Straw Dogs (1971) User Reviews

Fantastic thriller that holds its own after 30 years

[FilmOtaku · 8/10 · 24 May 2003]

Straw Dogs is an intense thriller that shows what can happen when you push even the most mild mannered man too far. Dustin Hoffman plays a mathematician who temporarily moves to a house in a rural village in England with his wife, a former resident of the town, played by Susan George. The two withstand incessant needling from several of the townsfolk until George is raped and assaulted and Hoffman is pushed over the edge.

Incidentally, right after watching this film I found a documentary on cable about filmmakers from the late '60s to late '70s and one of the directors profiled was Sam Peckinpah. I had always considered his films to be violent and vaguely shocking, which never surprised me, knowing that he was a hard-living maverick who did things his way - an element that is resplendent in most of his films. A brief mention of Straw Dogs was included in this documentary, where they described it as a "sexist film". There are obvious scenes in the film that could support this criticism, but I think that is overanalyzing the film with a political correctness that is out of place. While the two female characters are both victimized, Susan George also has her moments of empowerment. I may be a female, but I don't consider Peckinpah's tendency to make testosterone-driven films any more sexist than anything that Tarantino puts out, and I'm a big fan of his work as well. It's a dangerous line to draw when one labels a film due to what is *not* included in a film.

What this film does contain is much more stellar - Hoffman is beyond incredible in this film. His character development is amazing to experience. One criticism of the film that I heard from a friend who saw it before me was that it "dragged." I couldn't disagree more. The development of the story until the extremely violent climax is a perfect pace because it made me feel like I was sitting in a dentist chair, knowing that this low boil could explode at any time. After the dust settles, the viewer is left to decide whether Hoffman's character made the right decision, and left to speculate on the ramifications of the choices made. This is by far one of the best films I've seen in recent months and plan to seek out the newly released Criterion edition in my quest to find out as much about this film as I can.

--Shelly

"This is where I live. This is me. I will not allow violence against this house."

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 25 February 2007]

Sam Peckinpah's 'Straw Dogs' begins peacefully enough, offering only a few subtle hints of the graphic rape that would form the centerpiece of the film, and unbridled violence that would comprise the harrowing final act. David Sumner (a brilliant Dustin Hoffmann, 'All The President's Men'), an American mathematician, arrives in a quaint Cornwall town to be met with a certain level of hostility. He and his British wife, Amy (Susan George), have moved back into Amy's hometown to escape violence and crime in the United States. The irony of this motivation, even at the beginning of the film, is not lost.

David is very much an introvert. The job of a mathematician requires hours of quiet time to think and ponder, something he just can't get. His wife Amy is immature and disruptive, though we can't blame her; David has little time for her amidst all his mathematical calculations, and he treats her cries for attention as one treats a child, at one point telling her "you act like you're fourteen years old." As days go by, David and Susan face increasing levels of harassment from the local residents, most particularly the four young local men who have been employed to build their garage. The harassment begins quite modestly, with David – the outsider – becoming the butt of local jokes, whether it be because he has trouble trying to start his battered old car, or because he tries to enter it from the wrong side. On his first visit to the pub, David requests "any American brand of cigarettes," an unwise move if you wish to make friends amongst the fiercely patriotic country folk of Cornwall. He would later buy the stone-faced men around him a round of drinks, but doesn't sit around to enjoy it with them.

After a somewhat leisurely opening thirty minutes, we suddenly recognise that things are getting serious when Susan's cat goes missing. This event in itself is not particularly ominous, since the cat goes missing all the time. However, when David pulls on the light switch in his bedroom closet, he is understandably startled to find his strangled cat dangling limp from the cord. Despite his insistence that "it could have been anyone passing by," we already know who murdered "kitty." David vows to confront the four local men, endeavouring to "catch them off guard" and force a confession. However, given David's typically shy and pacifistic nature, he subsequently loses his courage and backs down.

David's "confrontation" invariably ends in his accepting an invitation to go hunting the following day. Whilst David takes pot-shots at the passing birds (with little result), one of the men, Charlie Venner (Del Henney), a former lover of Susan, drops into the house. Susan demands that he leave, but he casually casts aside her pleas and starts to kiss her. Susan resists at first but, shockingly, at times she appears to return his affection. Nevertheless, the rape scene is difficult to watch, and Peckinpah masterfully intercuts the quickly-cut scene with images of David standing obliviously amongst the scrub, still actively trying to shoot down ducks. Another of the men arrives at the home, and a second uncomfortable rape scene follows. Once it is all over, we find David finally shooting down a bird, only to find that it isn't a duck. Disappointed that he has made such a careless mistake, he drops the dead bird into a bush, no doubt assured that the worst thing to happen today was his inability to hunt. When he next sees Susan, she says nothing to him; and she never will.

When a mildly mentally-challenged local man, Henry Niles (David Warner, who was uncredited due to insurance complications), also a convicted child molester, accidentally murders a teenage girl who made advances towards him, the drunken father of the girl wants his retribution. Niles, stumbling through a heavy onset of fog, finds his way in front of David and Susan's car, and they bring him to their home until medical assistance can arrive. However, the murdered girl's father and the four men who had been building David's garage turn up outside his house with only one thing on their minds: getting inside that house and getting to Niles. The previously mild-mannered David, on the other hand, has alternative plans for these men.

The title of the film is drawn from a common translation of 'Tao Te Ching', an ancient Chinese philosophical treatise: "Heaven and Earth are impartial; they see the ten thousands things as straw dogs. The wise are impartial; they see the people as straw dogs." Many ancient Chinese ceremonies included the use of grass-woven dogs, which were revered and respected during the ritual, but afterward discarded and burnt. Perhaps the title symbolises David's underlying attitudes towards human lives as the men begin to invade his home – we are all straw dogs, made only to be destroyed.

Whilst David's moral reasoning for defending his home is to prevent Niles' bloody death at the hands of the mob, he appears to take grim satisfaction in murdering the intruders himself. Once all are good and dead (the most nasty mode of death involving a fully-sprung bear trap), David stands aside, a peculiar grin evident upon his face, exclaiming to himself, "Jesus. I got 'em all!" He is not disgusted or sickened by the deaths he has forced himself to orchestrate – he is actually satisfied, invigorated. He is proud of his achievements.

What could have possibly precipitated this sudden change in David's character? From a logical, mild-mannered, peaceful man arose a methodical killing machine, who shockingly takes pleasure in his multiple kills. Then we suddenly realise. These qualities were within David the entire time. Indeed, they subconsciously inhabit the hearts of all men. He just required the horrific circumstances of that night to bring about the alarming conversion.

