Mission Earth Pt 1 - (Bleep) happens

Mission Earth Pt.1 The Invaders Plan

I’ve only made it to page 38 so I still haven’t gotten very far into this book but when you take into account the 3 separate introductions the book feels a lot longer.  First we are treated to an introduction by the author himself.  L. Ron’s introduction is reminiscent of a really boring lecture by a long winded teacher.  I really hate it when an author opens a book with an introduction.  I’m either forced to read it to get a better understanding of the book or skip it and be left wondering whether it has any relevance.  You see I’m like a kid or a heroin junkie, as soon as I get something new I’m filled with apprehension and can’t wait to watch, listen, or read it and an introduction is a lot like a huge roadblock keeping me from getting what I want.

The introduction opens with L. Ron explaining the origins of the word “SATIRE” beginning with the latin word satura.  Then he goes into its use as a literary form and the early authors of this burgeoning genre.  Then he pats himself on the back for being so witty and compares himself to other satirical and sci fi writers including Edgar Allen Poe, Jules Vern, H.G. Wells, and George Orwell.  If he’d compared himself to Vonnegut I would have violently thrown the book across the room, stomped on it several times, set it on fire, and finally relieve myself on the ashes.  This introduction proved the old adage if you have to explain a joke it’s not funny!  That whole segment lasted 7 pages and accomplished nothing other than this is a work of satire which I’m sure the reader would have understood if they’d had a chance to begin the book.

Next we are treated to another introduction

@#$%!

As if I wasn’t irritated enough with the first introduction.  This one is by an oppressive official who claims there is no planet earth and the events in this book never happened.  It’s only two and a half pages long so it’s not that bad.  Alright now on to the story… wait… what’s this?  ANOTHER INTRODUCTION?!!!!!!!!!!!!  ARRRRRRRRRG!  You have got to be kidding me!  Why the hell does this book have so many damned introductions.  My textbooks in school didn’t have this many introductions.  I’d really really like to start reading this book now.

Our fiftieth introduction is by a translating Robotbrain named 54 Charlee Nine.  He explains how much superior Vultarians are from Earth beings particularly their language.  Whoo boy what with the introduction by Hubbard, the second introduction by Lord Invay, and now this one this book truly is a no holds barred thrill ride.  I needed to put the book down right then and there just to stop the fluttering in my chest.  Anyway the Robotbrain explains that in translating this book it has had to insert (bleeps) whenever there’s profanity because it’s programming prohibits it even when asked to do so.  I’ll get to this little eccentricity later but at the time I didn’t know what this meant.  It’s as though Hubbard wanted to write a sleazy book but censored himself.  This has got to be the first time in history an author has willingly censored his own work.

This is where the book finally starts.  Yeah we’re 11 pages into it but it’s on now, PART 1, CHAPTER 1.  Mission Earth begins with a convict praising his warden about every little thing like the world’s worst brown noser and confesses how he became imprisoned in the first place. From this point I got the impression this entire book is going to be narrated by this weasely character.

He explains he used to be a lowly employee of the Cooperative Information Apparatus or CIA.  As far as I can tell this is some kind of agency that files reports for the police.  From his ramblings it’s implied that Voltar most likely is some kind of military dictatorship.  The cream of the crop are elevated to military service while our narrator Soltan Gris is not among them.  Instead his physical and test scores resigned him to an uneventful career of pushing papers.  What strikes me as odd is he is explaining governmental, scholastic, and military protocol to someone who should already know them.  In case you didn’t notice this is just an excuse to dump a heapin’ helpin’ of exposition on us so we can further understand this culture and it’s hierarchy.  I can imagine if this were happening in real life Soltan Gris’ inquisitor would be becoming very impatient.

WOW MA!  This year's exposition looks even bigger than last years!

Soltan Gris goes on to tell us he was getting ready for a holiday vacation with friends when he is apprehended at his apartment by guards.

From here the story gets really incoherent and as irritated as I was from the 3 introductions I became increasingly more confused and bored with the way the story was unfolding.  Soltan Gris is taken to his boss Lombar Hisst’s office(I would just like to state here that I have taken great pains to make sure the names are spelled correctly).  Lombar tosses a crumpled up piece of paper at Soltan and demands answers.  Soltan has no idea why his boss is so mad and neither do we.  This reminds me when I was a kid and my brother used to get angry about something and confront me or my younger brother.  When we asked what we had done he screamed at us that we knew what we did.  Every time this happened we’d stare at him until he explained it and it was usually him blaming us for misplacing something of his when it was clear we hadn’t.  Gee thanks for bringing back those crappy memories book.

