Buy Now, Pay Later
As low as
$4
/ mo
Learn more
- – 4-month term
- – No impact on credit
- – Instant approval decision
- – Secure and straightforward checkout
Ready to go? Add this product to your cart and select a plan during checkout.
Payment plans are offered through our trusted finance partners Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay, Apple Pay, and PayTomorrow. No-credit-needed leasing options through Acima may also be available at checkout.
Learn more about financing & leasing here.
Selected Option
Free shipping on this product
30-day returns
Learn more
30-day refund/replacement
To qualify for a full refund, items must be returned in their original, unused condition. If an item is returned in a used, damaged, or materially different state, you may be granted a partial refund.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
Availability:
19 left in stock
Arrives
Mar 15 – Mar 20
Recently Viewed
Format: DVD March 12, 2012
Description
A young couple (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth) moves to a quaint southern town. Soon their perfect getaway turns out to become a living hell when dark secrets and lethal passions spiral out of control. Trapped by a pack of depraved locals led by a ruthless predator (Alexander Skarsgård, TV’s “True Blood”), they face a night of agonizing suffering and endless bloodshed. Now their only hope for survival is to become more savage than their merciless torturers. Also starring two-time Academy Award® Nominee James Woods (Best Actor, Salvador, 1986 and Best Supporting Actor, Ghosts of Mississippi, 1996).
Aspect Ratio : 2.401
Is Discontinued By Manufacturer : No
Package Dimensions : 7.56 x 5.35 x 0.63 inches; 3.53 ounces
Audio Description: English
Item model number : 4
Media Format : PAL, Subtitled
Run time : 1 hour and 45 minutes
Release date : March 12, 2012
Dubbed: Catalan, Italian, Spanish
Subtitles: Danish, English, Finnish, Hindi, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish
Frequently asked questions
If you place your order now, the estimated arrival date for this product is:
Mar 15 – Mar 20
Yes, absolutely! You may return this product for a full refund within 30 days of receiving it.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
- Klarna Financing
- Affirm Pay in 4
- Affirm Financing
- Afterpay Financing
- PayTomorrow Financing
- Financing through Apple Pay
Learn more about financing & leasing here.
Similar Products
![The Land Before Time - The Complete Collection [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816Hjt4wUiL._AC_US500_.jpg)
![Scrubs - Complete Collection: Season 1-9 [DVD] [Region2] Requires a Multi Region Player](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91EdqmXz4YL._AC_US500_.jpg)
![Marvel Studios Collector's Edition Box Set Phase 1 [DVD] | USA Non-Compatible Product | Region - 2](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/8185bmnN9fL._AC_US500_.jpg)
Top Amazon Reviews
Great movie with plenty of action, good story line.
Reviewed in the United States on January 29, 2026 by Benito a Stewart
Amazing movie
Reviewed in the United States on January 4, 2026 by David Ramirez
Okay, this film starts out kind of slow, and plods along nicely, giving you a sense of the environment into which we are being introduced. Context matters here. A lot. And as the story begins to unfold, you see there is a back story that is not fully fleshed out, but which is clearly evident by how it is presented. The local boy thinks there is unfinished business between he and the girl, for whom the years apart have become a twisted idea of love in his mind. Very. The film continues to flesh out the local "flavour" as it moves forward. We are given the elements which will unfold in the last reel pretty early on. And this is part of the beauty of this film. If you pay attention, you can immediately see where it is headed. And, like a train wreck, you just cannot look away...but this is a good thing. The acting is very good. Even the minor characters are given enough to make them a little bit more than one dimensional, even two dimensional in their makeup. The dialogue is very good, but for the foul language. The content of this film is not for the young, not really. While foul language usually means we take at least one star off our rating, the compelling nature of this story, the very tight direction, even though the film does not pick up the pace that most want in the second reel, it is a deliberate decision to keep the pace reigned in. You will understand this once you've seen this to the end. So, just let it unfold and you won't be disappointed.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on April 22, 2021 by Geoffrey F. Arnold
The movie was well directed and the actors were good, some almost too good. The plot was how a young married couple moved from Southern California back to her small town of origin in Mississippi. Their mission was to settle her parents estate, but they began to have trouble with the locals shortly after arriving. I'm from a smaller city in the South and can recognize the type of "good ol' boys" that the couple had trouble with. Some of the these good ol' boys were portrayed excellently by their actors, so well that I would wonder what other roles they take on in Hollywood. A couple of things wrong with the film. (1.) Amy, played by Kate Bosworth, had no hint of an accent that all of her old friends in Mississippi had. (2) The film portrayed a small town full of devout, church going people, but these people seemed to be very oblivious of public drunkenness and violent misbehavior at public places such as church picnics and football games. While there may be a few flasks of whisky in the pockets of some people at these sorts of events, there are plenty of cops in these small towns to make sure that those people don't get too far out of hand. I thought that the movie was reasonable entertainment and I don't regret watching it.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on March 4, 2024 by Gourdhedd