The granddaddy of the modern revenge flick and still potent after 30 years.

[capkronos · 8/10 · 18 May 2003]

Dustin Hoffman is perfectly cast as wealthy American mathematician David Sumner. Soon after arriving to an isolated English village with his energetic young wife Amy (the captivating Susan George), trouble starts. You see, she's so attractive the men in town can't keep from leering at her, he's such a pacifist the locals feel at ease to push him around and the jealousy over David's wealth, power, intelligence and wife turn to a series of harassments, one more extreme than the next until Amy is brutally beaten and raped. David finally snaps and decides he's had enough when their assailants accidentally kill a cop and then hold them at bay in their own home.

Not a horror film in the traditional sense, this (one of the most controversial movies of the 1970s) is nonetheless an effective, violent and relevant piece of shock cinema. Peckinpah's statement is that in this world, like it or not, there is a genuine need for violence and he concentrates most on uncovering how common emotions (jealousy, vengeance, lust) can turn seemingly normal men evil. Containing strong performances from the entire cast, STRAW DOGS has been copied many times since, but seldom this effectively.

Unfairly kicked around by its critics

[Mark-574 · 9/10 · 10 June 2000]

This is probably one of the most offensive masterpieces ever made. There's no reason to argue with many of the objections against it, but the main criticism- that Hoffman is battling his Amy's rapists for sexual mastery of her- is unfair. Many of the film's critics don't seem to realize that what the audience learns about events is completely different from what Hoffman knows. He never learns that the villagers raped his wife; and he's never completely sure that Nyles, the villager he's defending, *didn't* rape a girl. He never realizes that the villagers are hypocrites for raping his wife and then hunting down Nyles as a "perverted animal." And he never realizes that his wife wants to throw Nyles out not because she's an immoral coward, but because, after being raped once, she doesn't want to defend an accused rapist. Amy is not the object of his fight, which is why he asks her if she wants to leave in the middle of it. She's as irrelevant to him as the villager he's defending. Hoffman's only concern is his house, which Peckinpah views as the symbol of his manhood. They're both under construction and assault by the villagers. When Hoffman has finally defended his house, he decides that he doesn't really know his way home; his manhood is worthless to him. It's difficult to understand why the film's critics view its climax as an expression of Peckinpah's supposed belief that women must be seized through violence. Hoffman never even knows that Amy's part of the contest, and even though we do, we're left with the impression he's lost her, not earned her, because of his battle.

Years ahead of its time

[itamarscomix · 9/10 · 18 February 2006]

Sam Pecknpah followed his extremely violent and critically acclaimed 'The Wild Bunch' with the even more violent 'Straw Dogs', which didn't sit as well with the critics; in fact, 'Straw Dogs' was shocking enough to be banned in the UK where it was filmed, although in the US it was released with an X rating. Critics attacked it as being overtly violent and sexual, and entirely missed the message Peckinpah was making. Three and a half decades later, though, it's easier to appreciate 'Straw Dogs' for the groundbreaking creation that it was, and its influence can clearly be seen in the works of such contemporary directors as David Fincher, David Lynch and Todd Solondz, among others.

With hindsight, it's hard to miss the fact that the sexual and violent content of 'Straw Dogs' isn't a whole lot more shocking than that of Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange', released that very same month. 'A Clockwork Orange' also created its own share of controversy, of course; yet somehow it was more rapidly recognized as the masterpiece it is by critics than 'Straw Dogs'. In part, I think that's due to the fact that while 'A Clockwork Orange' is an ultra-violent surreal fantasy from its very beginning, 'Straw Dogs' seems entirely innocent at first, like a very realistic and light-hearted drama, and the violence builds gradually throughout the film. That sense of realism, which 'A Clockwork Orange' never pretends to, makes 'Straw Dogs' much more difficult to take as an analogy; it cries out to be taken at face value, which makes it much more difficult to swallow.

Dustin Hoffman was never an actor to fear controversy, and 'Straw Dogs' catches him right at the peak of his best years as an actor, after 'The Graduate', 'Midnight Cowboy' and 'Little Big Man', and before 'Lenny', 'Papillon' and 'All The President's Men'. His performance is as amazing as in any of these, and again Hoffman proves his rare range, as well as his sensitivity; his performance carries the film to true excellence, and perhaps that's the other reason that the film was a bit more difficult to take than 'A Clockwork Orange' – to take nothing away from the wonderful Malcolm McDowell, what 'A Clockwork Orange' simply didn't have was a protagonist for the viewer to identify with, and therefore, like I stated before, it was easier to take as an analogy, and Alex functioned more as a symbolic and iconic character than as a real human being. David Sumner, on the other hand, is a remarkably realistic and convincing character, and one that is very easy to relate to, which makes the change that comes over him towards the end of the film all the more shocking. Again, it is that building up of tension that makes 'Straw Dogs' such a powerful experience.

'Straw Dogs' is a film that creates controversy and disagreements, and so it should. It's easy to create controversy with sex and violence; but many years later that initial shock fades, and the real test is whether or not the film stands the trial of time and still manages to shock and engross. Like 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Straw Dogs' stands that test. Love it or hate it, it's hard to deny that it's an important and influential film, and it's essential viewing for any film lover.

Movies shouldn't entertain, they should scar.

[bert6761 · 27 October 2004]

I think pretty much all of the people posting comments on this film have totally missed the point of the film. One reviewer sees the movie as sexist against women, others hate that plot points aren't wrapped up or it doesn't make sense that Amy enjoys the rape. A lot of people just don't seem to get this film. This film is not about entertainment. It's not interested in impressing you with artistic flare, and it doesn't care about wrapping sh-t up in a neat little package so you walk away with all the answers. People who complain about that kind of stuff might as well go and watch a Julia Roberts movie. This is Sam Peckinpah working out his demons, this is him breaking into your safe haven, slashing your face open. I personally have never been more disturbed or hurt by a film in my life, and because of this, I don't walk away in denial of its greatness. I'm able to say, "wow! That movie totally tapped in to these dormant emotions and feelings I've always had but either didn't realize or wasn't willing to admit to myself. Examples of Peckinpahs crushing insights are the entire female/male dynamic, the hurt we cause each other intentionally and unintentionally, the sickness of it all. This film hurt me so bad that I couldn't talk to my wife for about a week after. (Incidentally, the same thing happened in reverse when she watched Fight Club, which is really the perfect companion to this film.) This movie forces you to think, to face the ugliness of the world. It presents you with sh-t you don't want to face, feelings that you have buried in your subconscious so you will not have to deal with them. That is why I think so many people don't like this movie, because it has scarred them so badly that they can't even admit it hit a nerve, and thus dismiss it as "stupid, or retarded" I don't think I'll ever be able to watch this movie again, it was just too raw, too powerful, too hurtful. But I learned a lot about myself in the process, and was totally absorbed and thoughtful for a long time afterwards.

