The Babysitters - 2007

These girls mean business

Someone really ought to get in touch with the better business bureau... and the local police while you're at it... and Chris Hansen too.

From the very beginning of this movie I was slapping my head at the stupid cynical smartass narration.

"I'm a junior at Alfred E. Groves high school. This is my babysitting service. The answer is no: mom doesn't drink, dad didn't hit me, Uncle Steve never showed me his privates. I don't even have an Uncle Steve. The money is nice, and paid fellatio isn't that much more humiliating than flipping burgers. But that's not why I do it."

This is starting to become a trend in modern story telling.  Make the person relating the story as repellant as possible from the very fucking beginning!  My first job was at a fast food restaurant and I can't tell you how many times I said to myself, the customers, my managers, friends, and anyone who would listen that working there was just like sucking dicks for 8 hours a day. 

Ever wonder what “Risky Business” would be like if it weren't funny or entertaining and was a hell of a lot more awkward?  "The Babysitters" reminds me of Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake.  The actresses look close enough to be teenagers so anytime you're forced to endure a makeout or sex scene you just end up feeling uncomfortable and disgusted.  Even more so by the fact that they're all performed by middle aged men.  So if you got it in your head that a movie about suburban high school prostitutes was going to be at least sexy and have a lot of nudity you're wrong on both counts.

What's worse John Leguizamo trying to act funny or John Leguizamo trying to act dramatically?  Better yet which is more unintentionally funny or can you even tell?  To add insult to injury he's also listed as producer.  You'd be hard pressed to find another actor that has been in as many bombs as him and this one might very well be the worst I've ever seen him in.  Cynthia Nixon is just as bad and is likewise no stranger to bombs.  Katerine Waterston plays the lead character.  Even though I haven't seen her in anything else she does okay.  She's not terrible but at the same time she's not very good either.  At best I feel a little meh about her performance in this movie.  In the beginning she plays a timid overachiever with OCD and they attempt to turn her character into a more easy going party girl and later into a heavy handed pimp, but no matter which role she's playing she's not very emotive.  She just drones on in monotone throughout this entire movie.  She's attractive enough and I can imagine these men wanting to have sex with her but at the same time she's taller than everyone else in the cast forcing her to stare down at other characters while reciting dialogue.

I think the worst part of this movie is that it doesn't set itself apart from any other movie about prostitution.  "Babysitters" strives to have depth and realism but rather than show the negative repercussions of a dangerous and often times addictive career they choose to glorify it.  There are no repercussions for their actions.  None of the girls or their johns get arrested.  No one even gets pregnant or even catches a mild STD.  It's almost as if the movie is saying prostitution is cool.  It'll get you paid and laid.  And it's less humiliating that a job at Burger King.   

The movie is not paced very well either.  For a movie that doesn't even clock in at 90 minutes including credits it's dreadfully boring and a task to complete.  In fact I paused the movie a few times to write this review.    I feel nothing but shame and embarrassment for Leguizamo who's reduced to knocking on his whore's window late at night like some lovelorn teenager and later to hide quickly as her father bursts into her room.  It's full of one stupid cliche' after another including a hallway walking montage scene played to the movie's stupid soundtrack while the girls hold their heads high and walk confidently.  Words can't express how pissed this movie made me.  I really hate to play up the angry reviewer sterotype but when this movie wasn't making me feel sleazy and uncomfortable it was just really freaking irritating.  The only good thing I can say about it is at least it didn't have a rape.* 20/100

*Spoke too soon.  Wrote that before I finished watching the movie and guess what a creep rapes a girl while she's in the bathroom tripping on XTC.

Stephen King's The Shining featuring Mick Garris

The Shining Mini Series – 1997

     As a book worm I’ve often wondered what a movie that’s entirely faithful to the book it’s based on would be like.  A few good examples are George Orwell’s 1984 ironically released in the year 1984 or Cormac McCarthy’s The Road(2009) and let’s not forget Stephen King himself with The Mist(aside from a few minor details and the bad downer ending) and The Shawshank Redemption .  The 1997 made for tv remake of The Shining is not a good example.  Not because it deviates from the book but because it does not.  In fact I think it may very well be the best example of why movies should be made to disregard elements from the books they’re based on.  You’d be doing yourself a favor by just reading the book instead since the movie is pretty much a copy and paste representation of the book.

