Straightheads Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Let the revenge fit the crime
This taut and truly violent thriller sees Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer as a middle-class woman and a security man whom after ravaging in an explosive night of passion head off to a posh party in the highlands, however on the way they encounter a connection of violent gun holders who beat him and horrifically gang-rape her. After surviving this terrifying encounter, the traumatized couple decide to take revenge on the mob. After coming to terms with what happened, the couple manage to get hold of a rifle, and as the sun goes down a truly harrowing blood bath unfolds as the revenge stricken pair unleash their deadly revenge.
| Gillian Anderson | Alice |
| Danny Dyer | Adam |
| Ralph Brown | |
| Antony Byrne | Misha |
| Anthony Calf | Heffer |
| Adam Rayner | |
| Steven Robertson | |
| Ewan Stewart | |
| Kate Bunten | Young Alice |
| Francesca Fowler | |
| Gugu Mbatha-Raw |
| Dan Reed |
5.70 out of 10 (200 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Terrible
posted on 23 Jul 2009Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...
Thanks for nothing Film Four
posted on 21 Jul 2009Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
Clever film but not great
posted on 15 Jul 2009I thought this was a nice film that entertained but it did have its flaws. I liked the irony in the movie. Alarm systems protect on the inside but in the outside world , one is still vulnerable. I also thought it was clever to have the socioeconomic status removed by having a couple of different upbringings and castes being involved and on the same side to try and rectify this situation. It was a good movie to actually show the otherside of the coin. Coming at this from the dilemma of the rapist. The protagonists obsession with bringing down the horrible gang was just .Having the rapist with a sweet daughter was a nice touch as well. I thought the movie cover most of the psychological and social barriers. This movie did show what can happen to 'normal' people when pushed over the edge. Comparisons to STRAW DOGS are fine . Danny Dyers is no Dustin Hoffman. Not that the acting was bad , it just was slightly above par. Gratuitous nudity is always OK with this guy. The movie did not have to show the killing of a dog to get its point across. I also felt the movie was too short. The end was perfect with the birds singing when revenge was finally meted. Life is OK again.
At times a bit to real.
posted on 22 May 2009Quite a short feature film, although you do not actually notice this when watching. Great to see Gillian Anderson on screen again, and to be honest i would not have predicted this role for her however she was well cast.Personally i quite enjoyed the slightly comedic satire that ran through some of the scenes, and i think Danny Dyer helped with this. It is hard to tell if the film would have maybe been stronger with a different leading male, but then Dyer plays the 'male struggling with his emasculation.Definitely lacking depth, i left wishing i had known exactly what happens with Anderson's character and her father, along with simply wishing i knew Dyer's character better.Some uncomfortable scenes which i felt were not always necessary, although they do help to give the film an edginess that i liked. Basically it was brutally real and honest, very un-Hollywood. I would maybe say rent instead of watching at the cinema.
Reasonable, interesting but somewhat flawed Brit revenge movie
posted on 25 Mar 2009I saw this last night and it kept my attention throughout as well as providing some entertainment, but it is definitely a bit disappointing. The plot is simple, Gillian Anderson picks up Danny Dyer as company for a party, the two are attacked, Anderson is raped and they want revenge. Its a formula premise, used to perfection in some of the finest older exploitation movies, but this doesn't come near to the better known outings in the genre. The writing is what really hurts the film. Though the story, the character development and the general progression of the movie is well done, most of the times any of the characters open their mouths, what comes out just seems really off. Its a shame to see the actors grappling with the stilted lines and they all do their best but much of the dialogue just doesn't work and comes off as lame and irritating. The acting is great for the most part, with Danny Dyer giving the best performance I have seen from him as the initially reluctant Adam and Gillian Anderson is truly superb as the more readily vengeful Alice. In fact her performance is among the greatest acting I have ever seen in a rape revenge based movie. Anthony Calf does well as the instigator of the attack and the rest are decent too. Its just a shame about the dialogue. Dan Reed directs nicely for the most part, there's a grim, depressing but realistic feel to the film and the opening attack is non graphic but suitably harsh. Unfortunately the ending is abrupt and not too satisfying, and while the film is clearly trying to avoid redemption through violence clichés, there is a one gleefully unsubtle and exploitative moment that rather undermines this intention. Altogether the film is well made and probably worth a watch for fans of this sort of thing, presenting as it does a surprisingly intelligent depiction of the trauma that violence causes and the psychologically warping effects of getting into the revenge mindset. However the abundance of clunky lines plus the nastier moments and lack of subtlety stop this from working too well as intelligent stuff, while it doesn't really pass muster as exploitation. Falling between these two stools, its basically a reasonable misfire.