" I don't know how much movies should entertain. To me I'm always interested in movies that scar. The thing I love about JAWS is the fact that I've never gone swimming in the ocean again." -David Fincher

A Confused Movie More Than Anything Else

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 20 February 2004]

I remember more than 20 years ago STRAW DOGS was avaliable for rental along with video nasty crap like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE , ABSURD and NIGHT OF THE DEMON . What set SD apart from the other titles was that it was the only video on the shelf with a sticker proclaiming " For over 18s only . Not to be rented to children " . It should also be remembered that everytime Channel 4 has thought about screening it the channel changes its mind at the last minute. In short STRAW DOGS has a reputation as an extreme film even more extreme than say A CLOCKWORK ORANGE so when Channel 4 at long last decided to screen it late last year I decided there was no way I was going to miss it

!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS !!!!!

Despite the hype I failed to see what the fuss was about . Ah yes that "rape" scene . It wasn`t rape with the first man but it was certainly rape with the second . I think . But I`m not sure , mainly down to the directing. I think . That`s the problem with this movie - It`s very difficult to understand the point Sam Peckinpah is trying to make and much of the story takes some swallowing . Uberwimp David Sumner decides he`s going to take a stand and protect a suspected murderer from a lynch mob ? Hmmm . I guess that this ridiculous turn of events had a motive behind it because whatever motive he had seemed to take place off screen

It could be easy to blame the screenwriters for much of the unexplained motives in the story but Peckinpah should take the blame for the film`s flaws . Dustin Hoffman and Susan George as David and Amy Sumner a newly wed couple ? One of the most unlikely onscreen couples in the history of cinema in my opinion . And did anyone laugh out loud as I did at the end when after a violent bloodbath David turns to the blood soaked Amy and asks " You all right ? " . What a bloody stupid question

And when you stop to think about it STRAW DOGS is a bloody stupid film . However I can`t help thinking Peckinpah knew fine well what he was doing when he made it and was aware of how the critics and moral guardians would take it when it was released . In short Sam Peckinpah is having a laugh at the expense of the establishment . It`s not his best film ( Choose between CROSS OF IRON or THE WILD BUNCH ) but it is his most extreme and infamous film and that alone makes it worth watching

Everyone betrays everyone

[stpetebeach · 10/10 · 12 May 2005]

It is certainly possible to look at STRAW DOGS as nothing more than a simple story of a man defending his house, his animalistic insides unleashed by a group of Cornish hoodlums. On that level alone it is a terrific piece of film-making backed up with highly textured acting from the two principals. But there are layers and layers and layers in this film, and that is what makes it art, and a masterpiece. Peckinpah himself told people that Dustin Hoffman was the heavy, and the movie was a portrait of a bad marriage. Try watching with those two facts in mind, and the film takes on a whole new complexion. The Criterion Collection two-disc set of STRAW DOGS is excellent, from the Peckinpah documentary to interviews with Susan George and the producer, to the audio commentary track. I agree with other reviewers who stressed that Peckinpah wasn't interested in "solving" problems; he wanted us to look at ourselves, and cringe.

One of the most realistic portrayals of emotion on film.

[Jacques98 · 7/10 · 12 January 2009]

In the early 2000s, there was a breakout of movies labeled as "torture porn", which all had three main factors. First, they were intended to make the audience feel the same utter desperation as the tortured characters on screen. Second, they almost always had a deep social portrayal. And, third, they were always rejected by hypocritical critics who failed to see intelligence in desperation, then went off and praised hollow "fine cinema" pieces for "saying something about the human condition". These types of films have always interested me because they mix unrelenting pace with a non-genetic message about how humans tend to think. And I find it interesting that Straw Dogs (1971), while not really a "torture" film, has every single aspect I just listed. While it's gained a lot more credit today, in its time, it was just as hated by the critics as "torture porn" is now. It's funny how easily society can completely be in denial when a movie like Straw Dogs says something about the human condition no one will dare say, while society can then go and praise some completely hollow, cliché-spewing film like (excuse the modern example) No Country for Old Men. I find that hypocrisy almost comical. And I think, maybe, that was one of Straw Dog's points.

So what makes Straw Dogs so intelligent? Well, first, it is simply one of the few accurate portrayals of REAL human emotion in cinema. Realism is a word that is thrown around constantly by writers/directors, but as Hollywood gets closer to what it thinks is realism, it just takes five steps back from being truly anything like how real humans think. Very few movies have ever achieved truly expressing how people interact without turning the characters into some podium to preach some idea the writer/director has, or just turning the characters into pieces of cardboard that move the plot along. Contrary to popular belief, the greatest acting in the world can't fix unrealistic characters. That works just about as much as a pretty coat of paint fixes a house that's ready to collapse in on itself. The emotion is Straw Dog's shining point. The two main characters' emotions are portrayed differently in every situation. One scene will end with a loving moment, then the next will open with a bitter one, then the next will open with completely indifference. Things that should have an emotional impact on the characters doesn't have any whatsoever. Actions that should cause them negative emotion cause them pleasure. Just when you find a character totally likable, they'll do something to ruin that feeling—a lot like the betrayal of a friend. Put simply: I've seen countless movies in my life, but never once have I seen a movie with this much of a realistic emotional core.

Likewise, without spoiling anything, Straw Dogs goes where no movie in its time dared to go with its subject matter. While I wouldn't necessary call every idea presented here original, some of them are, and not a single one of them is a cliché. It's very relatable to A Clockwork Orange—which came out the same year—in that way. I find it sad, however, that A Clockwork Orange is now considered some sort of classic, while Straw Dogs is still lesser known to the general public than a lot of foreign indie films. Straw Dogs nearly singlehandedly formed the groundwork for the thriller genre, and its influence can be seen in everything from other 70s movies to whatever cliché thriller is playing at the local theater as I type this. The ending is pure intensity, and very few movies can pull that off. The kills in the end of the film are a lot more graphic than anything I expected from a 70s film, and some are just brutal. Straw Dogs deserves more recognition.