     One of the issues this miniseries suffers from is Mick Garris.  I think Garris might actually be a Stephen King fan himself judging by how many of his stories he’s adapted.  Just seeing his name on the opening credits for a Stephen King movie is enough to make me cringe.  Desperation is one of my favorite Stephen King books and the first one I read from start to finish, and Garris totally butchered that one.  Not to mention there was no reason to release it as a tv movie.  The book is far too graphic.  In the first 100 pages a little girl gets her face blown off and later on an elderly veterinary doctor gets ripped apart by a bobcat.  I may have been 13 or 14 the first time I read the book and back then it seemed like every year Stephen King released a major motion picture to theaters, and I remember thinking even then there is no way Desperation can ever be made into a movie.  But we're not talking about Desperation.  As it stands there is no way The Shining can be adapted as a movie let alone a miniseries.  The book is just too boring and uneventful and maybe it’s just me but I don’t like watching movies where nothing much happens.  I should point out here I have nothing against Mick Garris.  I’m a huge fan of Masters of Horror and to a lesser extent Fear Itself but half of the time whenever I see his name attached to a Stephen King project I know it’s going to suck.  For instance The Stand was good(I have not read the book), but Riding the Bullet was not(entirely meaningless if you ask me. You could read the short story in the time it takes you watch the movie), Sleepwalkers was okay(in a campy sort of way), Desperation totally sucked, Quicksilver Highway was good, The Shining is not.  I haven’t seen it or read the book but Bag of Bones didn’t get very reviews either.

 Your director ladies and gentlemen in an entirely meaningless 5 second cameo

     The casting is pretty bad too.  Steven Weber plays the father, Jack, Rebecca De Mornay plays the mother, Wendy, and neither of them is believable either as partners or parents.  They have no chemistry with one another, De Mornay has no chemistry with anyone really.  I don’t want to demean her or her acting ability but she seems like little more than just a pretty face in this movie or at the very least a recognizable one.  After looking at her IMDB creds I can’t remember seeing her in anything where her performance was any good.  Risky Business I guess but it’s kinda sad to say the best thing she’s been in was where she played a prostitute, especially since she plays a mother in this one.  Weber has better chemistry with his son but his acting is just so over the top in this one.  I don’t know who to blame for that so I’m just going to blame Garris again.  What makes these two so hard to believe as parents is that they’re rarely seen together doing anything as a family.  Throughout a majority of the scenes in this movie Jack is doing his thing separate from both Wendy and Danny.  Danny himself is often wandering around the hotel or around the grounds by himself.  Wendy only seems to show up to chastise Jack for losing his temper.  So assuming any of these characters had any chemistry with any of the others they are never together long enough for it to make a lasting impact.  I guess I could talk about the actors who play Hallorann or Ullman but honestly they don’t have much screen time in this movie and as far as everything else goes they actually did a pretty good job.  And I saved the worst for last.

     Courtland Mead(I can’t get over the idea that his name sounds like a Ren Fair beer stand) plays Danny Torrance.  I’d hate to play the gender card here but I think most times the only movie goers that are dazzled by child actors are women.  A few notable exceptions for me are Natalie Portman in Leon: The Professional, Kirsten Dunst in Interview With the Vampire, Christina Ricci in Addam’s Family, and Chloe Grace Moretz in Let Me In.  I realize it’s a little hypocritical to name only female child actors but it seems like every time a male child actor hits the screen it’s like the directors tell them to sweeten it up and act really cutesy.  That annoying kid from Jerry McGuire and that dull emotionless monotone kid from The Ring still haunt my nightmares.  Well I guess Haley Joel Osmant and Daniel Radcliffe were pretty good.  It’s strange but it seems to me that the boy actors get the cutesy roles where the girls get the dramatic and emotional ones.  You’d think it would be the other way around.  Courtland Mead is the exception.  I think he was meant to be cute but he isn’t and what’s worse is he can’t act or deliver lines all that well either.  Most of his lines he flat out flubs due to the fact that for whatever reason he can’t breathe out of his nose.  Every time this kid was on screen I was distracted by his wide gaping mouth and dull vacant stare.  Think I’m exaggerating?  Here’s a little visual aid to help you out:

Does anybody have an inhaler or some allegra?