Lombar Hisst, his thugs, and Soltan Gris go to docking bay where they break into a ship.  This is where we get our first taste of the censorship mention in the third introduction when Lombar says “Why can’t you attend to these things you (bleep)?”  When I read the introduction I thought it was kidding about censoring all the profanity in the book.  From now on whenever I feel like using profanity in this review I’m going to replace it with a (bleep) just so you can get an idea how annoying it is.  I mean I’m a (bleeping) adult (bleep)!  I can read (bleep) like this and I probably have a far more profane vocabulary than even L. Ron Hubbard could imagine.  This is horse (bleep)!  I don’t need (bleep) candy coated for me anymore.  *SIGH* now that I got that out of my system…

They break into a ship carrying a messenger(I think it’s some kind of spy really).  The messenger has an envelope and Lombar Hisst asks several questions posed as statements.  In other words he’s grilling the messenger.  The information he provides doesn’t make sensing and my confusion grows.

Next we find the gang going into a sports arena.  This is the first time Mission Earth grabbed my attention.  Hubbard describes a sport I’d actually want to see called bullet ball.  It’s a lot like dodge ball and major league pitching.  Four players surround one in a circle and throw small black balls called bullets at him.  It is then up to him to dodge and weave or catch the bullets.  The balls thrown by the players outside the circle are thrown like baseball pitches curving and breaking.

It is here we meet Jettero Heller, one of the men inside the circle playing this game.  Lombar conspires to kidnap Jettero for reasons that go unexplained but we are led to believe it has something to do with a timetable which is why Lombar is so (bleeped) at Soltan.  Although Jettero is described as some kind of superman Lombar and company succeed in capturing him.

After the kidnapping Soltan rejoins Lombar in his office where he explains why he’s so (blanked) off at him.  Prior to all this Lombar gave explicit instructions for Soltan to block all reports concerning earth and he accidentally let one get through and apparently this has something to do with the elusive timetable.  Lombar invites his boss into his office and they all discuss this and thus ends chapter 6.

There you have it the beginning of Mission Earth book 1 The Invaders Plan.  I guess it could be worse but I really don’t see how.  So far I don’t think it’s too bad just really confusing and convoluted.  The numerous introductions leave a lot to be desired but at least Bullet Ball was interesting.  I’m looking forward to reading more so I can hopefully unravel the mysterious opening of this book.  Final verdict, kinda bad but not entirely unreadable.  While it is satire I haven’t found myself so much as giggling or thinking anything in particular was clever.  I give the first 6 chapters of part 1 a flat 70 D-.  It’s confusing but at least it isn’t boring(excluding the intros of course).

My next project

     Was Battlefield Earth the product of a bad screenplay or was it the product of bad directing or editing or acting or bad special effects?  Maybe it was the product of bad source material.  Maybe it was an unfaithful adaptation.  Any way you slice it it's still bad.  A few years back I was at a Barnes & Noble in Mishawaka Indiana browsing the movie/cd department when I picked up a Mystery Science Theater 3000 box set.  When I was paying for it the clerk and I got into a discussion about the show when he asked me if I'd heard of Rifftrax.  I said yeah I had seen the Battlefield Earth riff.  He cut me off at the end of that sentence and told me that was the only movie he'd ever walked out of.
    
     I never understood why people hated this movie so much.  I always figured it was because it had L. Ron Hubbard's name attached to it.  I actually enjoyed the movie for all it quirkiness.  Probably for the same reasons people love Plan 9 From Outer Space.  Battlefield Earth is bad and I recognize that but to me it's still very entertaining and very original.  I can honestly say I have never seen a movie quite like this and whether good or bad I usually applaud originality.

    Out of curiosity I've always wanted to read Battlefield Earth just to see if the book is as bad as the movie.  Now I've seen movies knowing they were going to be bad however I've never read a book, played a video game, or listened to a cd knowing it would be bad.  Don't get me wrong I have been sorely disappointed with all these mediums.  With movies it's so much easier because you don't have as much time or effort invested if it turns out to be bad but a boring or poorly written book is by far harder to suffer through.  Usually it ends with me just putting the book down and never picking it up again.

