PodBill Just what I expected

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

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

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Leofwine_draca 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.

Prismark10 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.

jinsilver A collection of caricatures go through the motions of a terrible script, phoning in even the most dramatic moments, spoiling an exciting premise. I'm not even referring to the Cornwall yokels here, who are at least amusing; it's the two main characters who end up being the greatest let-downs, along with the simplistic morality play of a story itself. To its credit, the film is gorgeous, full of beautiful countryside and rustic town, but that can hardly carry two hours of melodrama.Dustin Hoffman plays a perfect effete professor stereotype, a self-centered coward smugly certain of his superiority, and due to that, the near-instant switch into unbeatable gladiator makes little sense. An explosion of rage and dishing out a few good hits before going down, perhaps. This is no Falling Down, where someone on the verge of cracking for a long time finally does; this is someone who becomes savage against his nature, and somehow conjures the skill to kill every enemy. A male superhero fantasy.Susan George is competent as a petulant brat, always needing attention, pushy yet unwilling to take personal action; the nature of their relationship or why they left is never explained, but it's hinted to be teacher/student. Unfortunately, her character never really goes anywhere, and her acting never gives any nuance to even the charged, violent scene preceding the rape. The only time she seems convincing is in the bedroom scene following David's return.The bizarre direction of the rape, that quiet tenderness suggesting that the first wasn't really rape after all, that deep down an attention-seeking girl is really looking for masculine violence from her paramour that she isn't getting from her husband, really confuses me... almost a rape fantasy. And then the whole purpose of the rape is just to create some extra justification for killing the louts, along with audience titillation. In 1971, it may have been shocking to put an on-screen rape in a mainstream movie, kicking off Last House on the Left and a whole series of rape-revenge movies, but now it just looks exploitative and badly done.Rounding out the cast, there's a few louts, an affable retired army major, a teen temptress, her drunken old father, and a retarded pedophile. Their names are hardly important, because all they do is fill a role.Beyond that, no action in the film looks real. The hits don't look real. The deaths don't look real. The rape doesn't look real.Overall, there's nothing in here but a generic western, uprooted and moved to Scotland, and any nuance the story could have had is missing.

Nemesis42 Extremely powerful piece of work, though I can not say it was enjoyable but excruciating. For me the female lead created a lot of woe in this film. She is brilliantly naive and annoying and causes so much conflict for the plot to chew upon. The actress performs awesomely, as does every other actor in this. !0/10 for script, casting, character development and direction. Brilliant film making team work but not a pleasant film. Very memorable though.In film school I did an essay on an aspect of films regarding how often female characters are used as plot obstacles for the males to overcome in order to advance the story. Here this is happening, yet it goes further in that her suffering becomes a big part of the story along side her carrying out so many ultimately destructive actions. There are also many male characters that perform many destructive actions here. I recommend this if you appreciate solid character development.