     Now that we’ve got the directing, casting, and acting out of the way how well does the script/story hold up?  Well Stephen King wrote the teleplay for this version of The Shining himself.  I think he admitted when he saw Kubrick’s version he didn’t really like it and I can see why.  Kubrick’s while superior to this one is vastly different from the story Stephen King was trying to tell in the book.  Kubrick cut out a lot of things that would have just made the movie longer and weren’t really needed to tell the story.  King’s version of the movie includes every single event whether necessary or not causing the movie to become so long it had to be split into 3 different 90 minute episodes, which were probably well over 2 hours on tv.  That means this miniseries was just one movie shorter than The Stand, a book which was twice as long as The Shining.  For whatever reason King decided to add and change a few things.  In the book Jack realizes how bad his alcoholism is and how much it is affecting his family and quits.  In the miniseries he’s in Alcoholics Anonymous and is even seen going to a meeting.  This is one of the things that bothered me the most about this miniseries.  In the book his decision to stop drinking is a sacrifice he makes by himself out of love for his family, by making him seek out help it diminishes this sacrifice and turns Jack into a weaker character.  In another scene Jack destroys the CB radio in his sleep and blames Danny for it and this happens right after Danny is brutalized by the ghost in room 217.  In the book he takes full responsibility for destroying the radio himself.  It’s just a really weird scene and makes Jack out to be a bad guy before he starts attacking his family.

 I'm not very good at spotting continuity errors or visible equipment but when I do it's gotta be pretty obvious.  What's worse is this happens in the first hour of the first episode.  If that isn't a bad omen I don't know what is.  Hey guys guess you shouldn't have cleaned the windows so good for this scene.

After reading the book I really didn’t see anything that was so vital it needed to be split into 3 different parts totaling four and a half hours.  The casting, acting, directing, and story are all bad and uninteresting.  The pacing is just about as bad as it was in the book.  For all these reasons I’m going to this book the lowest rating I’ve ever given anything, 2/100.  It’s an utter failure in every way and it’s certainly not worth your time even if you watched just one of the three parts.  I’ve seen some bad Stephen King adaptations(Sometimes They Come Back, “The Lawnmower Man”, The Running Man, 1408, The Langoliers) but this one is by far the absolute worst.  If you want to catch some good King movies I’d suggest Night Flier, Cat's Eye, The Mist, the other Shining movie, and Creepshow.

Mission Earth The Invaders Plan Pt. 2

Mission Earth Pt. 2

This may be a little premature since I’m only 100 pages into this book but Mission Earth Pt. 1 – The Invaders Plan is the best book I’ve ever read.  That’s no small statement either,  I am an avid reader and probably have hundreds of books under my belt.

It’s hard for me to emphasize how complex and well written this book is.  L. Ron Hubbard’s Mission Earth Pt. 1 – The Invaders Plan has so many layers it’s like a Greek play. Hemmingway, Dickens, Shakespeare, Melvin, these names pale in comparison to the great L. Ron Hubbard.    I am so enthralled by this book I may just read more books by L. Ron Hubbard.

*SIGH* I don’t know how much longer I can keep up this charade.  THIS BOOK (bleep)ING SUCKS!  Hubbard doesn’t have a clue how to write his own characters.  The two leads are a sniveling coward and a superman incapable of failure.  Jettero Heller is the perfect physical specimen, the perfect marine, the perfect hero, and the perfect athlete.  His only faults are he’s gullible and he’s a crappy spy.  From the very beginning we know there is no way Jettero Heller can fail and we know that’s all Soltan Gris can do.  Furthermore who exactly are we rooting for here?  If Lombar and Soltan win we destroy ourselves and if Jettero succeeds we eventually get destroyed or enslaved by the Voltarians.

When I stopped last time nothing much had happened; Soltan Gris screwed up, they kidnapped a guy, and there was talk of a timetable.  The next part of Mission Earth opens up with a senate meeting a la Star Wars and it’s just as boring.  But in Mission Earth’s defense this is completely necessary and advances the story.  Here is where we get a better idea of what this timetable is.  All we are told of this invasion timetable is that it was handed down by an elder generation.