     Hubbard's reputation as a writer seems based entirely on the subject's bias of him.  People who don't like him seem to think he's a hack(most of which I'm sure have never so much as read a paragraph from any of his books).  I suggest you go to amazon and look up an L. Ron Hubbard book, any book will do, and just click on the 5 star ratings.  Some might be legitimate but a great deal are congratulatory to a delusional degree.  L. Ron's books would skyrocket to the top of the bestseller's list after their releases and it's widely believed that members of the church of scientology were told to buy as many as they could.

     At any rate I decided to skip reading Battlefield Earth feeling that my knowledge of the movie would spoil the book.  My interest in reading Mission Earth can be summed up by these two passages from the wiki page for Mission Earth:

"he becomes a prisoner of two man-hating lesbians (who end up marrying Gris after he rapes them and thereby "cures" them of their lesbianism, but not before various ingenious tortures, one of which involve a cheese grater and chili powder"

"that keeps the population of Earth under control by using drugs and rock and roll music to keep the population sedate. (Rock music is used in the novel to spread sexual deviancy, especially homosexuality, among the population of Earth.)" 

     As strange as it sounds I just can't resist the urge to read a book(written by the leader of religious organization no less) that claims rape can cure homosexuality(if that's the case can it cause it too?) and rock music is contributing to decline of society like some curmudgeon old man bitching about Elvis and the slutty way women dress anymore.   From what we know of the man it seems less like social satire and more like a dark journey into the psyche of an antisocial egomaniac and that's why this book appealed to me.  Not to mention my hope that this will one day become an even worse movie than Battlefield Earth.

     As I delve deeper into this book I'm going to try my best to give it a fair review and not let any preconceived notions of Hubbard or Scientology sway how I feel about it.  Who knows I may even like it.

 

I got this from a secondhand book store and it's obvious by the creases in the spine that at least one of the previous owners read it front to back.  I can only help but wonder if they were a scientologist or just a fan of sci fi.

Elder Scrolls Skyrim A love hate relationship

I've taken an unplanned hiatus from writing reviews to play an obsessively time consuming video game THAT IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFF!  I really don't know where that came from.  Part of me is enjoying playing this game while the other part has me throwing controllers and yelling at the tv.  This may very well be one of the most critically acclaimed games ever made but here are some reason why I don't like it.

1. Incredibly long load times.  Out of ten hours of gameplay at least two are devoted to staring at load screens some of which are completely blank save for some smoke.  The last time I played games with load times this long was on the Playstation One.
2. The new interactive map.  It looks like a satellite photo but one of the more annoying aspects is when you're traveling by night your map is also dark making it difficult to see where you are or what's around you.  There's also a lot of mountains that obscure your view of certain destinations. I'd prefer a 2d map, it's a hell of a lot easier to read.
3. Difficulty.  From the very beginning you are outnumbered and outmatched.  There are creatures in this game that can kill you with one or two hits no matter what level you are.  I've been playing video games for over 20 years now and just about any game I've ever played was either challenging or fun.  This game is neither, at times it feels more like a chore than anything.  It is neither challenging nor fun(nor fair) when your opponent can easily defeat you like it has god mode on.  Seriously this damned game can be unrelentingly sadistic at times!  It's bad enough you died but now you have go back and do the same things(such as empty chests, kill bad guys, or talk to people) you did five minutes ago over again.  It can be so tedious.
4. Glitches.  And boy it's got a lot of them.  Funny how all the people who are praising this game never mention how the game freezes and they lose their progress.  Mind you this has only happened to me a handful of times but that's too many in my opinion.  I HAD THE GAME FREEZE ON A GODDAMNED LOAD SCREEN!  Each time this happens I'm afraid I'm going to get a red ring of death.
5. Small ass font.  This game was formatted for high definition wide screen tvs and I'm playing it on an analog tv.  It's a big screen but I still can't see a lot of the text outside books.  Even the subtitle text is a little hazy sometimes.
6. Dragons.  I may be nit picking because at worst these are just mildly annoying.  They drop out of the sky whenever they damn well please causing you to either run away or fight. Because you are so outmatched during the first 10 levels or so I was forced to do the former a lot.  It's really distracting when I'm on a quest and I have to drop everything to kill one of these things.
7. Mountains.  Because there are so many mountains in this game you have to zig zag a lot just to get where you're going.  Very rarely are you treated with a destination where you can just go in a straight line.  I really hate maneuvering around all these mountains.