So, if my review is entirely positive, why do I not give this a higher score? As much as I can relate to this movie, and as much as I appreciate it, I think giving this a perfect score is an insult to what the director was going for. Sam Peckinpah didn't want this film to be entertaining; he wanted it to truly disturb the viewer. Though that may be a little hard to do now in 2009, due to the countless rip-offs and rehashes of the subject matter, this is nowhere near easy viewing. Perfection is an extension of contentment, and I personally was not content with this movie. I wasn't supposed to be. It's a point-blank contradiction to the Hollywood formula that states you have to make the viewer go in their pants out of awe/contentment or you haven't done your job. That's why I can't give Straw Dogs a perfect score, but it didn't want one. It's too honest for that. It's too intelligent for that.

7/10

Could they show this in 1971?

[Magnum-9 · 10/10 · 14 July 1999]

So you think movies are violent today, huh? Think again. Sam Peckinpah's highly charged, extremely intense, brutally violent 1971 pic is an underrated masterpiece, in my opinion, that redefined cinema violence forever (as if "The Wild Bunch" wasn't enough). It is one of the best directed, most fluidly edited pictures that I've seen in recent years. Today's films don't even come close.

Allegedly banned in the U.K. to this very day, "Straw Dogs" came to me out of nowhere. I had heard good things about it, but never really caught onto it, until one day when I was at a video store browsing around for no apparent reason. I had absolutely no money and wasn't planning to buy anything when all of the sudden, I saw it . . .

WIDESCREEN - UNCENSORED,RESTORED - COLLECTOR'S EDITION

I had never even seen the movie and I wanted to buy it! I mean, hey, it WAS the last one left.

So I took a huge risk, got a loan from my mother, used all the two-dollar bills I had been saving to pay her back, and bought it right out. And then, I viewed it later on that night, praying I hadn't wasted my time. AND: I was floored. The film literally knocked me out, kept me peeled to the screen at every instant, left me disturbed for days to come. I mean, let me tell you, go out and rent this, buy this, anything, just see it! Although it is moderately paced, the film remains intense the whole way, and takes an unexpected turn into extreme violence towards the legendary ending, a showdown worthy of multiple viewings (watch "Fear" to see an amateur retread).

So it goes like this: Hoffman plays a wimpy mathematician who flees with his wife George to the peaceful countryside (to get away from violence!), only to be ravaged by the locals who just wanna start trouble. It is the ultimate test of manhood, showing us (in a somewhat biased manner) that it takes aggression to get what you want and keep what you have. You'll be amazed at Hoffman's "transformation" (we all know deep down that EVERYONE'S got it in them somewhere), but it makes you think, especially when Hoffman has to defend his home from several large armed men WITHOUT USING ANY WEAPONS, only his brains and some household appliances.

I'm surprised that this is such a forgotten film. There aren't enough people who can actually claim to have seen this picture or even know what it's about. I find that hard to ingest, being that it was one of the most controversial films of its day. But it IS very brutal, especially the once trimmed rape scene, restored on my copy, a scene that I find to be the most intense. However, today's moviegoers may not agree.

So see "Straw Dogs," the movie that single-handedly turned me into a Peckinpah fan. The editing is Oscar-worthy, the acting is magnificent, the situations are well thought out, and the characters are fleshed to the bone (sometimes literally). I promise you won't leave disappointed.

#5 on my Top 200 List, **** outta **** on my personal scale.

Banned for years, worth the wait?

[TheNorthernMonkee · 6/10 · 10 August 2003]

BIG SPOILERS

Well, after however many years it was that this film was banned for, eventually it became viewable. Was this really worth the wait? Truthfully, yes. Hoffman is surprisingly stunning as a mild mannered pacifist who goes completely tonto in defending his house. The violence is graffic & once the drunks begin to attack the house, this film switches from an almost detailed portrayal of quiet yet intimidating rural life to what feels more like a piece of Terminator style action.

This film was understandably banned for quite a long time as not only is it explicitly violent, but a rape scene half way through the film (which sadly is what the film is most famous for) is both explicit & almost possitive towards the notion of rape. George's almost enjoyment at the first of the two rapes (both done one after the other) is worrying in itself & understandably condemned.

However, despite the negativity of the portrayal of the rape scene and the admittedly slow beginning, this film is worth watching. Perhaps not as stunning as a lot of reviews claim, but by no means as bad as others claim either. Go into this film with an open mind, don't abandon it after twenty minutes and be prepared to see a side of Dustin Hoffman that not many people probably expected to witness.

disturbing, in a way, more for what it suggests than what it shows, and how it leads head-on through its conclusion

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 9 August 2006]

Sam Pecikinpah's Straw Dogs might not be one of his very best films- after seeing the Wild Bunch it attempts the same level of psychological intensity but not the overall weight with the ensemble form- but it always kept me interested and glued to the screen. This is the kind of film, or at least has many a scene, that would work greatly in psychology and women's studies courses in colleges, to really get a real debate going about what is going on with these people. It brings issues of social class, society in general (and where you come from mostly, i.e. Brits vs. Americans), rape, violence, and a certain male domineering way that undoes everything. It's charged with an unusual Dustin Hoffman performance and Peckinpah's disorienting but exciting way of editing his scenes. These are all fractured people, and some of these scenes are fractured to the point of a kind of unhinged, brilliant disturbance. But its really the subject matter that kicks things into people's mind sets, and what is and what isn't usually shown on screen. Hence, what is suggested becomes about as powerful as what is really laid on thick on screen (particularly in the 2nd half).

The main centerpiece of the film sticks this in and doesn't let up, and one wonders why logic never seems to intervene. Perhaps because this is more of a kind of treatise on behavior than any kind of typical revenge story. This centerpiece- where Susan George's character gets raped by an ex-boyfriend, and then gang raped by the men working on her and her husband David's (Hoffman) garage- acts as the first tip of the scale in what becomes un-hinged for them in this little British community. It's at first, of course, a real sexual crime as he forces himself upon her. But then, apparently, she succumbs to it and becomes lusting towards the man who once was close to her. But then the other men come in, pointing a gun at him to get up, he does, and then the full-on rape ensues. This is all edited (along with Hoffman, oblivious, off on a strange Quail hunt) to maximum efficiency, and is probably one of the more provoking scenes from any film of the 70s. Is this really more of a male viewpoint, the typical 'no means yes' thought process by the director, or is there something even deeper not being read right off the bat? Or is it clear as day that this is just the real, shattering force to drive the rest of the film? The latter might be truer to me. This then becomes further complicated later in the film as the men break into the house, and what preceded it with the tension she has with David.

