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 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

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.

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.

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.

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")

"Straw Dogs" (1971, the original) is one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. Having seen it many times before watching the remake, I knew I would be hard to please. The biggest obstacle for me, having seen the original and also being a white Southern male, was the unbelievability and implausibility of the small town henchmen. Simply put, even the drinkingest church goers among us do not "show their behinds" in public the way these buffoons did in the movie. They do not break bottles in the parking lot of the high school football games their very own mamas, pastors, and former coaches attend. They don't so brazenly break hunting regulations. They are not so "lost" in their glory years they would follow their coach into vigilante justice. They just wouldn't, folks. There are just as many bad guys in the South as anywhere else but they don't behave badly in the public of small town Dixie. With only a few changes in the script, the setting and characters could've remained the same and would've been considerably more believable. Forget the Southern stereotypes of football heroes and coaches and make them all blood relatives like the original "Straw Dogs" and I'd be hard-pressed to say white Southern males wouldn't rape and invade a house with no hesitation. But by playing to the stereotypes (and perhaps without even getting a feel for a real Southern community beforehand), the director fails to produce a realistic menace with at least the Southern demographic of his audience. The original movie "works" mainly because the henchmen feel foreign and scary. The remake fails because its counterparts don't ring true.