dark, deeply disturbing but powerful
posted on 17 Mar 2009To be completely honest i didn't know what i was watching when i flicked this film on at 11 in the evening.I see Danny dyer, an actor who's work i do like and i see Gillian Anderson who has never looked better. There is a spark between this cheeky London lad and older and more mature business woman, i like the way things are progressing, though cringing as a vehicle is mocked by our new couple as i half know something will come of that action.The scene to follow shocks and disturbs me, yet i'm unable to look away, i feel intense anger and helplessness for our victims.The revenge that follows is bloody and vicious yet almost justified but borderline sadistic.For me it's the little things that effect me the most and the scene that says with me is, the morning after the trauma of the night before, sitting on a tree stump looking deeply damaged, a small trickle of blood gently glide down our lead female actresses inner thigh.This film is very far from Hollywood, no glitz no real glamour, just an intense emotional story about revenge.
Unrewarding And Empty.
posted on 21 Feb 2009When Alice (Gillian Anderson), a middle-class businesswoman, meets Adam (Danny Dyer) a working-class surveillance expert, she invites him to a party. Thus begins a night that neither will ever forget. After encountering a group of locals on a country road, a shocking incident takes place that sees Adam lose an eye whilst Alice is brutally raped. Several weeks later, Alice crosses paths with one of their attackers...I had heard a lot about this movie, although most of what I'd heard revolved around a scene near the end of the film involving Anderson's use of a gun barrel. For the most part, the violence in this movie was implied rather than shown. The rape itself is disturbing although we are treated to not just one showing of it but two (the second time, it is shown through the eyes of Anderson's attacker). This seemed slightly gratuitous to me.Both of the main leads turn in great performances with special praise going out to Gillian Anderson. In all of the years watching "The X-Files" I never quite imagined that I'd see her in as powerful a role as this. It seems a shame then that they don't have any chemistry together. They just weren't convincing as two people who fell in lust with one another in the space of a few hours.After the horror of the first act, the movie doesn't seem to know what to do with itself. We see the two victims planning their revenge (initiated by an extraordinary coincidence) and trying to come to terms with what has happened to them. However, there isn't really any substance to these scenes. Their planning of revenge simply consists of creeping around spying on their attackers, and the scenes in which they try to deal with their anguish don't work either as both characters aren't given enough depth for us to care about them.The final scenes seem to come out of nowhere and are carried out in such a way that they're not satisfying to the audience. One of the bad guys suddenly gives a sympathetic story about why he did what he did - are we now meant to agree he had no other choice? One of the victims suddenly feels regret about what is happening to the attackers. Are we supposed to now feel the same? If there is an intended message, it isn't at all clear.Ultimately this movie is a hollow experience. It doesn't engage the audience as it should and doesn't appear to know what exactly it's trying to say.
Awful attempt at copying Straw Dogs?
posted on 30 Jan 2009This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.
What a flop
posted on 28 Jan 2009The movie is an absolute flop. Bad acting, bad soundtrack, bad story. The swear words are completely out of place, the undressed and intimate scenes are adding nothing to the movie. She is being raped, but you do not feel absolutely sorry for her. On the contrary the only guy who had one sexual relationship with her did it to protect his own daughter. So you end up feeling sorry for him. You simply do not feel any emotions. It's a flat movie. The beaten guy looses an eye. OK. That's bad. But he is such a jerk, a real idiot, so the fact that he stabs out the eye at the end of the movie is disgusting. The spectator is not involved, there is no increase in tension. What was the subject? She being raped? The family drama of the raper? of his daughter? of the friends? Was it a car show of Lexus? Where broken windscreens are automatically repaired over night (Tthat was cheap, laugh!!!) If the subject was revenge I hope the production did not want to compete with comparable movies like The Crow, or Charles Bronson's cult movie. This movie is brutal? Well, to paraphrase the trailer of Hostel II: Britons... they have no imagination
Pictures on your wall
posted on 20 Jan 2009Straightheads wants badly to be a cult classic, still watched in forty years time, mugs, t shirts, but the fact is - Gillian Anderson aside - it's so unremittingly average that you forget most scenes as soon as they end. Anderson pitches her performance perfectly, warm with the right amount of cool, Danny Dyer's Adam, by contrast, is severely uneven; in fairness to him it should be pointed out that Dan Reed changed Dyer's brief at the eleventh hour, not the best way to get a great character study out of an actor. Straightheads ends up being OK, a terrible thing to say about a piece of art, but totally and utterly true, it isn't quirky enough, dangerous enough or original enough to be what it wants to be. It doesn't make you want to put pictures on your wall, even if it thinks it does.