This really bothers me, the Voltarians are an advanced space faring species whose entire culture and philosophy was developed by people who existed thousands of years ago and they never question this?  It never occurred to them that the people who made these timetables might be idiots?  Or at the very least misleading?  The citizens of Voltar and the other planets their empire occupies never got tired of wasting lives and resources in an effort to further their already bloated empire?  At the beginning of the book Gris explains their capital city has harnessed the power of a black freakin hole to provide limitless energy across the planet and the only way they can think of utilizing this technology is to annihilate and subjugate weaker less developed species?!

The report that Soltan let through reveals that Earth due to nuclear war and pollution is going to destroy itself long before Voltar gets a chance to destroy it.  You may be asking yourself why does it matter how earth is destroyed if it still gets destroyed.  The Voltarians want to use Earth as a way station for supplies and troops and in order to do that they need Earth to remain intact.  The members of the senate argue about how to proceed when Lombar suggests they let the Apparatus handle it which of course is what they do without a second of thought or hesitation.

Lombar Hisst and Soltan Gris then go to the underground prison where they’re having Jettero Heller held.  Lombar explains to Soltan that he wants Mission Earth to fail… ummm for ambiguous reasons, he just says he wants the planet to destroy itself and he’s picked Jettero Heller as a fall guy.  Makes sense doesn’t it?  Pick the one and only guy who could possibly ruin your plans to spearhead an operation you want to fail.  I don’t see how this could backfire. 

Hisst leaves Soltan to question Heller and put a spin on the kidnapping so they can recruit him.  Jettero lacking any common sense agrees to join the people that not one week ago beat, kidnapped, and imprisoned him.  He doesn’t even take that much convincing, his only condition is that they get some reassignment forms for him from the marines.

Getting Jettero discharged is easier said than done.  Gris gets the papers and goes off to get some of Heller’s personal possessions when he’s jumped by a gang of marines who easily knock the (bleep) out of him.  I suppose they could have just arrested, detained, and questioned him like any normal military but on Voltar who needs proper procedure?*  When they finally do question him he tells them that he wasn’t missing just on an important assignment for the grand council. 

That excuse is good enough for the MPs as they escort him to Jettero Heller’s room.  Once in Soltan discovers just how well liked Heller is by his comrades as his 3 room suite is filled with expensive artifacts from other worlds.  His marine escort explains to him that he acquired all this wealth after his ship crash landed and he was able to uncover a part to repair the ship and saved some 3,000 lives.

After gathering a few things from Heller’s room Soltan Gris rejoins Lombar at the prison.  Soltan explains that Heller will need some spy training for the mission and judging on how easily he can be led and lied to I’d agree.  Lombar enlists the help of a Countess Krak(yeah I know it sounds like a dominatrix with a drug problem) to teach Heller Earth languages and how to be a better spy.  Thus ends part 2 of The Invaders Plan.

* My brother was an MP for the marines for a few years.  When I came to him with this problem he explained to me that this is exactly how low ranking grunts would react to off base non-military personnel coming around asking questions and demanding personal possessions of someone who is AWOL.  He also explained to me that the marines that took part in this unwarranted assault would not be punished or reprimanded.  To me it still sounds like they flew way off the handle and overreacted.  Just imagine if the civilian police acted this way.  Uhhh yeah you know Officer Smith who went missing a week and a half ago?  I may have information on his whereabouts.  GET HIM!!!!  HE'S BEING UNCOOPERATIVE USE YOUR PEPPER SPRAY!  WITNESS CONTINUES NOT TO COMPLY USE YOUR TASER!!!!

Part 1 showed some promise but part 2 lacks any interest I had in reading this book.  The more I read the more I get annoyed by the forced censorship.  While reading this part I had a hard time imagining that Hubbard stretched this concept for another 9 books.  I'd still rather much read all the profanity in text rather than try to work out in my head just what the hell they're trying to say.  As far as this part of the book goes it's really dull and uneventful.  This gets a flat 30.  I'd much rather be reading something I actually enjoy like Philip K. Dick or Stephen King.  This one just totally lost my interest in not just reading this book but reading period akin to South Park's Officer Barbrady's description of Atlas Shrugged.  This book is absolute Failure.

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.