User Reviews

The reviews here fall into 2 groups: those who've seen the original 1971 version, and those who haven't. The first group review by comparison with what was a shockingly controversial and influential film in its day.

But the second group saw the movie without preconceptions, and I'm interested to see they mostly found it dull, boring, slow, pointless and generally unsatisfactory, despite a decent cast and smooth production.

So, what was shocking in 1971 is boring to today's audiences? That may be the most shocking thing about this remake. I watched both versions back-to-back to find out for myself, and yes, the original is a good deal more daring (for its time), the retread pulls its punches while otherwise doing a decent job of relocating and updating without changing the story.

One other point I notice: the reviewers who know about the location - the US Southern Heartland - are the ones most critical of the way the locals are portrayed.

In this I must say the remake more than mirrors the original: Knowing rural England of the 1970s, I found all the local characters very unrealistic and badly acted. I know the original movie is highly acclaimed, but really, the local English actors all came across as bit-players from the old Ealing comedies, middle class city dwelling amateur dramatics types playing at being working class country folk, with dialog and mannerisms that only a foreign director could fail to detect as phony.

So, a polished but flawed remake of an unpolished, also flawed, but controversial original. 7/10 for effort.

This remake of Sam Peckinpah's notorious 1971 thriller Straw Dogs transports the action from rural England to a backwater town in Mississippi, but sticks closely to the basic plot structure of the original, even emulating much of the dialogue. Even so, director Rod Lurie's retelling fails to come anywhere close to Peckinpah's film in terms of simmering tension, shocking rawness and unflinching brutality.

The ways that this new film differs from the original might be small, but they have a huge negative impact on the film as a whole. Whereas both Dustin Hoffman and Del Henney in Peckinpah's film felt completely authentic, the two male leads in Lurie's remake-James Marsden and Alexander Skarsgård-are typical Hollywood hunks, clearly cast for their dashing good looks and bulging pecs. In contrast, the one character that is supposed to ooze sex appeal, David's wife Amy, is played by Kate Bosworth, who is nowhere near as hot as Susan George. And where the original film caused much controversy due to its graphic rape scene and savage violence, this one fails to raise eyebrows, the sexual assault wimping out on the nudity, the killings no more explicit than its forty year old predecessor.

Plausibility is stretched to breaking point when Tom Heddon, played by James Woods, deliberately shoots the sheriff (as opposed to the accidental shooting in the original) and the good 'ol boys use their truck to break into the house (the wreck being rather incriminating evidence, methinks!).

3.5/10, rounded down to 3 for insulting the viewer's intelligence by explaining the enigmatic title, as though the curious are unable to Google the meaning themselves.

This is a alright remake although the original is more gritty and brutal. But wasn't a worldwide hit or anything, perhaps because the story takes place in England. This one takes place in the south with very stereotypical rednecks and hillbillies. There has been movies about brutal murders and mutant hillbillies that kill people that goes in a bit of a stretch. But this one goes in a more humanistic and a bit of psychological direction that the original "Straw Dogs" was known for. James Marsden takes the lead role this time as David Sumner not Scott Summers. Dustin Hoffman in the original "Straw Dogs" played the role as a very wimpy character that gets pushed to the edge. But the way James Marsden play it or how his character is written. His character is more pedantic than a wimp and just tries to avoid confrontations at all cost. Because he just doesn't want to deal with it. So Dustin Hoffman's version of the character is more likable. In fact none of the characters in this movie is likable and has some flaws even if they aren't the villains in this movie. But I guess that gives it more of the humanistic approach for a movie like this. Alexander Skarsgård actually makes a better leader of the pack of hillbillies. Although the original is more gritty and brutal I thought the build up for this movie was done better. Especially how it explains and shows the meaning behind "Straw Dogs" which wasn't really done in the original. And the siege at the end when compared to the original seemed more like pressure than tension. This movie is basically all about wrong timing. How the protagonist doesn't stand up for himself all the way through which probably escalates the problem and when he decides to fight the problem escalates even more. The original seemed like bullies picking on someone weaker but I didn't really get that feeling with this one but felt slight bit more psychological aspect to it. When it comes to the character Amy Sumner played by Kate Bosworth in this is bipolar or something cause her actions don't make much sense. So when the hillbilly workers come inside the house uninvited goes through their fridge and sit in there home without permission it's okay. But when they check her out while she is running with almost the bare minimum when it comes to running clothes she freaks out. Overall the build up is slightly better than the original but when it comes to everything else the original seem to have the upper-hand.