Spoilers Ahead! I hadn't seen the original since I was very young but I remembered it well (probably because I was way too young to see something so traumatic). This film is very different on some fundamental levels. A. Original David - He is a war protester and pacifist which is unrelatable to the broader modern audience but was very relatable to an audience in the early 70's with the whole make love not war movement. David is also fighting against the violence of an English village as a whole and not just one group of friends so it is David finally facing the fact that he can't escape violence as it is a very human condition. He fights and he wins while he hates himself for doing so all the way. Yet, in the end he becomes the very thing he hates when he gets so much enjoyment out of "getting them all" and that becomes the most disturbing thing about the film. You walk away thinking that the animal side exists in us all just below the surface. Remake David - He is an effete, privileged intellectual who clearly can't relate to his wife's home town and spends his time smirking at it and trying to be superior. It's evident as soon as they drive into town and he hears the woman yell at her dogs barking. The look on his face is shock. Then in the bar he is clearly amused and appalled at the town folk. Even his offering of the job to Charlie smacks of elitism (a kind of oh, I'll throw some work the way of your poor, uneducated high school friends). He is shocked by the coach's behavior but he is too busy feeling superior to fully understand the danger. Like the original David, this one treats his wife as an trophy but not a person. He talks down to her on many occasions (chess is the best example) and does not seek her counsel about the very people she knows. He hires Charlie without asking if she even trusts him. You know from the start of this movie that their relationship is doomed. On a side note, I didn't feel Marsden did much with the character. I felt he was overplayed. I would have like to have seen what James Franco would have done with this character. I think we would have had a much more nuanced character. B. Original Amy - She was very confusing but David's sexism and her response was more understandable in the early 70's when men were still, for the most part, considered the head of the house and women merely servants and bed warmers without opinions or thoughts. Personally I never thought Amy enjoyed the rape as some did. I felt she began to respond to Charlie to minimize the damage to herself from the rape. She is not being raped by a stranger after all. She knows Charlie and tries to call on their past relationship to tame the beast in him. This is a world she knows and playing along is the only way she knows to survive with the least damage. There is still a bit of passive aggressive rebel in Amy who flashes Charlie and his men, but it's very childish and impulsive and she pays dearly for it (and I think it's not wholly unexpected). There is also a part of Amy that understands men like this and though she thinks David is a better "catch", there are parts of him she doesn't respect and parts of him she silently despises (his superiority over her). I also believe she doesn't tell him because she doesn't think he is capable of doing anything to protect her. Remake Amy - I felt the Amy in this movie was more transparent and had more depth. She is giddy coming into town but once she gets there the tension starts. The look on her face when she sees the church tells you something bad went down in there. She does it again in the barn and David asks if she is alright. It happens again when Charlie says he used to take care of her and she says, "But you didn't, did you." I felt my hair stand up when she said that and I wondered what had happened and from what Charlie didn't protect her. I get the feeling that this is why she left Charlie. With this Amy I have less understanding of why she stays in her marriage unless she is just star struck. This man clearly thinks little of her, bosses her around and uses her. The way she calls her father's house David's house is just bizarre in this day and age. It isn't his house, it's her house. This is her town. The one place the film falls down for me is in making me believe in this relationship. I don't see what David has that would make her go along with his behavior. This Amy is spunky and rebellious so why does she passively let him hire men she isn't really comfortable around? As the movie goes on it is clear something happened to her in the past. The Zydeco music that makes her uncomfortable, her reactions to certain places and her certainty that they not only killed her cat but that this is the precursor to further and escalated violence. She doesn't seem far enough under David's spell for her refusal to stand up to him to make sense. She seems more like that type that would angrily say, "Wake up you big idiot, I know this town and you don't!" It also made no sense whatsoever that she would run without a sports bra. That simply isn't comfortable and made no sense at all. It seemed to be done for pure gratification purposes and so fell very short. One thing that stays true is her reaction during the rape. She also gets to the point where she responds to Charlie to try to tame the beast. This Charlie is also more complicated so her actions there make more sense. It also makes more sense that she calls for Charlie to protect her from his friend. When he doesn't, you get the feeling they've been down this path before and that is probably the most disturbing of all. I wondered if this wasn't what she meant when she said he didn't take care of her. I felt like I was in Peyton Place where a town turns its back on the ugliness even at the expense of the victims. This is further solidified by her reaction to David when he returns. She indicates they both are out of their depth in this place. I think Bosworth's handling of this character was good. She is the right mix of spunk, rebellion and shaking fear. Her eyes and trembling hands/voice tell a great deal about the character's thoughts, emotions and even memories. C. Original Charlie - Charlie is another character that is very different than the original. In the original, Charlie is one dimensional and entirely animalistic. You have no sympathy or understanding for him at all. He's just a thug and nothing more. He's not developed in any way and the audience has no way to understand him. Perhaps Peckinpah did this on purpose to equate Charlie to the enemy in a war which you would not know in depth either. Personally I felt that the original David was such a jerk that the only way to see him as a protagonist was to make Charlie completely void of any character, but I think much of that was a generational thing (a young viewer versus an older viewer who would accept David's actions as normal). Remake Charlie - I have to give considerable props here to