Alicia
I love this movie so much
TrueHello
Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Leofwine_draca
Very much in the spirit of a modern-day STRAW DOGS, STRAIGHTHEADS is a lean and gritty thriller that cuts straight to the point with the speed of an arrow. It's a short film that smacks you across the face and leaves you reeling with the level of brutality and nihilism on offer. It's a film that came in under the radar, was pretty much panned by the critics, and disappeared again to line DVD rental shelves and appear on late night television. The latter is where I caught it, and I'm glad I did: I enjoyed this pared-down offering that, while being nothing new, is nevertheless engaging, often shocking fare.The central casting is pretty unusual. Gillian Anderson takes the lead role, and fans across the globe automatically associate her with Agent Scully from THE X-FILES. In this film, she's a sexually-charged young British businesswoman who's about as far from the prim and proper Scully you can get. Anderson must deal with plenty of traumatic moment, and she's never less than excellent in the part. She also goes nude for the first time in her career, an aspect of this film which garnered more attention than perhaps it should have. She's backed up by Danny Dyer, an up-and-coming young Londoner who seems to be carving a career for himself in these dark, violent movies; I just saw him in SEVERANCE while at the same time catching the ads for OUTLAW amongst others. Dyer's a love-him-or-hate-him type of actor, and I think he's decent here – especially towards the film's climax.Obviously, violence is the film's main tone and there's a ton of it. The initial rape/assault is as unpleasant as you'd imagine, and it's equalled by some nasty moments at the climax – including one use of a rifle that you wouldn't automatically think of. The script focuses on the unravelling of the central characters and follows their psychosis following the attack, and it's a lot darker than anything Hollywood would dare aim for. This is far from your typical revenge flick – here, Dyer and Anderson are truly hurting, and they show it – a lot. The last act might veer into the kind of predictability that comes from having watched the likes of DELIVERANCE and STRAW DOGS, but it's still well handled – complementing a film I didn't expect much of, but got a lot out of.
Greatornot
I thought this was a nice film that entertained but it did have its flaws. I liked the irony in the movie. Alarm systems protect on the inside but in the outside world , one is still vulnerable. I also thought it was clever to have the socioeconomic status removed by having a couple of different upbringings and castes being involved and on the same side to try and rectify this situation. It was a good movie to actually show the otherside of the coin. Coming at this from the dilemma of the rapist. The protagonists obsession with bringing down the horrible gang was just .Having the rapist with a sweet daughter was a nice touch as well. I thought the movie cover most of the psychological and social barriers. This movie did show what can happen to 'normal' people when pushed over the edge. Comparisons to STRAW DOGS are fine . Danny Dyers is no Dustin Hoffman. Not that the acting was bad , it just was slightly above par. Gratuitous nudity is always OK with this guy. The movie did not have to show the killing of a dog to get its point across. I also felt the movie was too short. The end was perfect with the birds singing when revenge was finally meted. Life is OK again.
harlock-10
This film had its problems. The setup was contrived and the father's death convenient, and as a linguist, I had issues with Ms. Anderson's accent. That being said, I enjoyed the movie immensely. Aside from the accent, I found the acting to be riveting, and everything post rape to be taut to the point of breaking. I was disturbed by the subject matter, but refused to look away because it was believable, and the camera's refusal to look away from the violence I found refreshing. The brutality encased all of the principals in a cocoon that brought out the humanity in a rapist and the rapist in a human being. There were no "good guys" in this movie, only an innocent. Everyone but the daughter end up guilty of something, and this is not explored nearly enough in cinema today. I say well done for the courageous performances, even if the getting there was a greased slide bringing everyone to the point of now return.
steve-3567
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