6/10

The screenwriter David Sumner (James Marsden) travels with his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) in his Jaguar to her homeland Blackwater, in the Mississippi. Amy's father has passed away and David intends to write his screenplay about Stalingrad in the house. David hires the contractor Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård) and his team to repair the roof of the Barn. Amy was the sweetheart of Charlie when she lived there and neither him nor his crew show respect to her.

Charlie invites David to hunt deers with his group and him but they leave David alone in the woods and rape Amy. She does not tell to David what happened but when the drunken coach Tom Heddon (James Woods) calls Charlie and his friends to hunt down the slow Jeremy Niles (Dominic Purcell) that likes his daughter, David decides to protect not only Jeremy, but also Amy and his honor.

"Straw Dogs" is an insulting movie, as a remake of Sam Peckinpah's classic of 1971. The original movie is one of the most disturbing that I have ever seen, with a stylish cinematography, top-notch direction and a scary story. This remake is dull, with stupid situations and non-likable and badly developed characters. My suggestion is, instead of watching this remake, see the 1971 movie again. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Sob o Domínio do Medo" ("Under the Domination of the Fear")

As a warm up for this picture, I watched the Peckinpah version just last week, having seen it during it's initial release back in 1971 and one other time a couple of years ago. I'm generally predisposed to original films and not their sequels, so my antenna was up for this picture figuring that I would likely be disappointed on one hand, while realizing that films made today make the most of a grittier and more intense style when it comes to themes of violence and revenge. I'm going to go out on a limb and take the minority view here (so far), as I found the picture to be a worthy remake and a compelling story in it's own right.

I think if you've seen the original, the comparisons will be inevitable, and virtually impossible to ignore given a screenplay that utilizes much of the very same dialog. Moving the story from the English countryside to the deep South was an interesting decision, setting up an expectation of redneck hostility against the refined sensibilities of the Sumners (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth). Reprising the Dustin Hoffman role as David Sumner, I think Marsden did a fairly credible job, knowing that he'd be compared to an actor who's established himself as one of the modern day legends.

Regarding Rod Lurie's reworking of the screenplay, I think there were a couple of points to consider that distinguish the story versus Peckinpah. The first has to do with the hunting trip. When Hoffman's character killed a fowl in the earlier picture, he conveyed a sense of disgust at the idea of killing a defenseless bird, further adding to the image of his character with no backbone. When Marsden brings down the deer, I had a somewhat different impression. It looked to me that this was a moment when his character realized that he was capable of killing, an inkling that the mayhem soon to follow would not be an entirely foreign concept.

Another more compelling treatment of the rewrite had to do with Amy Sumner. Peckinpah created a distinct ambiguity in the rape scene with his original screenplay. Susan George was torn between revulsion and horror against her assailants, and a questionable identification with her one time boyfriend Charlie. One could almost say that she went along with Charlie in a convoluted payback for her husband's weakness as a man. I didn't get the same sense with the way Bosworth handled the scene. She was entirely repulsed and humiliated, violated in a way that left her totally defeated and helpless. It gave more credibility to the way she would seek her revenge when Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and Norman (Rhys Coiro) square off against each other during the home invasion.

Let's face it though, the real reason to see this picture if you know anything about the 1971 version, is the finale when David Sumner decides to cut loose and defend his wife and property. For some reason I found it surprising that the rowdy hillbillies, led by Coach Heddon (James Woods), would be dispatched in the exact same manner in the very same chronology as executed by Hoffman's character. I have to say, the nail gun on Chris was an effective improvement over a length of wire. Scalding the coach and having him shoot himself in the foot seemed a lot more painful this time around when it was James Woods on the receiving end. This time though, the old bear trap maneuver was distinctively more graphic and satisfying, not to mention bloody. Poor Charlie.

