NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

SlyGuy21 You know, for a movie often referred to as "one of the best home invasion movies ever", it certainly takes a long freakin' time to get to the actual home invasion, 85 minutes actually. Until the guy gets hit by Dustin Hoffman's car, the movie has next to no conflict, just British people not liking an American because he's not one of them. The villains aren't even given proper introductions, making all of them blend together and not unique in any way. The only two distinguishing factors between all of them is that one was Amy's ex, and another one is the town drunk who has a beard. That's it, every other antagonist in this might as well not exist, in fact, the movie would be way better if it were just those 2 guys attacking Hoffman's house.Amy isn't particularly likable either. Aside from one or two scenes she's either annoying, complacent, moody, or mad for no reason. The only real relatable character in the whole movie is the cat, and it gets killed like 35 minutes in. Hoffman's performance is alright, but he's mostly just a mumbling coward. I'm sure he was written that way because he's supposed to just be a normal guy, but I don't find that interesting until the climax. Also, the rape scene serves no purpose, at all. Amy gets raped by her ex, and then her ex's best friend, only to not mention it to her husband. Um, I'm pretty sure rape is a serious invasion of your personal space, shouldn't you at least tell your husband that your ex sexually assaulted you? No? Why? Oh, to cash-in on "A Clockwork Orange's" controversy, give me a break. The rape scene in "A Clockwork Orange" actually had purpose, and it was actually brought up again after it happened. This just has a rape scene because it doesn't want to give these characters personalities, so now we can relate to Amy because she was raped, right? Wrong.The climax is the only good part of this movie, and it's not because of the suspense, it's because it's a rushed, R-rated version of "Home Alone". The traps Hoffman sets are pretty neat, but you have to wait almost 90 minutes to get there. How does this sound, if you stare at this blank wall for 90 minutes straight, I'll give you a Jolly Rancher. Does that sound like a deal? That's the closest thing I can compare this movie to. Utter boredom, with a tiny little reward at the end. Normally, I would see if the remake is a better version, but both movies apparently follow the exact format, unlike the two versions of "Dawn of the Dead", so I'll just have to watch another season of "Breaking Bad" to get my mind off of this garbage. A complete borefest that thinks it's a clever social commentary.

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.

texxas-1 I was a 16 year old girl (maybe 15 cant remember) I read about it in the TV guide and decided to give it a go. I recorded it (too late for me) then watched it one cold winter evening alone in my bedroom. I remember what scared me the most! Tom Heddon, that big scary fat man! When he did his intimidation to David in the pub I was literally shaking thinking this is my idea of hell being around such scary violent people. And one thing that also scared me was when Janice's cousin dragged her inside, I felt scared and glad I wasn't in her position, being stuck at home with these scary rapist men. And I remember thinking when I saw Amy and how young she was and how she reminded me of myself, how I wondered why she wasn't scared of anyone. I thought wow, shes a stronger girl than me, and I never wanna be in her or Janice's situation. Just watching it on TV scares me! I watched the film a couple more times in my 20s and I wasn't scared at all and neither of the idiot men really scared me, I suppose back then I was just an innocent teen! Just thought I'd share my little story.