MovieChat Forums > Straw Dogs (1971) Discussion > Roger Ebert's Review of This Movie Stink...

Roger Ebert's Review of This Movie Stinks


I just read Roger Ebert's review of Straw Dogs on the MRQE website. It was a mean-spirited review, even by Ebert's standards. It appears he was drunk when he watched this movie (or while he wrote the review) he was not on the wagon back in 1971. His review is full of howlers and plot inaccuracies.

reply

I watched this moviefillum stone sober 9 years ago and rated it even lower than Ebert. Now I just gave it a second shot after 3 bottles of wine and so forth and thought it was pretty darned effective. Go figure.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

You drank 3 bottles of wine all by yourself and didnt throw up or fall asleep?

You probably thought it was pretty GODDAMN (stop the cencurship) effective, because you were extremely drunk!!

reply

Let me guess: he doesn't like the message of this overrated turd of a movie, which is: when women dresses and acts like sluts, iit's okay to rape them and break their necks. And a woman has no right to ask her husband to pay attention to her and protect her from, harm, because, she brought it on herself. Yuck!!!

I didn't like it either. It's not a masterpiece and if you think it is you must be a sexist who hates women.

reply

It's a well-made film, but, yeah, as a female viewer I definitely had my issues with it. I mean, come on---what women stands buck naked in front of the window in broad daylight for no reason at all? And it was like the movie was saying that it was okay for her to be sexually assaulted by that guy because he was her ex-boyfriend, as if that was supposed to make it alright. That's just plain fckd up, and sexist as hell. I mean, the book and the script were written by men who clearly had no clue about how horrible rape is to women in real life. The scene came off like some old macho male fantasy about the subject, and it was disgusting,frankly. The director,Peckinpah, was known to be a real d*** to the women in his life, so it's no surprise that he treated his female characters like s*** in his films, and have them do things which logically made no damn sense.

reply

Just read the review and it is one of his worst. Small errors like Hoffman boiling whisky, when it was oil. And mixes a few scenes together that happened an hour apart.

Except for that he is allowed to not like the film, but he seems to be caught up in the fact that the villains use alcohol as fuel for doing bad things. And hating the violence from Peckinpah.

He also gave A Clockwork Orange two stars. I see a trend.

Straw Dogs a great film no doubt, but sometimes Ebert hated great films.

reply

It amuses me that Ebert disliked A Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs, but gave Last House on the Left a positive review. I found that movie far more exploitative than either of the other two-- and far more terribly acted and directed.

reply

I looked it up and yes, three and a half stars. I haven't seen the film, only the remake which I enjoyed. But giving Straw Dogs and in particular A Clockwork Orange a bad review is almost shocking. A Clockwork Orange is a sublime movie.

Funnily enough, our friend Quentin also had a problem with Clockwork Orange and Kubrick:

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/quentin-tarantino-criticism-stanley-kubrick/

reply

My god, Tarantino.... really?

Kubrick wasn't making an "anti-violence" film in the vein of Cecil B. DeMille's "religious epics" which lavishly indulged in sin before condoning it. He was making a statement about the violent nature of human beings-- specifically, how human beings absolutely can get off on cruelty and destruction-- a behavior not limited to the psychopathic Alex in the film either (the state and even the politically "subversive" writer are shown to be violent and vindictive despite being supposedly Alex's moral opposites). That those first 20 minutes are exciting as well as horrifying is not hypocrisy-- it's meant to challenge you, make you look inside yourself. I never felt Kubrick was celebrating our finger-wagging, but showing an exaggerated, satirical vision of criminality and the ugliest parts of human nature we all like to pretend only exist in lowlives and thugs, and not in "respectable" people like ourselves.

If anything, Kubrick has more to say about violence and human nature than Tarantino ever did... and I tend to enjoy Tarantino's films... certainly more than the man's opinions on cinema, anyway!

reply

At any rate, the fact that movies like Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange can still enrage people is a bit astonishing. Fifty-plus years and they still have that power.

reply

>> He was making a statement about the violent nature of human beings-- specifically, how human beings absolutely can get off on cruelty and destruction-- a behavior not limited to the psychopathic Alex in the film either (the state and even the politically "subversive" writer are shown to be violent and vindictive despite being supposedly Alex's moral opposites)

Yes, again Tarantino's viewpoint is broken down easily. You make a good analysis of the meaning and themes. There is a lot of depth behind those first 20 minutes, and beyond. And like all of Kubrick's work, it is very fascinating.