Alexander Skarsgard. No matter how Rudin directed this film or how it was written, it is Skarsgard's performance that changes Charlie to a more three dimensional character. This is quite a feat given the dark material. In Skarsgard's hands, Charlie comes off as man who plays the confident ex-jock, alpha male with some serious cracks in his persona. On the one side there is the way Charlie is with David - soft spoken, smiling, confident but always getting the jab in. He does it in such a way that David for the most part doesn't even see it. This is the swaggering Charlie who is sure that Amy will leave the effete intellectual for a real man. He is very sure of himself with David and he never falters there. I found myself actually enjoying some of Charlie's jabs at David because David was such a jerk. If Charlie hadn't gone as far as he did later, I would have wanted him to win. As it is, Skarsgard's Charlie manages to ramp up the tension with David at every turn and you find yourself tense whenever they come into contact. You are just waiting for Charlie to make an overt move to take Amy back and put David in his place. Yet, it is with Amy that Skarsgard's Charlie is the most complex. Rudin fell down on giving more backstory here, but despite that Skarsgard's performance, as well as Bosworth's, give you the sense that something big went on between those two in the past. It starts as soon as Amy tells Charlie he didn't really take care of her. You see that flicker in Charlie's big, blue eyes, that sudden drop in his confidence and swagger. Right away you know that it is true that he didn't protect her from something. It happens again when she glares at him after his men make remarks to her and then she flashes them from the window. A number of things cross Charlie's face - shock, betrayal, dread and desire. The way he starts watching the house is like he's fighting back the urge to storm it right then and there. The music is bothering him, his men's remarks are bothering him, his memories are bothering him and his desire to take what he thinks is his is barely restrained. The rape scene is probably the most complex one I've ever seen on film. This is when you know for sure that Charlie has some real issues beneath the surface. He has obviously deluded himself that Amy still wants him because of her actions in the window. He says as much to David at the church. He acts as though she will realize this and come back to him if he just makes her see how much more of a man he is and this includes in a sexual way. He is kissing her and touching her like they are still lovers and his forcible restraint of her is accompanied by looks of frustration that indicate he thinks she's simply playing hard to get. His frustration turns to rage as she continues to say no and resist and he continues to insist she wants him. Yet he also reassures her that he won't hurt her and tries to kiss her and hold her. The look on his face when it's over and he tries to be tender but she rebuffs him is complete shock. He really doesn't get it. It's almost like Charlie has deluded himself into thinking he has to force her to be unfaithful and then she'll realize he's the better man and that she still loves him. I honestly had to wonder if he would have protected her if she had responded at all at that point. There's also a completely strange dynamic going on with Charlie and Norm. Although Charlie seems to be in charge, Norm is always there in the background ominously looming. In the bar and on the roof, he is given a lot of screen focus which makes his character seem more important. He also seems to have a problem with Amy from the time he sees her in Blackie's. He gives her a look like she disgusts him several times with the first being in the bar. I can't decide if it's because of how he perceives she treats Charlie or the town in general. But it is the hold he seems to have over Charlie that is the most strange and again, I wish they had shown more backstory. There is no reason why Charlie, who obviously still cares so much about Amy, albeit in a very twisted way, would allow another man to rape her so brutally. I don't buy that Charlie did that because Amy exposed herself to his men. If this were the case he would have been more brutal in the rape and not at all like a lover. At the least he would have been a heck of a lot more conflicted. Like the original, Charlie seems surprised at first by Norm's appearance. It comes when we've seen the absolute stunned look on Charlie's face once he realizes how traumatized Amy is and how clearly she does not love him. He's in complete shock and uncomfortable with Norm's intrusion even as he holds her down. As he sits in the chair and watches the rape unfold, his face again shows many emotions, shock, hurt, disbelief, horror and finally resignation. What's so interesting here is that he seems resigned to Amy's fate as if he can do nothing. He is physically bigger and in better shape than Norm and he is also the boss. Again, I wondered what hold Norm had over him. In the final scenes Charlie is again like a man with serious fissures in his mental state. He finally goes to the rescue of Amy when Norm attacks again. He seems to think he can reason with Norm, but he definitely is trying to protect Amy at last. It's almost like he's reached a point similar to David where he finally has to stand up to something he's avoided for so long. Again I wondered what had happened when they were all young. I had the feeling that it definitely involved Norm. Charlie is shocked when Amy kills Norm. His face says he doesn't think she had it in her and clearly he didn't think she had that viciousness in her that she displays when she kills Norm. Yet he still clings to this twisted romantic notion that he can protect her from the consequences of all that has happened and that she will love him. In the end he's still trying to win her. He's so seriously twisted but you almost wonder what kind of upbringing could produce such a perverted perception of reality. Skarsgard's Charlie is this wonderful mix of deadly machismo and deluded romantic. As a viewer you hate Charlie, but you can't help feeling bad that whatever went wrong in his life was never fixed because you keep catching glimpses of something worthwhile in him. That's a pretty big accomplishment for any actor with a character like that. In the end, it is truly his movie.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on September 23, 2012 by Zanne