For the first time ever, I was completely unbiased to watch a remake! Usually Hollywood always has the god-awful and annoying habit of remaking personal favorite horror/cult movies of mine that are already impeccable and not really suitable for improvement, but regarding "Straw Dogs" I felt a lot less concerned since I never was a die-hard admirer of Sam Peckinpah's original from 1971. Surely I acknowledge its importance and influence for the genre, but still mainly consider it to be a deeply unpleasant movie that all too enthusiastically glorifies senseless violence and somehow spreads the message that every man needs to undergo a couple of rape and violence rituals in order to become a real man. "Straw Dogs" 2011 also isn't just any random remake from an aspiring young director who desperately needed an obvious jumping board to success, but by the intelligent writer/director Rod Lurie. He inserted a couple of relevant changes (like the geographical transfer from redneck Southern England to redneck Southern United States) and efficiently put the emphasis on in-depth character development. There's still a fair portion of harsh violence and misogynic brutality in this version, mind you, but at least it's depicted in a lot less gratuitous and joyous way. The infamous rape sequence, for example, still evokes debates regarding provocation but at least the script doesn't all too obviously endorse the so-called 'rape-myth' that all women secretly desire to be physically dominated. The rest of the plot remains the same as well (also because it's a book adaption, of course) and thus focuses on a successful couple temporarily moving to the girl's hometown in Southern Mississippi. The (re-)integration in this traditional and underdeveloped community leads to embarrassing situations for the husband and humiliating confrontations for the wife, as her former boyfriend Charlie and his gang of tough huntsmen penetrate themselves into their lives. Things come to a bloody climax when David and Amy want to prevent the locals from executing private justice. "Straw Dogs" effectively bathes in grim and unsettling atmosphere and hugely benefices from the performances. James Marsden and Kate Bosworth are excellent, but particularly the local hillbillies are portrayed in a disturbingly realistic matter. Amongst them also the always reliable James Woods as a hellish football coach. Also, respecting the rules of cinema, there's some fuzz about a bear claw rather early in the film, so you just know this particularly gruesome and inventive murder instrument will be back in the finale as well.

PS: lovely soundtrack with, amongst others, the wondrous ballad "Summer Wine" by Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazlewood. I hadn't heard that song in years, but I now instantly added it to my play lists again.

Straw Dogs (2011): Dir: Rod Lurie / Cast: James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard, James Woods, Dominic Purcell: The title addresses the descend into evil and its eventual defeat. Remake of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film, this one stars James Marsden and Kate Bosworth as a couple returning to her home town to fix up her home front. He is a screenwriter and she had a role in one of the series produced from his work. Eventually they encounter her ex- boyfriend whom dated her when she was a cheerleader. He and his friends are set to repair the roof of his barn, which leads to all sorts of stupid problems that could have been avoided had anyone used common sense. Marsden unwisely goes on a hunting trip where he is left stranded while the boys rape his wife. He will eventually grow a pair once his home is threatened and bullets are fired into his home in the violent climax where he must off everyone of them. This is where a bear trap comes in handy. Bosworth as the wife is a total idiot. She becomes enraged when her cat is found hanging in the closet, then she pulls the stupid move of taunting strip tease in front of her future rapists. Alexander Skarsgard plays the ex- boyfriend with all the personality of a shotgun revolver. James Woods plays the racist ill tempered coach whose underage daughter is involved with a mentally challenged male who accidentally kills her. Dominic Purcell plays the unfortunate handicapped guy who just can't seem to win. Complete with really bad CGI deer during two hunting scenes that might have well been made of straw as well. Score: 2 / 10

It would appear that in the 21st century, everything old is new again. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than in Hollywood. Whether it is in remakes or sequels, Hollywood has this way of repeating itself. As a result, it seems most unsettling that one of the films from the past that should be remade for a 21st century audience would be a film that, when released near the end of 1971, caused extreme uproar because of its explicit violence and sexual material. The film in question is director Sam Peckinpah's controversial shocker STRAW DOGS, which remains, alongside Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, among the most hotly debated films of its time or any time in history. For whatever reason, though, Hollywood thought it needed an updating, and so former film critic turned director/screenwriter Rod Lurie stepped into the shoes of "Bloody Sam" to do it.