Alternately there is a lot I like about this game.

1. Graphics.  This game is so beautiful.  The landscapes are breathtaking and the NPCs are vivid.  It can be downright seamless.  In first person mode you really feel like you're running around hacking at things with your sword or shooting things with your bow.
2. It's addictive.  I don't know if this something I like or dislike but it can be time consuming and I've often found myself accepting four or five different quests while trying to complete a relatively simple one.  When the game isn't blatantly cheating you you're having a good time

While it looks like my reasons for hating this game outweigh my reasons for liking it some of the things I dislike are small while the things I like are rather big.  I'm still a long ways from beating this game but so far I give it an 80/100 B-.  So far out of the three I've played, Elder Scrolls 3: Marrowind, Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, and Skyrim, this is my least favorite while Marrowind takes the lead by a wide margin.  I've never had as much fun playing an Elder Scrolls game as a I did with Marrowind.

... and you think your grandma's senile

I know it's been a really long time but that crazy, stupid grandma in Dante's Peak who's so insistent about staying in her home while the entire town is being laid to waste still bothers me.

The Twight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt.1 - 2011

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt.1 - 2011

Forever is only the beginning

and trust me after watching this movie you’ll agree

I remember a time when vampires were menacing creatures who killed indiscriminately to satiate a lust for blood.  They had no redeeming qualities and were always the villains.  If you've seen as many horror movies as I have chances are you’ve seen at least one really bad vampire flick(Queen of the Damned).  Breaking Dawn is one of the absolute worst ones I’ve seen for the following reasons

•          This can scarcely be called a vampire movie because no one is seen actually being a vampire.  I realize that most people who dislike this series can say the same about all these movies but in this one out of all the vampire characters no one is seen biting victims’ necks, feasting on blood, killing anything, or even displaying what these movies laughingly call preternatural powers.  (There’s a short flashback scene where Edward reveals he used to drink human blood from rapists and murderers.  It’s funny but I think I read about a vampire who did the same thing.  I think it was in a book called The Vampire Lestat.  Believe it or not both characters justify taking human life by drinking the blood of evildoers.  They even pick them out the same way, by reading their minds.)
•          I’m actually a big fan of these movies if only for their camp value.  Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse are all examples of movies so bad they’re good, sadly I can’t say the same about this one.
•          Absolute lack of an antagonist.  This movie has no bad guy and I really don’t know how else to put this but a bulk of the movie is just stuff happening.  Works great on a Cheech and Chong movie, here it’s just really boring.  The Volturi make a brief appearance in Bella’s nightmare proving that the only things that happen in this movie are in flashbacks and dreams.
•          THIS FUCKING MOVIE HAS NO GODDAMN PLOT!!!  Watch this movie and try briefly describing the movie’s plot to someone who hasn’t seen it.  It’s about a human character getting married to a vampire and having a baby. Does that sound like a good vampire movie to you?!  More than half of this movie is devoted to a wedding(opening 20 minutes) and a honeymoon(40 minutes).  None of which are more entertaining than the average wedding and honeymoon by adding vampires and werewolves. 
•          Stephanie Meyer does not know how to write men.  Oh don’t get me wrong she knows well enough how to write men how her target audience wants to perceive them, as virtuous, sensitive, and willing to fight to the very end for their fair maiden.
•          Stephanie Meyer does not know how to write women either.  This has nothing much to do with this movie but all the movies on a whole.  I just don’t see what is so desirable about the Bella character.  Bella is so one sided, shallow, and self-absorbed that all her motives leading up to this movie can be explained with the following phrase: BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Here a few examples: Why does Bella fall in love with Edward in the first movie?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Why does she constantly pester Edward about her mortality in New Moon?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Why does Edward reject her and subsequently disappear?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Why does she end up becoming an emotional wreck waking up screaming bloody murder in her sleep after Edward leaves her?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Why does she reject Jacob when Edward reappears?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  Why is she getting married at 18?  BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE!  For a series written by a woman with a protagonist that is a woman women aren’t always seen in the best light.
•          This movie is so much filler it becomes painfully clear why they broke it up into two parts.  Either they are trying to capitalize even further from this franchise or they were afraid if the wedding and honeymoon sequences weren’t done exactly like they were in the book they were going to have a lot of angry fans on their hands.  

