Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs is an extremely divisive movie. While some people view it as one of the finest explorations of violence and the nature of man on film, others find it offensive and misogynistic. Famed critic Pauline Kael famously dubbed it "the first American film that is a fascist work of art." The 1971 film stars Dustin Hoffman as a mild-mannered professor living in the English countryside with his attractive wife (Susan George). A gang of locals harasses them both, graphically rapes the wife and attacks their home. Hoffman fights back with great vengeance and furious anger.

I saw the movie again very recently in its excellent Criterion edition and found it to be just as powerful and gripping and challenging as I had remembered. As Christopher told you in March, Rod Lurie (director of The Contender and Resurrecting the Champ, which opens Friday) plans to direct a remake of Straw Dogs. Lurie recently spoke with ComingSoon.net about it, calling Peckinpah's work on the film "a little lazy" and the film itself "very imperfect." He says, "It's sort of a classic film in the sense that it's infamous. It's a good not great film by a great director."

"It's an interesting film, isn't it?" Lurie adds. "But it was pretty much killed by a two-second moment on screen where his wife is being raped and she smiles. That was the end of that movie. You can be certain that she's not going to be smiling in the rape in my film." If you ask me (and you didn't), a huge reason the 1970s is referred to as a golden age of cinema is because the films were gritty and uncompromising. They didn't tie everything up with a pretty bow; they left questions. And often, as is certainly the case with Straw Dogs, the questions don't come with easily acceptable or digestible answers. Straightening out the film's politics, making the film clearer morally -- that doesn't strike me as a particularly great notion. What do you guys think? Is Lurie blaspheming here? That "two-second moment" he's referring to is a major reason that people still heatedly debate the film to this day. Will Lurie de-fang the movie by taking that away? Or is he setting things right?

Update: Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere takes issue with Lurie's statement about the rape scene.

It might be hard to believe, but Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs turns 15 today. Now, before you haul out the abacus, you've probably noted that 1992 + 15 = 2007. Reservoir Dogs premiered in October of 1992 the last time we checked, and it seems like only yesterday there was much fanfare over the tenth anniversary edition of this film (which was released in 2002), complete with five different covers for the same DVD ... collect them all! Perhaps 14 just wasn't as sexy of a number, and of course Lionsgate wants you to double dip when the HD-DVD version comes out at some point, so that leaves us with a 15th anniversary edition a year early. Although if you want to get extremely technical with the dates, Tarantino actually workshopped some of the scenes from Dogs at Sundance in 1991, so is this the date they're shooting for?

At any rate, the packaging alone is pretty cool on this release. They've housed the DVD in a metal case that looks like a gas can, and when you slip the interior packaging out, it is in the shape of a huge matchbook from "Uncle Bob's Pancake House," which is where Steve Buscemi tells everyone "I don't tip" as Mr. Pink. The whole package is sort of a gruesome reminder from one of the scenes in the movie. When the tenth anniversary DVD came out, Lionsgate sent out fake foam rubber ears announcing the release, which have become highly collectible among fans. I guess they like reminding us how violent the torture scene in this movie really is.

Tarantino's now cult-classic film opened the door for ultra-realistic violence in films, but it also helped usher in a new era of non-linear storytelling. After this movie came out, writers and directors began to play with the concept of time a lot more often, using flashbacks and flash-fowards to help make a simple story a lot more interesting, to show it from different angles and perspectives, and to flesh out character development. Tarantino didn't pioneer this technique, but he made such extensive use of it that you can still the effects of it in movies today.

The film also helped establish Tarantino's visual "look," from the black suits with the skinny ties, to the minimal sets with dialogue-heavy scenes. It also showcased his love for vintage and 70s music through "K-Billy Super Sounds of the 70s," on the radio throughout the movie, and DJed by deadpan comedian Steven Wright. Additionally, he took chances on B- and sometime C-list movie stars who had either fallen from the limelight, or had not worked in quite some time, which is something he continues to do -- reviving the careers of John Travolta, Robert Forster, Pam Grier and others.

Tarantino is a self-proclaimed cinephile, and in this movie he has lifted several scenes and plot elements directly from other films, particularly from Ringo Lam's excellent City on Fire which stars Chow Yun-Fat. If you haven't seen it, rent it some time and you'll see how similar the two films are, down to exact scenes. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and while Dogs isn't a direct ripoff, it comes close at times. Tarantino has claimed that he steals from all of his favorite movies, and if that's the case, then Dogs is no different.

Today also sees the release of the Reservoir Dogs video game (featuring the voice and likeness of Michael Madsen), which promises to bring the same ultra-violence to your home gaming systems. It seems an odd choice to make a game out of this film, given the extreme violence and open and closed plot, but we've also seen Scarface and The Godfather made into games as well recently, so stranger things have happened. Just don't look for Jackie Brown: The Game anytime soon. We hope. ...

Airlines have traditionally not shown controversial films on flights, making sure to stay far away from anything that might be slightly objectionable. That's why you've never seen a disaster movie (although you've probably seen movies that have been disasters) while jetting across the continent. That may all be changing soon as airlines have decided to show more mainstream fare like Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica in an effort to upgrade in-flight entertainment, and provide more choice, variety, and current releases to passengers.

Airlines edit films for content even more stringently than television networks do, cutting out language, sexuality, and anything that might even suggest that an airplane has a problem. According to the World Airline Entertainment Association, films are edited "because airlines carry young children as well as a diverse population of passengers from diverse cultures, many airlines require movie edits for language, sex, violence and political or religious content. The film distributor generally handles this process."

I remember flying from Los Angeles to Dallas and watching a cut of the Jennifer Lowe Hewitt film Heartbreakers that featured a digital insert over the cleavage of one ghost whispering actress. This reflects an oddly reciprocal effect between films edited for American vs. European airlines; Europe edits out violence, and America edits out sex. Apparently breasts might incense an American passenger to hijack the plane and fly to Club Med, but a bullet-riddled body will lull them into complacency.

I suppose I can understand the need to edit films on flights, because in a way it is forced viewing. You can't exactly get up and leave the theater if something on the screen bothers you. It is also understandable that you wouldn't want to watch anything that features a spectacular plane crash on a flight, for obvious reasons. However, more planes are starting to feature in-flight entertainment that allows each individual passenger to choose what they want to watch. What happens if the person next to you on that JFK-to-SFO flight wants to watch something featuring ultra-violence and you find that objectionable? It's hard to go through a flight with blinders on, but perhaps the next-generation of flight entertainment will feature a digital alternative.

What do you think? Should films be edited for airlines, or should you be able to watch whatever you want?

Over on sister site Blogging Baby, Jay Allen (full disclosure - he's married to your humble managing editor, aka, me) is blogging about the pay-per-view option to buy Fantastic Four in either its original version, or in a "family-friendly" version. He discusses the film and how our children handled it - although I'll note that he neglects to mention the raised eyebrow he got from me when I came downstairs and saw what our children were watching just before bedtime. I'm not particularly a big fan of edited films ala Clean Flicks, but after my 6-year-old son spend the rest of the evening gleefully talking about "that naked invisible girl" and how he "saw her bra and panties", I may have to reconsider my stance.

This wasn't a Clean Flicks edit, though, it was presumably, a studio-offered edited version (at least, I assume it was a studio edit, though I suppose the pay-per-view people could have done it). What do you think of studios editing their films to make "family friendly" versions? If you have the option to watch an edited version of a film with violence/sex/nudity/language, would you watch the "clean" version? Or do you like your films "dirty"?