Then, as the film rolls into its final chapters, as Henry Niles (David Warner, always good) has been hit by accident by David driving home and taken in, is suspected of murder of a girl. "This is my home, I can't let them in" says David, and so the violence becomes widespread, almost bordering over the top (i.e. bear-trap). It comes about as close as one could figure to the final act of The Wild Bunch, and it has that same visceral impact. But in a way, these scenes aren't really AS engaging as some other ones, like a very tense scene where before all of this happens David and Amy (George) go to some Catholic shindig, where her visions of what just happened, surrounded by the very same men who committed the act, are compacted into something quite terrible for her. This editing job, headed by three editors, is quite eye-catching, if of the period, and sets the tone for everything that takes place. It's quite the subjective movie, a precursor perhaps to Taxi Driver. But this is not to say I thought the film flawless- George's performance, while occasionally gripping and sincere, usually didn't do it for me and almost made the character too thin to really understand (maybe only till the very end does her character come full circle). It also has a couple of last lines that are either very good or very annoying. And some of the early scenes in the film make a little too obvious what the mood might become.

But all of this aside, Straw Dogs works as a film meant to turn the heat up about what it means to reach the 'breaking point' for both men and women, who are far from being very 'good' people but try not to be evil either. The ones that are made to be the antagonists are almost cartoonish (one of the British thugs practically can't stop laughing, that is until he breaks into the house). There's a lot that can be read into this film, and it might even work better for me on a repeat viewing. It's controversy doesn't really wane thirty-five years later, and it questions the actions of almost all involved, almost asking us to judge, but presenting us in general with a vision into a kind of hell. Hence why it might work best in psychology classes.

Mad Dogs and Englishmen

[JasparLamarCrabb · 6/10 · 12 July 2007]

Sam Peckinpah's legendary film is a must see. Dustin Hoffman and Susan George move into a farm house in the English countryside and soon become fodder (sexual and otherwise) for the local ne'er do wells. Hoffman, a mathematician, is either a self-righteous peacenik or a cowardly nelly (depending on your point of view). The film is electrifying and makes a solid case for the argument that anyone is capable of violence if pushed far enough. It's unflinching and never obvious. Hoffman is great (he still looked like Benjamin Braddock!) and Susan George, despite really bad teeth, is quite a number. The scene of her getting raped is repellent. Not just because the act itself is abhorrent, but also because George is clearly enjoying the assault. The local hooligans are genuinely scary. David Warner makes an appearance as the village idiot.

Retarded English lads and an American moron in the countryside

[ashebox · 3/10 · 13 December 2010]

A sauced-up drunk bum, keeps everybody in the 25 population of an old English village, well.. sauced up, and on his own expense! (Though no explanation is given why he has endless funds, or why he is the bum of the village) Enter the completely brainless American (supposed intellectual played by Hofmann), who is married to the even more mindless Britt hottie, with the intellect of a 9 year old, whom everybody in the village where she originates from, pervs on her on a permanent basis (maybe because she is the only female in this village). No explanation is given why they got married, because it seems that they have only just met, and now they have moved to the dregs of nowhere in England to begin their immature and mundane lives together. And so begins the meek plot of these preposterously dim individuals meandering into complete boring oblivion.

After trudging along for an hour, the feeble plot starts to show its bland face. For a while you think that this cannot be based on rational thinking human beings. But then it hits you like a clammy sack in the face: they really are telling the story this way! Nothing happens for most of the movie, the couple are attacked by the drunken village morons, and the movie ends.

The stupidity of the characters never seize to amaze: Whilst the house is under siege by numerous armed men, braking windows and firing gun shots, the main character says to his wife: "Honey, you go to bed :), I'll tell them to go away.."

The acting is not at all bad actually. There is also lots of excellent editing to convey the awfully stark point.. And that's why this movie gets a 3. Mostly it was disappointing because the characters are supremely stupid in everything they do (the main character is a mathematician with a grant!). This movie is highly acclaimed by many, and you would think there must be some reason why people think so, but there is not. Perhaps because of the violence and subject matter for the time, but that does not make it a good movie. It falls flat on all levels from the start, and as soon as you hope it will gain momentum and become something, it slips and falls flat, face first again... and by then you don't want to make the effort to lower your intelligence to really try and understand this ca-ca called Straw Dogs.

An Example of Early 1970s Cinema

[eibon09 · 4 October 2001]

Straw Dogs(1971) reveals a primal human action that is the driving force behind its characters. As with Deliverance(1972), Straw Dogs also is fascinated with the violent urge within the human soul. The primal aspect of the human being is provocatively examined in Straw Dogs(1971). Sam Peckinpah forcefully depicts issues that were hinted at in The Wild Bunch(1969). Paints a dark picture of humanity with the person's frightening ability to harm at any time. The title of the film ties in perfectly with the nature of the story.

An interesting example of a vigilante film before the subgenre became fashionable. Films before had dealt with the theme of revenge but rarely as brutal or primal as in Straw Dogs(1971). Predates Death Wish(1974) by three years. The uncredited inspiration for Death Wish(1974) and others of its kind. Both films include Meek liberal men who explode with violent anger in different ways. Shows revenge and the consequences behind the act of revenge in a realistic dimension.

Straw Dogs(1971) marked the first film Sam Peckinpah did which wasn't a Western. The film's direction creates a powerful piece of cinema with a strong European sensibility. Its a shame Sam Peckinpah never did more European Thrillers after SD. One film which mixes the American style of Peckinpah's Westerns with the European touch of Straw Dogs(1971) is Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia(1974). At times the movie looks as if it could have been done by Hammer Studios. An indication that the late filmmaker could succeed outside of the Western genre.

Good at showing that any person(even peaceful natured)can be capable of violent action at any given moment. The interactions between David Sumner and the Village Reverand is filled with subtle hostility. Represents the conflict between religion and science which is wittily enforced in the dialogue between the two. The locations of Cornwall becomes an important part of the film's emotion. Intense atmosphere is what gives the film a tinge of horror. Straw Dogs(1971) is in a couple of ways a British take on the Deliverance story.