After the honeymoon Breaking Dawn starts to pick up the pace when Bella becomes pregnant…  If you’re lost so am I.  I’ve read a lot of vampire books and watched a lot of vampire movies.  Usually they tend to agree on one thing; vampires are dead and since they don’t eat or drink their bodily functions have ceased.  So vampires can’t have sex or ejaculate.  Supposing they could wouldn’t vampire sperm be immobile?  Perhaps I’m reading too much into a story of misplaced teenage love involving vampires and werewolves.

 My theories on vampire anatomy are akin to Brodie and TS’s discussion about super hero reproduction

Bella is still human and since the baby is supernatural not only does it begin to grow at an accelerated rate but it starts to kill her.  Time for good ol’ fashioned male rationale.  Kinda funny that the subject of women’s rights enters into such a goofy movie but nevertheless both Jacob and Edward agree it’s best to abort the baby.  Not to get into my own personal beliefs too much but it seems entirely reasonable to get rid of demon babies that are quickly killing you but instead Bella decides to keep them.  Why she does is never quite clear to me and the BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BE A VAMPIRE motive doesn’t quite fit here.

In the midst of all this there is a werewolf schism when part of the pack wants to protect Bella and the baby while the others want to destroy it and all the vampires with it.  Next comes my favorite part of any of this movie.  The still human Bella finds the only way to please the baby is to drink blood and she does so by drinking it out of a foam fast food cup complete with lid and straw.  That is without doubt the funniest thing I have seen throughout all these movies.

 Vanished Civilizations?  Guess that explains where the plot went.

I can barely believe I’m saying this but this movie has a scene towards the end that has grossed me out more than anything I’ve ever seen in any other vampire movie.  Turns out that all the men in this movie were right about removing the baby because it does actually kill her.  Hope I’m not ruining anything for you but it just so happens Padame Amida – sorry Bella is pregnant with twins.  The only way to get them out is by cesarean which a female character tries(sorry I can’t remember what the hell her name is because she has such a small role in these movies) to do with a scalpel when she goes blood crazy and has to be tackled.  Apparently there isn’t time to get a new one or sanitize the one that fell on the floor so being a vampire Edward does what comes natural and starts chewing the babies out.  No pun intended that’s actually what he does.  The camera stays out of view but when he reemerges he’s got blood all over his face and lips.  Aside from being disgusting this is for me an lol head slappin moment.  The dirty scalpel isn’t sanitary but his mouth is?!

Are you gonna finish that?

Rather than bore you on the details of how this movie ends I’ll just sum it up quickly.  There’s an uneventful vampire/werewolf fight that ends suddenly.  Like we haven’t already seen that.  Bella dies and Edward tries to resuscitate her by using his “vampire venom” which doesn’t work until the credits are about to start.

Little known fact vampire venom is usually extracted from the anus in a very painful procedure.

I really didn’t see anything here that would need to be split into two movies.  In fact I think you could probably trim a good 30 minutes off the run time by cutting the wedding and honeymoon sequences.  If this is the final result ya gotta wonder if they bothered cutting anything at all.

I give this movie a 10/100.  I was considering giving it a higher score simply because I felt sorry for it.  I am loathe to give any movie such a low score but I just couldn't bring myself to give this movie any more credit than it deserves.  It is boring, uneventful, and directionless.  A lot of times when movies are part of a trilogy or a series or based on a book fans will overlook weaknesses in them.  In the case of book adaptations people often compare them to the books.  Since I've never read the books I like to judge this on it's own weight as a movie.  Even forgetting the other movies this is just a really weak movie.

Straw Dogs(2011) vs Straw Dogs(1971)

Straw Dogs – 2011

EVERYONE HAS A BREAKING POINT

My breaking point… this movie!

Having not seen the original I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie.  Since I don’t watch much TV I hadn’t seen the trailers however a friend of mine wanted to go see it so I looked it up on IMDB.  Not wanting to spoil it by reading other people’s reviews I read a brief synopsis of the plot.  All it described was a man and his wife moving to a community that didn’t accept them.

Since the original is notorious for a rape scene I figured that would be essential to the plot… it is not.  Guess I was expecting a movie more like I Spit On Your Grave or Last House On the Left where the rape is not only important but a motive for revenge later on in the film.  What I got was more like the Halloween remake that also has a rape that’s pretty much meaningless and is only in the movie to be unnecessarily cruel and misogynistic. 

