Straightheads (2007)

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I love these types of film. Where a man or woman gets horrifically abused and goes on a bloody warpath of revenge! I know the plot is usually thin, but it's often exciting and engrossing enough to carry a film. Just the anticipation of seeing the evil b******s get exactly what they deserve. It's often a feeling of satisfaction. But, it certainly isn't the case with "Straightheads". A film the lottery decided to fund for some bizarre reason! I mean I've written a film and I think it's way better than some of the things I've seen, but do I get any lottery funding? NO!Rape, revenge is usually quite difficult to get wrong. Even if it does go a bit belly-up it's usually fun and entertaining at least. Actually, the majority of "Straightheads" is quite dull, slow and tedious which is unexpected for its surprisingly short running time of 75 minutes or so. That's about the length of "Inside" and "REC" just think about how much incredible excitement is experienced in those minutes! "Straightheads" sort of failed immediately by being not in the least bit plausible. Would you really ask your slacker camera fitter to go to a party with you? And why would the camera fitter not even question the idea? It starts off weirdly to say the least. When the nasty abuse occurs it's shot in the least effective way with too many clumsy close-ups and basically zero lighting to see what's going on! It also feels quite nasty for the sake of it and doesn't have anywhere near of the directional flair that say, "The Ordeal" expressed during a similar scene.After this event, you might think that the characters would become a little more likable? They don't, in fact they become even less likable and don't get developed any further either. Am I supposed to like a man who's stoned out of his mind on the sofa, playing weird chav music with porn on his telly? It also doesn't help that Danny Dyer and Gillian Anderson's acting are more wooden than the forest. I felt zero chemistry between the two characters as well, the whole relationship thing was completely unbelievable. Though it wasn't as unbelievable as the pathetic reason given to why the rape occurred!The film also seems as if it tries to divert from any possible exciting acting that could've actually been quite fun! There's a promising bit where Danny's hiding in the house and one of the men gets a glance at him on the top of the stairs, but nothing really that exciting comes from it! Similarly, there's a part where a daughter runs out the house shouting for her dog which is swiftly avoided with yet another embarrassing sex scene between Danny and Gillian, but don't worry the camera's so clumsy that you can't see a thing!When the revenge finally does occur (after about an hour of no-suspense building up to it) it's so quick that it feels even more pointless. I don't know if that's what the director's trying to say, that revenge is pointless, but he did it in such a way that it made his whole film pointless! Has he not seen "7 Days" or "I Saw The Devil" which tries to convey the same message in such a gripping and emotional way? (well obviously not because this came out before those two but..) It's also done in a nasty way that just seems like it's trying to shock for the sake of it. It's cringe-worthy and not in a fun "Saw" way, but in a perverted and "why am I watching this?" way!"Straightheads" does show effective use of direction in the very last minutes but by then it's far too late to care. "Straightheads" is a dull, nasty, implausible, badly written and atrociously directed thriller that thinks it's being way more effective than it is. If you're looking for rip-roaring, emotionally-charged revenge then I would suggest "Kill Bill", "Oldboy", "I Saw The Devil" and other Korean films. Even the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave" is much more intelligent and effective than this. I'd recommend giving this one a miss.

If this movie had been made in 1990, it might have caused a minor stir. If it had been made in 2000, it would have produced a global nerdgasm of epic proportions. Making it in 2007, though, is just being behind the curve.The story is about successful British businesswoman Alice (Gillian Anderson) who invites security system installer Adam (Danny Dyer) to a party at her boss' country estate. Adam is very much a working class guy who doesn't fit in with Alice's crowd, but they fit together well enough to slip out into the woods for a quickie. Driving home from the party, they encounter three strangers who beat Adam to a pulp and rape Alice on the hood of her car. We next see Alice and Adam a month after the attacks, living in Alice's apartment and still recovering from the trauma. When she returns to her parent's home after her father dies, Alice sees one of the men who attacked them and she and Adam set out to get even and more.When I say it would have caused a minor stir 20 years ago, that's because this revenge film casts the woman as the cold hearted seeker of vengeance and the man as her conflicted, reluctant sidekick. Alice is the driving force, both formulating the plans and planning to do the killing herself. Adam, scarred and blind in one eye from the beating, clearly has no appetite for the scheme but clings to Alice like a life jacket at sea. The movie plays nicely with the idea of Adam's scars being visible but Alice's being hidden in her heart and her spirit. It also has a very interesting and provocative take on Adam's sense of emasculation and how he regains his manhood.If it had come out 10 years ago there also would've been a noticeable reaction because Gillian Anderson gets naked. She's thoroughly topless in just about exactly the way every horny X Files fans ever wanted her to be (and I'm not referring to the rape scene). She was rubbing up against 40 years old when she made this film and does have the somewhat drawn look in the face women can get when they try to be too thin as they enter middle age, but everything between the ankles and the neck is still quite outstanding.The problem with making a film like this in 2007, though, is that the bar for revenge films is set so high now. The beating and rape, while they would be life-changingly awful in the real world, are fairly tame by this genre's standards. Alice and Adam's violent vengeance itself, except for one penetrating moment, is also pretty unremarkable. And while making the woman the Charles Bronson of the picture is a different take, the movie only establishes and never really explores the dynamic between Alice and Adam. They're more like pieces moved around by the plot than they are characters controlling the story through their actions. And then when the movie flips Alice and Adam's perspective on their terrible intentions, it never really explains why it happens and then ends too quickly to explore how the shift would change the characters' relationship. This is one of those rare films that would have really benefited from being about half an hour longer and going several steps beyond where it now ends.If it were a fresher, rawer story, its weaknesses wouldn't be as apparent and it could get by on its strengths. But we've seen this story so many times before, with the violence and emotional conflict far more heightened, that you can't help but notice the movie isn't quite as good as it could or should be.This certainly isn't a bad film but except for Gillian Anderson's impressive boobage, there's really no reason to watch this movie instead of something else.

A young couple are beaten and raped on the way home from a party in the English countryside. The nature of their relationship has all the hallmarks of a transitory sexual dalliance. Alice, a well-educated professional woman, played by the tremendous Gillian Anderson, and Adam played by Danny Dyer, a younger man installing an elaborate security system in her apartment. An unlikely couple thrown together by lust and opportunity whose connection takes on a much more complex and ambiguous character after the horrific events following the party and then the fortuitous chance to take revenge on the perpetrators.What appears to be a tale of revenge is really a healing process where uncertainty and doubt surround the quest of the two victims and eventually a denouement where separate solutions are sought and an outcome where fulfillment remains elusive.I really liked the way director Dan Reed handled the interplay between Alice and Adam after their terrible experience and explored the shifting ground of their relationship, complicated by contact with one of the perpetrators whose actions appear not to be motivated by criminal intent but something rather more understandable. Flawed but fascinating. 8/10

You were never really sure of the exact relationship between Alice (Gillian Anderson), the cougar businesswoman, and Adam (Danny Dyer), the 23-year-old security installer. Initially, it appeared they just met, but after he was beaten and she was gang raped, he acted like he had known her forever.After the attack, he is struggling with his masculinity, and she is bent on revenge. Armed with daddy's weapons, she sets out to make the men pay for what they did.Adam has a real problem. he is no good to her in her quest for revenge, and he is no good to her lying on top of her luscious body.When Alice went to take revenge, she used Daddy's gun, but not in the way you would think. An eye for an eye; a rape for a rape. Once Adam was turned on to vengeance, she couldn't turn him off.Good acting by Anderson in a thin movie.