There seems to be something autobiographical within the frames of the story. Deals with the idea of Man's violent rites of passage that Sam Peckinpah was only too familiar with. David Sumner symbolizes the private inner self of Sam Peckinpah's persona. The intense relationship between David and Amy Sumner was based on the director's experiences with marriage and relations with women. His direction of the actors is masterful. Has to be one of the director's most personal(perhaps his most personal)film of his directorial resume.

A notorious sequence from Straw Dogs(1971) is the infamous rape of Amy Sumner which plays a tricky balance between the abhorrent and the erotic without spilling over to either side. I can imagine the many people that were taken aback by this scene especially during the first rape when it turns into a love scene. Without the dark humor that was present in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange(1971). Excellently edited scene with some powerful intercutting. Not an overly graphic scene but more psychological with the camera's focus on Susan George's face. Its the psychological abasement and reaction of Amy that is the true disturber of the senses.

There is an interesting sub plot between Henry Niles and Janice Hedden that is inspired by OF MICE AND MEN. The director was heavily influenced by the works of John Steinbeck, none so evident as in the characterizations of Henry Niles. Henry Niles is absolutely patterened after the strong but slow witted Lenny from OF MICE & MEN. David Warner pulls off an fantastic performance in a complex role. The scene in the church stable is reminiscent of Lenny and his bosses wife meeting in a barn during OF MICE & MEN. Henry Niles is alot like the misunderstood alleged witch of Don't Torture a Duckling(1972).

From the very beginning a confrontation between the house workers and David Sumner becomes inevitable. There is some major tension that grows to a boiling point until the hot pot explodes during the climax. The actors do a convincing job in displaying tension with their emotions. When the confrontation finally does happen everything becomes chaotic and violent. This part of the film may have influneced Wes Craven to a certain extent when he did Last House on the Left(1971). By the climax of Straw Dogs, David Sumner despises the house workers so much that he uses Henry Niles as an excuse to strike back at them.

Where the bloodbath at the film's finale reaches a fever pitch is when reason turns to bloodlust. When the confrontation began there were reasons for each group but as it progressed the two parties become more interested in killing each other. I find it funny that the two groups become less concern in finding Janice Hedden and more concern in fighting to the death. It just shows that protecting one's land or property is the most important thing to a man. David Sumner and the house workers battle each other in a manner similar to the landowners of the Middle Ages. Sombre use of slow motion effects and editing techniques turns the climax into a nerve twister.

Dustin Hoffman is very good in the role of the timid turned violent David Sumner. Susan George in her role projects both vurnability and eroticism. The film's climax would be rehased for the house attack in The Osterman Weekend(1983). When Sam Peckinpah also worked as a writer in his films the results were usually brilliant. This is the case with Straw Dogs(1971). Straw Dogs(1971) is an impressive film of an era when filmmakers were not afraid to take chances with risky subject matters.

A harsh cinematic kick to the solar plexus

[Woodyanders · 9/10 · 26 July 2017]

Meek American mathematician David Sumner (a fine and credible performance by Dustin Hoffman) and his restless young wife Amy (a very brave and strong portrayal by Susan George) settle in a remote rural England village for some peace and quiet. However, their tranquility gets disrupted by a gang of local toughs.

Director Sam Peckinpah ably crafts an extremely tense and uncomfortable atmosphere as well as deftly generates plenty of nerve-wracking suspense, grounds the gripping premise in a plausibly drab workaday reality, and stages the startling climax with his trademark sinewy brio. The taut and unflinching script by Peckinpah and David Zelag Goodman makes a supremely unsettling statement that one can't escape from either brutality or confrontation no matter how hard one tries to; alas, mankind's capacity for cruelty is a tragically pervasive and ubiquitous thing that infects us all to some degree or another. Of course, this film further hammers home the central bitter point that even the most passive and mild-mannered person can commit acts of savage violence if pushed far enough over the edge.

Hoffman and George both do sterling work in the lead roles; they receive sturdy support from Peter Vaughan as gruff patriarch Tom Hedden, T.P. McKenna as no-nonsense lawman Major John Scott, Del Henney as Amy's still smitten former boyfriend Charlie Venner, Jim Norton as the crude Chris Cawsey, Ken Hutchison as the equally boorish Norman Scutt, Sally Thomsett as teasing young tart Janice, and David Warner as child-like, but still dangerous simpleton Henry Niles. Both John Coquillon's crisp cinematography and Jerry Fielding's spare melodic score are up to speed. By no means a pleasant movie, but nonetheless a highly potent and disturbing one.

Peckinpah's most notorious film

[barnabyrudge · 8/10 · 18 November 2002]

Straw Dogs is banned on TV and video in the United Kingdom.

Allegedly, the violence and sex in it are too much, even for adult

viewers. I find this argument preposterous, since the film is less

violent than Reservoir Dogs, less sexually explicit than Damage,

and less mindless than any 18-certifcate Arnold Schwarzenegger

film of the 80s or 90s.

It tells of an American scientist living in a backwoods part of

Cornwall who is humiliated and attacked by the locals when he

tries to protect a mentally ill man from them. These same locals

also take a liking to his wife, and in one famous scene, they rape

her while he is out duck shooting.

The rape scene is effective, but not really as offensive as people

have suggested. There's a weirdness about it, because the victim

Susan George seems to encourage her attackers rather than

resist them, and this is one of the main reasons that the scene

has been condemned by so many. However, I felt that it merely

added to the character's actions and made the rape believable

rather than exploitative.

This is one of Peckinpah's best, with only Cross of Iron, The Wild

Bunch and Ride the High Country in the same league. It's hard to

enjoy, but equally hard to forget.

"I don't know my way home. " - Henry Niles

[MichaelMargetis · 6/10 · 1 October 2005]

I didn't know quite what to think after viewing Sam Peckinpah's controversial-for-the-day suspense drama 'Straw Dogs'. I kind of liked it, but I was very confused by it. The film starts off a real bore, and then gets a tad interesting about half an hour into it. At the one hour mark it gets consistently entertaining, and the final half-hour of the film is non-stop suspense and thrills. The film is really dull when the first half, and wildly entertaining the second half. Dustin Hoffman gives an astonishing performance as to be expected as the poor Math geek who decides he's not gonna take sh*t from no one anymore, and Susan George is very so-so in her role (she's topless in the film, so that's a plus for all you hound dogs out there). The movie is very brutal and violent in it's final thirty minutes and it contains a very strange and disturbing semi-mutual rape scene towards the middle. This isn't really a film for the weak-stomached, like a lot films of this genre. Sam Peckinpah does a fine job directing, but the screenplay has some major pacing problems and doesn't follow through on a lot of things. I didn't have a clue what to make of the abrupt and confusing ending the film had. I felt it was trying to put across a message, but I have no idea what that message was. In conclusion, 'Straw Dogs' is well worth watching just to see that exhilarating final thirty minutes and to see a very young Dustin Hoffman. Grade: B-

A riveting and eerily plausible thriller

[Delmare · 9/10 · 29 July 2008]

With the help of a research grant, timid astrophysicist David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) travels to England with British wife Amy (Susan George.) Hoping to escape the violent protests of Vietnam-era America, the two settle down in Amy's hometown, a tiny village in Cornwall, where less-than-friendly locals take it upon themselves to make their lives a living hell.