Straw Dogs is set somewhere in rural Southern America and the audience isn’t allowed to forget that for a second.  From the good ole boys hired to repair the barn roof, (all of whom are lazy, crude, and imposing.  One is the spitting image of Larry the Cable Guy complete with ripped sleeves) to the religious conservative high school football obsessed townies.  

Git R Done!

Our movie starts off with a couple driving down the road acting like lovesick newlyweds, singing along with the goofy song playing on the radio(now every time I see an opening driving sequence I think of that really stupid one in Funny Games.  It’s a shame because prior to that movie anytime I’d see an opening driving sequence I used to think of The Shinning even though that one doesn’t really open with a driving sequence).  After dining in the local bar/restaurant David Sumner(James Marsden) meets his wife, Amy’s(Kate Bosworth) high school boyfriend, Charlie, who just happens to be the one of the guys repairing(one little thing that bothers me is why they even bother having the barn roof restored anyway) their barn roof.  It’s funny but they explain the damage to the barn was due to a hurricane but somehow the house went undamaged?  For some reason that anachronism just bothers me.

Charlie says: Sleeves r fer college boys n suckers!

It seems strange saying this but even though nothing much happens throughout the first half of this movie I wasn’t bored with it for a second.  The characters are interesting enough to keep my attention and I enjoy seeing them interact with one another, particularly James Woods’ character the angry alcoholic ex-coach.  It’s true for almost every role he’s ever been in but he just steals every scene he’s in and when he gets pissed it’s real fun to watch.

The coach’s daughter is for reasons unexplained infatuated with the town’s man-child which often gets them both in trouble.  During a picnic the coach’s daughter approaches Jeremy(the man child) and gets tackled by a very drunk and very angry coach.  A crowd starts gathering around the scene until Amy intercedes while Charlie restrains him.  On their way back home Amy accuses David of being a weenie and David tries defending his inaction.  This is one of many times Amy nags David about being passive aggressive.  

Back at the house the group of contractors gold brick and take off early to hunt(or poach).  Charlie and the boys invite David to go hunting but he refuses.  TEST TIME!  Pick the answer that best describes how this movie wants us to perceive the David character

A.      The good guy

B.      Reasonable

C.      Diplomatic

D.      Cowardly

E.       All the above

The truth is David is an accurate representation of most modern urbanites.  When you live in a big city you try to get along with people the best you can and appeal to their sensibilities using tact and guile.  Unfortunately for David this is something the people in this movie often exploit.  I’m not complaining but if David were seen as more assertive then this movie would become predictable.

Amy spends half of this movie wearing short shorts and skin tight clothes drenched in sweat and when I say skin tight I mean she might as well be wearing bodypaint.  After a jog she complains to her husband that their contractors are leering at her.  He tells her if that isn’t the reaction she wants perhaps she dress more conservatively and wear a bra.  Maybe it’s because I’m a guy but I tend to agree with him.  Feeling insulted she asks him if he thinks she’s asking for this.  The rest of this argument ends the same way it would if you were trying to convince your teenage sister to stop dressing like a slut.  She responds by going upstairs, opening a widow pointed at the contractors, staring them down, and taking off her top… hmmm if you weren’t asking for it before you are now.

 I'd hate to say she's asking for it but is it really wise to tempt fate?

It’s about time I stop avoiding it and get down to rape.  Towards the midway point of the movie David relents and goes huntin’ with Charlie and his buddies.   While hunting deer(it was ducks in the original) Charlie disappears and shows up at the house.  The events leading up to the rape is pretty creepy and it’s how I imagine a real rape goes down.  Most times when you see a rape in movies or tv its usually a quick, violent, brutal attack perpetrated by a stranger.  In Straw Dogs it’s a deluded ex-boyfriend that’s convinced his actions aren’t a violation but somehow consensual.

The effect of the rape loses a lot of its impact by cutting to David in the forest every 30 seconds or so.  At best the cuts are distracting, at worst they are annoying.  After we focus on the rape for a little while Charlie finishes then one of his friends shows up.  I should note here that this scene was done way better in the original.  In that one a gun is pointed at him while he’s still on top of her and Charlie seems to protest a bit.  In this one Charlie gets up, sits down, and becomes catatonic like he has PTSD.  I still don’t understand this scene.  Did his friend know what he was going to do?  Did Charlie let him in on his plan?  Niether of these questions are answered.  Another thing I found strange about the rape was later on in the movie Charlie shares scenes with David and Amy and he does not act awkward or paranoid toward either of them especially when David fires him.