You can watch a film like A Clockwork Orange straight, and just enjoy the story, the acting, the compositions and the wonderful choice in music. And declare it a great film if you want.

Or you can watch the film on a deeper level, which is especially fun with masters like Kubrick. Where every frame has a meaning.

reply

There is a lot of depth behind those first 20 minutes, and beyond. And like all of Kubrick's work, it is very fascinating.
--
People often focus on the first 20 miinutes of that movie, but strangely, my favorite part is where Alex is in prison. So many of the film's most interesting variations on its themes occur there, particularly with the chaplain and the Minister of the Interior.
--
You can watch a film like A Clockwork Orange straight, and just enjoy the story, the acting, the compositions and the wonderful choice in music. And declare it a great film if you want.

Or you can watch the film on a deeper level, which is especially fun with masters like Kubrick. Where every frame has a meaning.
--
That's always why I loved Kubrick. His films are perhaps the most rewatchable of any filmmaker. I always get something new from revisiting his films.Every time I think I fully understand them, some little detail or line makes me rethink everything.

reply

Same here. I could talk about Stanley Kubrick for hours. There is a guy on YouTube who makes amazing film analysis videos of kubricks films (and many others) called Rob Ager or "Collative Learning". It's worth checking out.

But yes, you can watch Kubrick's films many, many times. I recently rewatched Lolita and boy – great film with a superb performance by James Mason. Not everyone likes it for some reason.

The only Kubrick film that everyone loves that I haven't been able to enjoy as much - yet - is Dr. Strangelove.

reply

I LOVE Rob Ager's videos. He's about the best film analysis channel on YouTube. I learn so much from his stuff. He helped me "get" Blade Runner, for instance. Before I wrote it off as pure style over substance, but now I find it a very melancholy, moving film.

Lolita is great. I'm a big fan of the book (I reread it once a year or so). I think a lot of people dislike that movie because they see it as neutered from the source material. However, even though Kubrick's film is not 100% to the letter of the novel, it's perfectly in tune with the book's dark comedy. I've been meaning to give it a rewatch. Haven't seen it in a while.

If you're interested in a great video essay on Kubrick's Lolita btw, I recommend the one on the Empire of the Mind channel. He analyzes the film through a philosophical lens. In fact, that channel has been going through Kubrick's films, analyzing a new one every few months. Worth seeing if you haven't!

reply

So cool! Rob Ager is fantastic. Not only his Kubrick stuff, but I also enjoyed his Exorcist analysis and many others like Twilight Zone: The Movie. I have not seen the Blade Runner examination yet, that will be next.

>> I think a lot of people dislike that movie because they see it as neutered from the source material.

Yes, I've heard this argument. Even from Kubrick himself. I haven't read the book (only Laughter in the Dark by the same author), but to me a film works very well. There is really nothing missing here. The genius filmmaking of Kubrick along with the performance from Mason, and of course Sellers, Winters and Sue Lyon - and the score - makes the thing very enjoyable. And more suggestive rather than obscene.

>> I recommend the one on the Empire of the Mind channel. He analyzes the film through a philosophical lens.

I will definitely check it out. I see that there is a video on Strangelove also.

reply

Yes, I've heard this argument. Even from Kubrick himself.
--
I feel Kubrick was frustrated with what he had to deal with from the censors, but I still say he made a great movie in spite of it. I know I like his adaptation far more than the 1997 Lynne one, despite it being more graphic and book-accurate. Plus Kubrick had Peter Sellers, who is flat-out brilliant.

I also prefer the 1950s/early 1960s suburbia setting to the Lynne film's immediate postwar one (once again, that's more accurate to the book, which is set around 1947 or so, but Kubrick's change is more interesting to me personally). That one is suffused with more nostalgia, while the Kubrick one is mocking his own period, presenting the American suburb as banal, making the dark undercurrent of Humbert Humbert's behavior all the more striking in comparison.

reply