Such a shame.....
posted on 25 Dec 2008I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.
There is nothing like revenge.
posted on 21 Dec 2008This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.
Not bad....could have been a lot better.
posted on 19 Dec 2008Saw a preview of this last night. Still not completely sure what I made of it to be honest. It's a very short film at only 1 hour and twenty minutes and despite this it still feels a little padded as though there wasn't enough story to make it long enough to be a feature film. The key scenes are graphic and harrowing enough and I definitely left with a bad taste in my mouth. Gillian Anderson was probably the best thing about the film but I don't really buy Danny Dyer playing opposite her and there were certain scenes that were unintentionally humorous because of this. Dyer has definitely been a little miscast here and it does make you wonder whether it could have been better with a different leading man. The other problem I have with a film of this type is that in order for you to care about the plight of characters I believe you need at least a little insight into their lives prior to what we are seeing on screen, we need to know about who they are in order to root for them and I never really felt this film gave us the big picture in this regard. Despite it's flaws it's still a watchable drama/thriller but with a few more original ideas and a little added characterisation it could have been a whole lot better.
Payback's a Bitch
posted on 23 Nov 2008This film had its problems. The setup was contrived and the father's death convenient, and as a linguist, I had issues with Ms. Anderson's accent. That being said, I enjoyed the movie immensely. Aside from the accent, I found the acting to be riveting, and everything post rape to be taut to the point of breaking. I was disturbed by the subject matter, but refused to look away because it was believable, and the camera's refusal to look away from the violence I found refreshing. The brutality encased all of the principals in a cocoon that brought out the humanity in a rapist and the rapist in a human being. There were no "good guys" in this movie, only an innocent. Everyone but the daughter end up guilty of something, and this is not explored nearly enough in cinema today. I say well done for the courageous performances, even if the getting there was a greased slide bringing everyone to the point of now return.
Better than its overused revenge plot suggests.
posted on 10 Oct 2008A 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
Thought-provoking subject matter that should have been so much better *SPOILERS*
posted on 26 Sep 2008*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.) The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background. This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week. Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!
I can't just walk away. I wish I could.
posted on 04 Jul 2008You 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.
What is the point of Straightheads?
posted on 07 May 2008If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?
Why should victims always cry?
posted on 21 Apr 2008I have to strongly disagree with viewers who noted that they didn't feel compassion and that they couldn't care less. Quite frankly I find it short-sighted to believe that victims are always just that. Crushed and disoriented waiting for the knight in the shiny armor. That is how we are comfortable looking at victims.Here however the victims turn around to become the aggressors. The motives for the rape seem to be "reasonable" (during the kitchen scene) but are immediately revealed as hunger for power in the following seconds.The goal here was not to make the viewer feel compassion or pity for the victims but to show that they are entitled to rage, anger and backlash.Alice and Adam were shallow characters, no doubt about that. We do not even get to know what Alices work is really. She picks up her 23-y old alarm guy to go to a party. Obviously she isn't searching for her soul here. Nevertheless Alice who has been pushing for revenge is the one who can't follow through. Adam seems to find his lost manhood in attempted rape. If you can't relate to this, do not conclude the characters to be shallow, continue the search for answers off screen.
- 1
- 2
this is not a Straw Dogs
posted on 23 Jul 2009Straightheads 2007Gillian Anderson gives an excellent performance. Her emotions, following the brutal ordeal of her character, are too realistic for comfort. You are compelled to feel revulsion at her plight, and can understand her cry for revenge.The effects on the couple's relationships, and how they individually perceive revenge is a strong part of the storyline, as is how they both deal with the realisation that 'Revenge is sweet'.Danny Dyer portrays his character fairly effectively and the mood change towards the end is quite effective, but Gillian Anderson outshines him.Anthony Calf, who plays the instigator of the brutal rape, puts in a good performance and when he explains to his victim why he felt forced to do what he did, you could almost, but not quite, feel sorry for him.The Director, Dan Reed, is no stranger to awards for his work. But, these have been for current affairs and social and political documentaries. This thriller is completely different, and appears to be out of his comfort zone. Much more could have been done to enhance the experience that the film could have given.The advertising says this is 'Straw Dogs' for the next generation. But regretfully this film comes nowhere near Straw Dogs.DarnmaySeptember 2007