After the rape David has to find his own way home when the rednecks abandon him.  When he gets home he tells Amy about it and out of the blue she accuses him of being a coward.  This is as close as the movie gets to Amy confessing about the rape but it just doesn’t go that far.  From here the movie gets a little uneventful until about the last 20 minutes of the film.

At the football game David's wife insist they go to the coach’s cheerleader daughter absconds with Jeremy to the locker room to make out with him.  Even in print that looks fucked up to me.  It reminds me of that scene in Gummo where the sleazebag is taking advantage of the retarded girl.  The coach notices his daughter is missing and runs around looking for her when another teenager tells him she saw her with Jeremy Niles.  The coach in a rage tears off looking for her.  When he gets close to the locker room Jeremy tries to silence her and accidentally kills her.

Meanwhile in the stands the cheering crowd triggers something in Amy and she flashes back to the rape.  David notices something’s wrong and takes her home.  While on the road trying to console her he runs a fleeing Jeremy over.  They take him to their house and call a hospital, this is overheard by Charlie and the coach via police radio and they haul ass to the Sumners to get Jeremy.  I’m not going to go much further about how this plays out you’re just going to have to see the movie for yourself.

Most people complain that remakes stray too far from their counterparts however this one doesn’t stray at all.  Only superficial things like setting, characters, and dialogue are changed.  If they were going to change anything they could have at least made the movie a little more coherent rather than just updating it.  I accuse myself of doing these very same things.  I often bitch about how remakes change things too much without realizing if they didn’t change anything I may as well watch the original movie.

 I give this a 50/100.  It's a failure but still I really enjoyed James Woods.  This movie also has the distinction of being one of few movies I've seen that has a nude scene with no nudity.  Guess Bosworth didn't have nudity in her contract or they just didn't want to pay her extra.  Wet tshirts must be some kind of hollywood gray area.

Straw Dogs – 1971

In the eyes of every coward burns a straw dog

There’s not much else to say about this one that wasn’t said above.  It’s pretty much the same thing only in England.  The remake keeps more or less close to the original unlike a lot of other modern remakes(The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for example) and that’s probably why I didn’t like this one either.  It’s hard to tell which is better acted because at least in the remake I can hear James Marsden’s dialogue.  A lot of times I found myself missing dialogue because I couldn’t hear it for all of Dustin Hoffman’s mumbling.  The rest of the time his acting is just really stiff like he’s high or just miles and miles away.  I’m convinced even if his wife did reveal she was raped he wouldn’t convey any emotion that would be even vaguely recognizable as human.  That may sound harsh but as much as I didn’t like the remake I HATED this one.

That said I was really excited going into this one.  I felt positive since I wasn’t impressed with the remake I was going to like this one.  After all it’s usually the original that gets it right.  Once again a rape occurs that’s never mention by anyone making David’s motives at the end of the movie ambiguous.  Once again his wife blames him for the rape and accuses him of being a coward.  In this one she’s not so much defiant and vulnerable as she is just a bitch.  When the villagers are trying to break into the house she tries to convince her husband to let them in, when that doesn’t work she runs to the door and tries to let them in herself knowing what will happen to Jeremy  if she lets them in.   

I think what horrified and confused me the most was the rape itself(as it should but not for the reason it was supposed to).  The rape is done a little bit better but in this one at times she’s reaching out to him or embracing him making the act of the rape fucking confusing.

While I may have been a little disappointed with the remake this one just aggravated me but maybe that has more to do with seeing the same movie twice and being bored both times.  The remake I found was a little more relateable because I am an American, and I am from the south, and I have been to small towns similar to the one in that movie.  I wasn’t entertained by either one of these movies and I know I’m beating a dead horse when I say this but our hero’s triumph over the evil rapists in the end is deflated by the fact that he doesn’t know his wife was raped.  After watching both of these movies I couldn’t help but wonder if they’d be better or worse without the rape.

Whoo boy I give this one a 20/100.  Total failure.  I suppose my grade is so low because this movie has so much hype attached to it.  Look at the imdb pages for both these movies the original has a 7 point rating whereas the remake has a 5 point rating.  I can only imagine that's because it has Sam Peckinpah's name on it.