-
-
But it is highly problematic, mostly because the whole thing is so obvious and over-defined, every action unmistakable, every word pat and predictable, that the film's like watching the inner mechanization's of a wristwatch.
-
Marsden's David Sumner is writing a film about Stalingrad, so naturally he rambles about fortitude and bravery against insurmountable odds. The town "idiot" gets into so many altercations that his "Of Mice and Men" arc is inevitable and a rusty bear-trap is brought up so many times that it's practically winking at us.
-
So unfortunately, although "Straw Dogs" is inspiring in its casting and its backwoods Bayou locale, it ultimately provides no justification for its existence and instead feels like a middling new-age horror exercise - it's more fierce than it is frightening. [C-]
Posts
Why such screentime was focused on the local idiot is beyond me. It seemed like wasted space.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree. Obviously, that character is essential to what happens in the final act, but why do we need to see, how many, 4 or 5 (?) scenes where James Woods puts his finger in his face and tells him that he's got it coming?
ReplyDeleteIt's just so indicative of the kind of film it is. A movie that should have a lot of nuance, a lot of ambiguity is so explicit it becomes mundane.
I had a feeling this was bad, and I love the terse brevity of your writing style. In the original The 'idiot' was a hulking child molester whom Hoffman protects on a whim mainly because he's so contemptuous of the local rotters. He never even learns his wife was raped by her ex-boyfriend, or why they want to string up the idiot.. Peckinpah always meant Dustin as the bad guy and few people have ever picked up on that since it so closely follows the rape-revenge formula on so many other levels. A movie can be about misogyny and not be misogynist, and on that note I can't wait for your Giallo week!
ReplyDelete