Following both the film's original source material (Gordon M. Williams' 1969 novel "The Siege Of Trencher's Farm") and the 1971 screenplay written by David Zelag Goodman and Peckinpah, this particular version was moved from the original's setting on the Cornwall coast of England to a backwater town somewhere along the Mississippi/Louisiana border. James Marsden takes on the role of David Sumner (played by Dustin Hoffman in 1971), who has come to this small Southern town with his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth, taking over for Susan George) to work on a movie screenplay based on the 1943 battle of Stalingrad. And as it so happens, his seeming demure nature puts the redneck boys down there in the position of superiority over him, first when Bosworth's pet cat is found strangled in the closet, then, to make matters even more sinister, when Bosworth is raped by her former boyfriend (Alexander Skarsgard) and another man (Rhys Coiro).

Marsden, however, comes to his senses when he takes in the local mental invalid (Dominic Purcell) who has unintentionally strangled the daughter (Willa Holland) of the town's ex-football coach (James Woods). Woods, Coiro, and Skarsgard show up on Marsden's property and brutally demand that Purcell be handed over to them, but Marsden, knowing fully well what will happen to him, Purcell, and Bosworth, does no such thing. The end result is ultra-violent mayhem in the film's last twenty minutes.

Lurie, who made two of the best films of the year 2000 (DETERRENCE; THE CONTENDER) likely set himself up for a fall in trying to tone down the most objectionable parts of the Peckinpah original that made it, in the eyes of some, a "fascist" work of art: the rape scene, which is a bit too quickly done and a bit too aimed to show Bosworth as a feminist, though she is every bit as traumatized as George was in the original; and unwisely discounting the idea posited by Peckinpah, and based on the works of noted anthropologist Robert Ardrey, that Man's penchant for brutality and violence, far from the common notion that they would go to any means to protect their "property", is ingrained in him from the start. The other thing that is objectionable about this new version of STRAW DOGS is that, unlike the English village where Peckinpah sees the seemingly primitive villagers as every bit the match for Hoffman, the ones in this small Southern town are the unfortunate stereotypical inbred rednecks, especially Woods, who, normally a solid actor, is allowed by Lurie to overact outrageously. And the siege, though fairly well staged, is nevertheless so hyper-violent that the audience becomes a tad bit detached, instead of really being forced to confront their inner demons, as Hoffman's character, and to a great extent Peckinpah himself, did in the original film. Whereas Peckinpah was deliberately ambiguous and thought provoking, and not just a blood-and-guts expert, Lurie makes the mistake of trying to wrap everything up in a neat, albeit very bloody package.

Nevertheless, despite these flaws that keep Lurie's film from reaching the nightmarish heights of Peckinpah's, the 2011 STRAW DOGS features solid enough performances from Marsden and Bosworth, who are able to capture the psychological torment that their characters feel. They are still in the shadow of what Hoffman and George did in 1971, but they are able to bring a certain kind of resolve and emotional gravitas to the situation that Lurie doesn't always provide in his direction or script. Larry Groupe's score, though distractingly loud at times (this in contrast to the subtlety of the original film's excellent Jerry Fielding score), also works in those moments where it's supposed to. The end result is, like many remakes, rather imperfect. Still, there have been far worse remakes that Hollywood has done, and will yet do.