There's a list a mile long of all the things that work in this movie, but the single biggest contributor is Peckinpah's refusal to cut corners.

Many a movie that bills itself on the basis of its climax forgets that crescendos are a privilege and not a right; that they must be earned, that they must be paid for. Do the Right Thing, great though it is, never fully invests itself in the question of why this particular hot day is the catalyst for disaster when so many other hot days have come and gone without incident. While the climax might conceivably develop from the events depicted, an abundance of unanswered questions leaves it feeling more like writer's convenience, and less like natural construction.

With Straw Dogs, the outcome is both possible and inevitable, and Peckinpah has us convinced of that fact within the first ten minutes of the running time. In ten minutes flat, we have the perfect storm of troubled marriages, the Sumners just passionate enough to excite the ire of a former lover, and just defunct enough to preclude the kind of unity they need to stand strong. We have a town in shambles, where the lawman is impotent and the closest approximation to a moral authority is an ill-tempered drunkard whose son is a rapist. We have a band of hooligan locals, tied to the married couple by a rubber stamp construction job (a garage that's never finished) and led by Amy's one-time Charlie Venner (Del Henney) who get their kicks out of exploiting David's apparent lack of virility and drive a wedge into the already fraught relationship in the hopes of getting Amy alone. We have unanimous contempt for the American outsider, and shame for the English woman who lowered herself by marrying him. We have a town madman whom the entire village is clamoring to kill, along with whoever else gets in their way, and last but not least, we have the ubiquitous glass of whiskey to push people past the breaking point when every other aggravating factor fails, all this rendered naturally and believably in the first ten minutes of the film. The rest of the movie is one big bi-product, the story flowing from A to B to C, each plot point a direct consequence of the one preceding it, everything building steadily and irrevocably to one of the most horrific and well-earned climaxes in cinematic history.

Hoffman's performance as the high-strung astrophysicist edging closer and closer to the brink is one of the best of his career, if only because of its subtlety, its slow transformation. Susan George is, in some ways, even stronger than Hoffman. A boiling pot of rage and frustration, her character is truly heart wrenching, especially in the latter half of the film, as she struggles to rise above her morbid abuse. Best of all, the two actors behave as if they were actually married to each other, assuming all the tricks and gestures and mannerisms of that extreme, almost destructive level of physical comfort, something we rarely see in Hollywood matrimony.

Straw Dogs is a spectacular film and a terrific western, adhering, as it does, to nearly ever convention of the genre. In the final analysis, David Sumner is just another gunman goaded into a showdown. The Scottish bagpipes at the apex of the movie, not unlike the horns that start playing whenever the gunslinger steps out of the saloon, drone away in haunting irony as David moves across the room, trance-like, his latent savagery shaking its way into wakefulness. With expert care, with every note true, Peckinpah frees the western from its moorings in 19th-century America and transports it to England, betraying both the timelessness of violence and – unfortunately – its international character.

Even a coward can only be pushed so far

[kevin-167 · 7/10 · 31 January 2000]

A movie that has been the subject of heated debate for years is worth seeing. The revenge factor is played out to the fullest as Hoffman seeks vengeance against the men who raped his young sexy wife. Many feel that Amy, the character played by Susan George was "asking for it". In one scene she starts to undress knowing the men can see her. Later, as she is being raped she at first refuses but then "enjoys" it. There is another man who comes in after she has been raped who appears to sodomize her, but this appears to be edited out of the version I saw. Many people view this movie as sexist and understandably so. Hoffman awakes from his cowardly state to defend that which is his: his woman and his house. This movie is not for everyone, but should be seen if nothing else for the controversial rape scene, although many would debate as to whether it was a rape or consensual sex.

Better DVDs Make This Better, Too

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 16 August 2006]

I didn't really appreciate this movie until several viewings. Oh, I remembered it as one of the shocking "new" movies of the period in which nudity and graphic violence were being shown on screen for the first time...but in a later viewing on VHS in the '90s, I thought it was so-so.

A few years ago, with a good DVD print I was more than impressed. The movie, which I had thought was a little slow by the second viewing, was not on the third (and fourth and recent fifth). I have to admit: watching Susan George is one of the big enjoyments of this movie. She is hot! In reality, it's doubtful someone like her would marry a nerd like the character played by Dustin Hoffman. Nonetheless, as all of you who have seen this know, that "nerd" comes out of his shell in the suspense-filled last half hour.

There are still a few things I didn't like here, such as a too-sympathetic viewpoint of a child molester; a quick cheap shot at Christianity by Hoffman (no surprise) and a film that has mostly unlikeable people. However, the story is so involving it more than makes up for the negatives.....and it gets better and better with each viewing (and each improved DVD offering widescreen and a clearer print).

An American young and his wife move to an isolated Cornish village where takes place a final outbreak of violence

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 27 November 2013]

Exciting as well as violent film about an American mathematician and his wife are threatened by hooligans locals . Top-notch picture with good direction by Peckinpah and very competent performers . Sam Peckinpah's 1971 controversial shocker in which Dustin Hoffman, who starred in , and famously disliked this original film , being object a remake in 2011 . It deals with mathematician David Sumner (Dustin Hofffman) relocates with his wife (Susan George) to her hometown in a Cornish village . When they return to her ancestral village tensions build between them , a brewing conflict with locals (Ken Hutchison ,Peter Vaughan , Jim Norton , Del Henney) becomes a threat to them both . Meanwhile , David is working on a mathematic theory . As the marriage is bullied and taken advantage of by the locals hired to do edification . There her former boyfriend become resentful , jealous and desirous of her , as she taunts them with her wealth and nudism and she is viciously attacked . Charlie invites David to hunt deers with his group and him but they leave David alone in the forest and attack Amy . After his wife is raped , Hoffman's character seeks vendetta . When David finally takes a stand it escalates quickly into a violent battle as the villagers assault his house . David whose pacifism is put to supreme test attempts to protect a dim-witted man (David Warner) who is suspected of disappearance and molesting a young girl (Sally Thomsett) , his house is put under siege by the incensed villagers , but David defends the mansion with bloody ferocity .

