the film to be titled THE OMEN? The brother grabbing his sister by the neck as they watch the couple in the cottage get into bed. The trap nearly springing on Charlie as the workmen try to put it on the cottage wall. Aspects of a cowboy movie filter through creating a bizarre atmosphere. Preposterous plotting means the film is best viewed as a strange nightmare, with human beings reduced to and even turning into rats before our very eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful and Gut-Wrenching
Review: Director "Bloody Sam" Peckinpah takes a cue from Ernest Hemingway in this visceral and, perhaps, most frank depiction of male hostility ever put on film. The concept is simple: a pacifist professor (Dustin Hoffman) settles with his restless, beautiful wife (Susan George) in the bleak farming village where she grew up. Their marriage as incomplete as the house they share, the mismatched pair live isolated from the world, save for four Alpha-males hired as handymen. They openly mock their employer, testing the professor's masculinity through varying degrees of humiliation while being spurred on by the flirtations of a wife whose sexual longing for them outweighs her fidelity. Hoffman and George give excellent performances, but it is director Peckinpah who is the real star of this gritty film. Refusing to pull punches, he vivisects the complex psychology of male aggression that is so often dismissed as simple and meaningless in society. While the film is violent--including a controversial and graphic rape scene that questions the nature of responsibility--it is the brooding air of tension permeating the film that is the most disturbing. Pay attention to little touches that drive the story, such as George calling not for her husband to rescue her in the film's bloody climax but for one of the rapists. David Mamet would explore similar territory in his own ode to Hemingway, "The Edge," but with less memorable results.
Rating:
Summary: ...in the west of England one summer...
Review: What makes the violence so powerful is the source of it. And the source of it all is Susan George. She is a beautiful and sexy blonde who all the rural lads remember from her youth and they are all jealous of Dustin Hoffman who is the American who has won her. Susan George and Dustin Hoffman seem a hopeless mismatch and she seems to know it before he does. She is just an English country girl and she resents that he is trying to make her in to a female version of himself, ie a more intellectual, responsiblespectacle wearing chess player. What she has that he underestimates the worth of is sensual appeal. And when he doesn't pay attention she advertises to any man near by just to prove she has it.
The way Peckinpah sets up the Hoffman/George relationship it is almost assured to lead to trouble. Instead of having Hoffman and George fight it out between themselves Peckinpah has them wage their war through the hired hands which are little more than hoods recognizing the opportunities when they present themselves.
George has a past with one of the lads and she does not exactly resist his advances and this is just more proof that things are not all well in her marriage. Though things go much much further than she had perhaps anticipated.
The atmosphere of the movie is great. The village is tiny, just a pub and a few houses. And the stone English country house that Hoffman and George rent for the year is like a small castle and decorated with weapons. The final confrontation is country manor warfare at its most intense. The final result is cathartic but feels more like an exhilerated confusion than a clear resolution.
Acting wise Hoffman is magnificent but George is also great displaying a wide range of moods and motivations.
Other movies have shown more violence than this one but still the violence in this one is of a very particular type, the type that Peckinpah suggests is seething below the surface of many man/woman relationships. Whether you agree with Peckinpahs assessment or not the movie is a charged and memorable one.
Rating:
Summary: Judge for yourself.
Review: Yeah, some people would like to like this movie. It's great film-making at its worse. You are not entertained, but hung somewhere between a visceral viewing of Schindler's List and a car race in which, deep down, you're waiting for a fatal crash. This isn't some Brit-Western with a triumphant hero and a defeated villain. This isn't a mob movie with likeable bad guys. Every second of this movie is violence. It starts out as a game--i.e. the children playing in the open scene, the recurring game of catch between a young girl and Henry the pedaphile, Dustin Hoffman hurling fruit at the household cat, Henry kills the young girl, Hoffman's nearly-adolescent wife erasing part of his blackboard, etc. It soons turns cruel--the killing of the cat, wife Amy's defacing of Hoffman's blackboard out of SPITE. As Hoffman remarks several times "it's not a game" anymore. Soon, the viewer is scandalized--nearly duped by the director's subversive desensitization of violence. But one shouldn't feel duped or desensitized. Especially, when one considers that the characters are scandalized by each other, by themselves, by the director. Amy is raped, Hoffman strikes Amy, everyone is trying to kill everyone--and even as Hoffman vows that "no one will do violence against this house", he proceeds to destroy it in order to kill the others...only to save the life of the guy who during the Hoffman's Last Stand, also tried to rape his wife. Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" was released during the same time as "Straw Dogs". Kubrick, predictably, decided to leave out the final chapter of the harrowing novel--in which Alex is as genuinely reformed as he can be, repetent and at peace. In making America's "VIOLENCE" film, perhaps no director wants any sort of resolution. This is, above all, an antithethical philosophy on cinematic violence. No heros to feel good about, no victory we can stomach. Director Peckinpah walks a fine line with this movie--but succeeds if this is his goal. No one leaves without be completely bloodied, no one leaves with their innoncence--not least of which, the viewer. By far, the most disturbing film i've ever seen.
|