The original 1971 "Straw Dogs" is one of my favorite films of all time. Rod Lurie's update of "Straw Dogs" is a major improvement in several ways.The most obvious being Kate Bosworth's character, Amy. No longer is Amy a one dimensional "evil, back stabbing temptress." Amy can still be a petulant child, but she is no longer driven by spite. This is an important distinction and prevents her character from becoming "one of them," betraying David, earning the audiences anger and losing their understanding. Amy still "relaxes" about mid way thru the rape, not because she is excited but because she is disgusted with Charlie and with herself. Let me be clear: she doesn't blame herself for the rape! she's disgusted that she could ever have desired Charlie in the first place. Charlie realizes he has completely deluded himself and lost Amy in the worst way imaginable. Amy no longer sees Charlie as a human being never mind her old high school flame. It is with this realization that Charlie DOES stop being human and turn his back on Amy....high school..homecoming king..all his past accomplishments and also his future. Amy's cries for help fall on deaf ears. Kate Bosworth exhibits a depth here I didn't know she had. Her character of Amy, though flawed and STILL not as well developed as David and Charlie, is quite an accomplishment. You have no doubt where her emotions lie during some pretty raw, complex scenes. Alexander Skarsgard is equally if not more impressive. His performance of Charlie is nothing short of revelatory. Charlie is an "uber-villian," not only did he rape David's wife, he set up David to be killed! AND IT WAS PRE-PLANNED! This is a bad guy! Yet Skarsgard is able to bring layers to the character that make you feel sorry for Charlie (no pun intended!) His constant struggle to get out from underneath the shadow that has haunted him since high school. The shadow that James Woods' "Coach" represents. The shadow that Amy (and David) have evaded. The shadow that engulfs him, the shadow that makes him HATE them (Amy & David). In the middle of these two is, of course, our hero (anti-hero?) David Sumner. The center piece, the force around which the others gravitate. Without a strong performance here the movie falls apart. James Marsden has always been capable in the X-Men movies, but whereas in the comics Cyclops is THE leader, in the movies, Marsden just kind of fades into the background, giving up the lead to Wolverine. His performance here makes me want to believe its more than just a one-off. From slapping the hundred dollar bill on the bar (he has no idea he's insulting them) to shooting the deer in the forest (tragic?) to the end scene ("I got them all" is that a smile on his face?) this is an Oscar worthy performance. A multi-layered performance to his character that just wasn't there in the original. Which brings us to Rod Lurie. First thing I realized when I started watching his 2011 version of "Straw Dogs," is Mr. Lurie knows the original AND is a huge fan. This is not a remake, nor an homage so much as a realization of the potential of the original material. Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" has always been a flawed masterpiece by those who love it, myself included. Dustin Hoffman is at his peak, Susan George gives the performance of her career. David Warner (God himself) would never be better. The build up to the climax is unbearable. But there are problems. Amy's former "friends" are interchangeable. The two leads themselves are hard to emphasize with. Amy isn't just childish, she's vain, opportunistic and she stabs David in the back to save her own skin (we won't go into the "rape is enjoyable" misogynist fantasy here.) Davis IS a coward, he ran from the states not because he was avoiding the war but because he wants to avoid the CONFLICT over the war. Not exactly admirable. Throughout the movie David and Amy's "snipes" at each other are made out of spite and escalate accordingly. Unlikeable characters. And they are the two leads! I can't tell you the names of Charlie's friends in the original but I can tell you they're names after one viewing of the remake. This is where Rod Lurie shines. He has filled the movie out in ways few people would realize. For instance, no longer is David a mathematician, above Amy's head, now he's a writer, she's an actor. They are on equal ground. this is a significant change in establishing their relationship. In Lurie's version, David is no longer the failed father figure to Amy's ingénue. David even worked as the writer on Amy's TV show in the new version! Amy and David have a confidence both in themselves and as a couple not on display in the original. Something Charlie clearly lacks. He's still there. Lost in the past. And here again Mr. Lurie is able to fill this in by putting the story in the gulf coast. Not only have the local "boys" lost their youth and their football dreams, they have lost their self respect and their future....there is no work! Mr. Lurie drives this home by having David (!?!) talk of the economy and, of course, when he has Miss Bosworth say "They don't need sympathy, they need jobs." Some other nice touches on Mr. Lurie's part that add exceptional resonance to the characters: having James Woods Character, Coach drive most of the reprehensible action. He's still "coaching" the "boys!" How humiliating! A point driven home even further when he has Norman say "You're the quarterback" at the exact moment Charlie realizes he is nothing but a follower and always will be. Strong Stuff. This isn't a remake, a re-imagining or a reboot. It is, as Peckinpah would say, Just damn good film making."

!!!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!!

