Reviews

As others have hinted, this film is beyond most people's idea of merely quirky. In fact, it's slightly unbalanced and in parts borders on insane... yet somehow what emerges is a film that is just about believable, as are the various colourful characters who act it out. The film is great fun, and its two hours go by quickly.

Being a huge fan of Brando, and an admirer of Nicholson, I end up thinking this film in no way detracts from their illustrious careers and what they've done elsewhere. Having said that, Brando does ham it up in a grand, thoroughly camp style: outlandish costume, inexplicable changes of costume, florid gestures and - as other reviewers have pointed out - weird accents. The accents he uses shift around inconsistently and theatrically (especially the more sustained efforts to sound Irish in his early scenes). But he obviously had fun when making the film. Nicholson's performance is a model of seriousness and sobriety by comparison.

The cinematography is superb, with great use of light and shade in shooting a wonderful landscape. The action is generally slow-paced, but with a heavy sense of impending menace through most of the film. The score is not among the film's stronger points. Dialogue is mostly fresh and original for a 70s era western, and cliché avoided. It is well acted, despite the quirkiness of the script and screenplay.

Perhaps a little odd that the critics slated this film so ferociously at the time it was released. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, made just a few years earlier was (rightly) lauded to the skies, precisely for giving originality, humour and a modern twist to the old western format. That film now seems in some ways more dated than The Missouri Breaks. The latter is not as good a film as Sundance, by a distance, but, for any true fan of cinema, well worth giving it a try.

Saw this film around 30 years ago. At that time I thought it just a fairly formulaic star vehicle, bringing together the grizzled, typical Wayne cowboy character with someone who was a newer and - at the time -a really big name in Rock Hudson. Seeing it anew in 2007, I realise my earlier estimate was too dismissive by far. It has a good plot with many original aspects, well described already on the web-site by earlier reviewers, especially the linkage of US civil war with events happening at the same time in Mexico. Not being a huge fan, ordinarily, of either of the main stars, it has to be said they both turn in good performances and are fully believable as leaders whom other men would naturally follow, and who inspire fierce loyalties. The dialogue has a few unexpectedly good lines and is generally above average standard. The stars play it light-heartedly, and this gives the film warmth, colour and humour. Some aspects of the film, admittedly, conform to the hackneyed Wayne cowboy film recipe, such as the free-for-all fist fight, but in general the film stands up well nearly 40 years after it was made, and it has held on to a much more modern feel than other Wayne westerns. The musical score just about carries enough grandeur to match the action and the occasionally majestic cinematography, especially the scenes involving the drive across country of a few thousand horses. Any film-lover who enjoys the more upmarket western should give this film a try. The nearly two hours pass quickly, and it's a film to make you think (about the nature of war against your fellow countrymen, about loyalty, friendship and heroism) and escapist enough to make you smile.

What a film - watched the digitally remastered version recently, after years of avoiding the film out of a misplaced preconception of it as being one of the first chick-flicks, full of saccharin sentimentality and for those who like their handkerchief wet all the way through. It really isn't like that, although have to admit my feminine side was stirred by the rich colours of the sumptuous ball-gowns in the early dancing scenes. Scarlett O'Hara is a total bitch - what a character. You want to see her fall flat on her face from early in the film onwards, but you keep watching and can't help admiring when she somehow survives and even thrives while most of those around her are suffering terribly. Clark Gable is a dude who would grace the modern film, or films of any era. Olivia De Havilland is quietly, radiantly beautiful, and even the usually boring Leslie Howard makes the rather dull role of Ashley Wilkes come to life. The digital remastering makes this 67-year-old film look like it was made in the 90s - the burning of Atlanta is vivid and impressive. The camera-work / cinematography throughout is tremendous. This film definitely deserves its reputation as a major event in the history of cinema.

I first saw this film when too young to have seen it legally (sneaked into the cinema with a few school-friends when we ought to have looked a lot more like we really were at least 18). It shocked me with its brutal intensity and strange realism. The cinemas in those days still showed double bills, and this was on with Soldier Blue, which was just as brutal or more so, but a lot less subtle - believe it or not - and had a much more impressive body-count at the end.

So the night out was a real gore-fest, and not the occasion for a first date. Not surprisingly, there was never a second date with that same girl. At least, that's how I've always explained it to myself.

Although I enjoyed Straw Dogs, I was not entirely sure how to react to it, and I thought about the film for a long time afterwards. Recently I watched it again on DVD, for the first time in nearly 30 years. It still has the power to startle, if not to shock by today's standards, perhaps. And it's still a good, memorable film.

Anybody connected with the Cornwall tourist industry probably wouldn't like the way their part of the world is depicted, but anyone else with a broad mind should give this film a try. It's worth watching just for Susan George's pouting, sultry beauty. Shame she never made many (any?) other equally enduring films.