Superior version about one of the most controversial violence-themed pictures of its day ; dealing with a known plot , as a young American and his wife come to rural little town and face increasingly vicious local harassment . It is a very interesting exercise in thriller, human degradation, an example of the conflict between town and country , and between civilization and barbarism . A strong , difficult and frightening picture reaction to the violence and hard times of the 60s . Brutal great movie by Sam Peckinpah in which the wimpy starring finds that primitive savagery exists beneath the most peaceful surface heading an outburst of violence . It is a very entertaining story with a stunning as well as thrilling ending , which magnificent Dustin Hoffman and Susan George . Dustin is very good , though a little too slack at times , and on the ending he stands out . Dustin Hoffman - not usually a fan of violent films - admitted that he only took the role in this movie for the money. Before shooting, Sam Peckinpah instructed Dustin Hoffman and Susan George to live together for two weeks, with screenwriter David Zelag Goodman in tow , some of their interactions during this period were worked into the film's script. Controversially violent 1971 movie, is considered fairly faithful to original novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm" by Gordon Williams , being well screen-written by the same Sam Peckinpah and David Goodman . The title comes from the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, who wrote, "Heaven and earth are not humane, and regard the people as straw dogs, " Straw dogs were used as ceremonial objects for religious sacrifices in ancient China. It is a very violent picture , in fact, because of its graphic portrayal of violence and two brutal rapes, the British Board of Film Censors banned the film from being released on video from 1984 until 2002. The highly charged sequences of carnage in the conclusion make this a controversial movie . Thrilling and appropriate musical score by Jerry Fielding , Peckinpah's usual musician . Evocative and atmospheric cinematography by cameraman John Coquillon . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Sam Peckinpah . He provides striking and well shot images , filled with many moments of visual metaphors and parallel scenes .

It was a subsequent remake (2011) of the controversially violent movie, released almost 40 years to the day of the original version, which came out November 3 1971 , it was directed by Rod Lourie with James Marsden , Kate Bosworth , Rhys Coiro, Billy Lush and Alexander Skarsgård ; this is a remarkable rehabilitation of a classic film and considered fairly faithful to Sam Peckinpah's original, though the location has been moved from Cornwall , England , to the U.S. Mississippi Gulf Coast, and the hero's profession has been changed from an intellectual mathematician to screenwriter . It does not reach the height of the great Sam Peckinpah film but no doubt that is a remarkable product of good cinema with a violent, bloody , brutal finale as well as the original flick .

This is where I live. This is me. I will not allow violence against this house.

[hitchcockthelegend · 10/10 · 16 February 2020]

Straw Dogs is directed by Sam Peknipah and Peckinpah co-adapts to screen play with David Zelag Goodman from the novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm" written by Gordon Williams. It stars Dustin Hoffman, Susan George, Peter Vaughan, T.P. McKenna, Del Henney and Ken Hutchison. Music is by Jerry Fielding and cinematography by John Coquillon.

A young American maths teacher and his English wife move to the rural English village where she was raised and face increasingly vicious harassment from the locals...

One of Peckinpah's masterpieces (yes you can have more than one), Straw Dogs is an uncompromising dissection of violence, machismo and boundary pushing of the human condition. Controversy around the film reigned supreme upon release (and long into the dead part of the video nasty era 1980s), and in fact still today it is still pored over as an abject lesson in audience manipulation. For a s the power struggle between a husband and wife against their abusers reaches boiling point, ultra violence and sexual assault attacks the viewer's senses.

Peckinpah is in his pomp here, making us observers complicit in the ultimate cynical premise. It's not so much that violence begets violence, but that a mild mannered man has to resort to extreme violence - thus repelling his once firm code of morals - in order to defend what should in fact be his right. Hoffman is excellent, layering the character arc to perfection, while George as his wife is sexually suggestive, spiteful and positively superb in bringing to vivid life such a challenging characterisation.

As the director (see what he could do when not pestered by studio execs) pulls the audience's strings, and Fielding lays a haunting musical score over proceedings (Oscar Nominated), we have been privy to one of the best and most caustic observations of violence put on the screen. 10/10

Was the Straw Dogs DVD banned in the UK?

[LFTSmith · 7/10 · 4 February 2006]

A number of contributors suggest that Straw dogs was banned in the UK. This is a little misleading - I certainly saw it in a cinema soon after it was released (Clockwork Orange was also not refused a certificate - it was withdrawn by Kubrick). Page 61 of the 2002 annual report of the British Board of Film Classification (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/ files/BBFC_AnnualReport_2002.pdf) points out that the film was passed uncut in 1971 for cinema showings in the UK. A DVD version was refused a certificate in 1999, but the version submitted was one in which cuts had been made for the US market. The cuts were deemed to distort the impact of the rape scene. When an uncut version was submitted with all the rape scene it was passed in full in 2002.

unfairly overrated

[ElWormo · 5/10 · 10 September 2017]

I try and remove as much external context from any movie I watch as possible. If a movie was controversial or groundbreaking in some way at the time of release, then fine, but the more important factor to me will always be the 'is it actually any good though?' factor. In the case of Straw Dogs I don't see much more than an earnest yet somewhat creaky and slow-paced tale of rural torment, that ultimately ends up looking like a 70s western with added sex + violence. It didn't strike me as anything that original or re- watchable, and I can't imagine sitting through it again.

Without giving any spoilers (to a 45 yr old film that everyone's seen) there were moments here that apparently shock to this day which I found to be fairly routine, rather than shocking. And it's not because I'm some hardened cinema tough guy whose seen it all (for example the stick-fight between Keith and Finger in Mike Leigh's Nuts In May gives me a nervous breakdown every time I watch it), but there just wasn't enough zing here to make anything jump out of the screen. The characters were well acted but barely beyond two-dimensional, the script was okayish but nothing spectacular, the incidental music was alright but sometimes clumsily applied.

Ultimately Straw Dogs is a film that takes itself very seriously and as such everything that happens has a kind of morose inevitability about it (similar to a lot of old westerns, hence the earlier comparison). It's not a -bad- movie, but I can't help thinking the notoriety factor seems to have impacted on how a lot of people perceive the film on its own terms. I can't give it more than a 5/10.