The original movie has the dubious label of being a "Classic Movie" . To be honest much of its reputation is down to a notorious rape scene . That said Peckinpah was a genuine auteur who grabbed Hollywood by the throat , stuck a gun in its mouth and blew its head off . Hollywood was never the same again and it's interesting seeing some of his style recreated to a degree via Scorsese , Verhoeven , DePalma and Tarantino , directors who don't do things by half when a scene calls for literal bloody violence . Regardless of that STRAW DOGS isn't a great movie , having a rather confused story where a middle class non violent man and his slutty wife have to make a stand when their lives are threatened . If you liked the Peckinpah style you would have no doubt liked STRAW DOGS flaws and all but it seems totally pointless continuing the recent Hollywood trend and remaking horror films from the 1970S and 80s especially when absolutely nothing new is brought to the table and I had this down as yet another production line number with the setting moved from Cornwall England to the American Deep South . Add to this looking through his resume on this site remake director Rod Laurie is obviously a journeyman type of film maker and nothing he's directed ring any bells with me

I really must do the lottery sometime because everything I predicated was indeed correct and almost everything wrong with the original is recreated here with added dog poo . The couple of Amy and David was highly unlikely in the 1971 due to the casting but here it's even more unconvincing . David is a Hollywood screenwriter and one of the things that's always appealed to me on an abstract level is that Beverly Hills must be a great place to meet really hot chicks . Is trailer trash Amy really the best David could pull ? I know a lot of men have a fetish for plain faced , sexually easy , peroxide blonds but there's a large difference between having sex with one and getting married to one .There's also a very mall detail in that his screen writing project lacks credibility . Hollywood is doing a big budget war film featuring Stalingrad as the backdrop ! Yeah sure they are . When something does ring true like the Deep South having more than its fair share of bible bashing rednecks everything is so over done as to lapse in to parody . It also begs the question why would anyone want to return there if they can live in Beverly Hills ?

"Okay Theo is there anything about this remake that improves on the original"

Yes it gives an explanation why the film is called STRAW DOGS and the anal rape scene is slightly less distasteful than what we got in the original . Oh what a short paragraph I've just written

Gut wrenching movie! Straw Dogs is intense to watch! The movie is a social drama about the human animal. The show is the study of people who bully and use conflict to gain their way! I see to much of this at work, and they show this side of people in this movie to well. The story pits the intellectual who tries to reason too much vs the burnt out football hero who peaked at age 17! Mr all American football star is jealous of the guy who got his gal, has more money, and a better car. The conflict of the two opposites is inevitable! The second group dynamic is Mr football hero, has the social and physically skills to lead his little group of guys. The number two in the group is the tough psycho who can scare the others, but can never lead for he lacks the social skills. One of the other guys is the passive one who just goes along with the group , while the other guy is the big mouth clown/tough guy of the town who just hangs on with the group. The town has it bullies and the top bully is the old ex coach with pushes everyone around. When the wolf pack lead on by the coach through a series of events have their final conflict with Mr push over. Coach's old students think they can hit the soft target again but instead push Mr intellectual to far and end up getting bitter retribution. The moral of the story is being too extreme is not good. This movie is a bit hard to watch. I give it 7 out of 10.

Pointless remake of the year part 76 consists of nothing new and characters you've just gotta hate.

Whats the jist?

marsden and Bosworth play a couple who go back to her old town, so he can write something. They are rich and show it.

She obviously used to put herself out a bit when she lived there before because her and the bloke from True Blood have longing looks.

Soon they are taking advantage of Cyclops by playing music early and drinking his beer (the rotters!!).

And there is also a sub plot involving James Woods being drunk, and trying to protect er daughter (who is also putting herself out a bit) from the bloke who played another vampire in Blade: Trinity.

The tag-line 'everyone has their breaking point' has no real meaning to this movie. from Marsdens point of view, all they are doing is nicking his beer and playing loud music.

At the end of the film, they are only trying to get in his house, because he is protecting the guy from James woods and the others.

The original has tension and a moody, glum feel to it. This has Bosworth just being annoying and unfortunately, come the end f the film you think to yourself 'you had it coming woman, and why didn't he just leave her?'.

It's worthless stuff, sub-plots are not resolved, and aside from some good performance from all involved, it just seems so unnecessary.

I'm sure Woods must have been method acting, it's the only explanation as to why he'd be in this

At least the bear trap came into good use..