JRlock (19 May 2012)

Remake of the classic 1971 version, as I like a remake to be

I watched, again, back to back famous titles, Straw Dogs 1971 and 2011.The settings (locations) are an ocean and hemisphere apart as well as40 years but are in their period equally good; the ratings do not dojustice to the remake, in my honest but not very humble opinion.The storyline appears on the surface to be quite similar to theoriginal, but I find they are not; the Scots and the Southerners havevery distinct characters and are not of the same temperament, whichmeans different mores and different behavior towards women (one of thekey aspect of the scripts). There were many lines which are exactly thesame in both versions and scenes as well and the characters' names areidentical, so we could be influenced to think the story is the same.Watching back to back versions makes it easier to distinguish thenuances from the differences. In some instances all we have arenuances, and in the remake there are both nuances and cleardifferences. The relation between Amy and David is not as strained inthe remake, a plus for some viewers and not so much for others. Therape scene, in the original is somewhat ambiguous as we are left withdoubts as to Amy's true feelings; she is ravished by both men butrepealed only with Charlie, whereas in the remake she is assaulted andfeels violated equally by both men and puts up a strong resistance toboth. This is not just a nuance to me.In the series of assault on the couple's home in the original, Amy issteadfast against David's conviction that the protection of Niles isnecessary, while in the remake Amy is supportive for the most part anddefinitely not putting up much opposition to the principal involved.Tom, played by James Woods, in the remake is far more aggressive andhis motives for the harassment of Niles are clear and very culturallydifferent. The remake takes advantage of the race factor with regard tothe sheriff, clearly not a factor in the original.What I look for in a remake is substantial differences in bothdevelopment of the characters and overall style; the latter to befitting to its period in time and place. This remake had sufficientdifferences, not substantial, in the character development but thestyle was what I was hoping for in the Deep South setting. Thecharacter of David, as played by James Marsden, had an obviouslydifferent demeanor than that played by Hoffman and this was necessary.I was pleased by his performance.Susan George is not of the acting caliber of Kate Bosworth and so thatwas a significant plus for the remake, though I'll admit Susan George'body was more fitting for the role, considering Amy is somewhat of atemptress. The remake had a more substantial part for Tom played byJames Woods. I'm a James Woods fan. The cinematography in the remake isvery appealing, no comparison to the original; after all it's in theSouth where the sun shines and not Scotland where the weather is mostlygloomy. The final scenes of the assault on the couple's home weretaking full advantage of the improvements in special effects over thepast 40 years. I don't agree with the bland rating of the remake. Iscore the original higher than the remake on account of originality andDustin Hoffman; I surely score the remake higher than the generalratings. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't meanone is better than an other unless it's argued correctly; I did notfind much of that in the reviews preceding this one.

James Kendrick (19 May 2012)

essentially turns the film into exactly the kind of primitive masculine revenge tale that the original's detractors mistook it for

jschott65 (14 May 2012)

OMG....so f-ing BAD!!!

I have to admit, I knew nothing about this movie prior to renting it. Ihaven't cared for Kate Bosworth, as most people, but like James Marsdenand definitely like Alexander S from watching True Blood.As a woman, I obviously didn't care for the rape scene, but I'vedefinitely seen much worse in other films (The Last House on the Left)It really wasn't all that disturbing, comparitively speaking. I didfind it extremely odd that she doesn't tell her husband about itthough. What was that about? The husband plays a real puss through theentire movie up until the last scene. Man up and take control! The factthe she walks around without a bra with all the workers around wasabsolutely ridiculous, especially jogging with ut a bra Come on!!!There's no real story here and the pale one that exists is beyondterrible. The only reason I gave a 5/10 is because Alexander S. takeshis shirt off. Sorry people, but that's how I feel.

brandie-tschauner (13 May 2012)

Horror Reviews: Straw Dogs

Forgive me, i am the worst kind of horror movie enthusiast- I see atrailer on television for an upcoming release and i can't help but getgiddy and declare "I want to see that!" without having any idea asidefrom the trailers; which are often misleading- what the movie is about.Thats my biggest problem as a movie viewer, critic, and person- in thecase of 2011's Straw Dogs, this also led to a level of embarrassment ona first date, but we will get into that later.Unlike most people in the industry i like the idea of remakes- Iactually believe they do more good then harm for a movie, because asecond attempt can often allow a story to live up to its fullpotential. On a very hypocritical note sometimes i feel like if it isnot broken don't fix it, or if it doesn't need to exist don't createit. I get very frustrated when i try to sort out my genuine feelings onthis. I am glad however "Straw Dogs" is a remake, it is a good remake -because the original was released in 1971 and even though that was anenlightening period for the thriller horror genre; there are certainthings we get away with in film now, that in the 70's would beconsidered pornography. Don't get me wrong i do not advocate the rapesequence that Straw Dog's was made infamous for in the 1971 DamPeckinpah original, and its almost morbid to think that in here in2011, Rob Lurie the remakes director, thought to himself "hmmm how canwe make this horrific rape-scene better" I am actually joking- because i don't think this was his intention whenremaking this film. Consider this. In 1971, a movie was made famoussimply because it even "contained" a graphic rape scene. Here in 2011when we are a much more desensitized audience; a movie that happens tohave a scene of that nature will still be considered for its othercontent. Straw Dogs, as a story is actually much more then an upsettingfive minutes where a man's seemingly innocent wife is brutally gangraped in her living room- Now i am setting myself up to make a brutal argument, how can iadvocate a film like this! Well lets consider genre; Straw Dogs is nota horror-horror, its more of a psycho thriller- and it takes a longtime before anything brutal or sadistic to actually occur. Most of thefilms graphic slash and kill moments are compacted into the lastthirty-some minutes. The majority of the movie introduces the audienceto the close-minded social politics of a sadistic small town,Blackwater Mississippi. David Summer (James Marsden) is an unwantedoutsider and when he and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) move into herchildhood home they are greeted with reluctance and torment. Amyencourages David to attempt to adapt to her childhood home in order toblend in- this blending in actually becomes their means of survivalbeing that the citizens of Blackwater maintain a very hostile approachto any newcomers. It does not help that Amy's redneck ex boyfriendCharlie, maintains a deluded sense of ownership over Amy andessentially see's her as a piece of stolen property in consideration ofDavid.This is the set up for the events of Straw Dog's and what starts outslowly, eventually escalates into an interesting examination of thehuman reaction when pushed to its limits. Director Lurie, trulyexplores the pressure that "bullying" can place on a man's mentalstability- i could not help but think about the comparison between thestory in "straw dogs" being a metaphor for the real life torment thatis placed on people in High Schools and Work Places. We all know theresulting consequence when this sort of pressure is laid on, and thevictim goes postal on his alleged "bullies". Without spoiling theending you can imagine what is going to happen here.For this reason i think the film is well executed, of course until youfigure out what is "actually" going on- you may feel like you arewatching a bunch of Redneckers haze a couple of misfits. The "famous"rape sequence, is not in any way down-played in the remake and isclimatic point in the film where the audience becomes aware thatsomething dramatic is impending. I mentioned before that when i firstviewed Straw Dogs, i was completely clueless about what the movie wasgoing to be about- I was settling with a gory slasher horror in mind,and I thought that perhaps it would be reminiscent of "The Strangers"(2008). This misinformation led to the embarrassing occurrence ofmaking it a "date-night" movie choice. You, try holding hands for the first time while a husband brutallyslices and dices his wife's rapists. An astute film, to say the least, i'd recommend this movie to the rightsort of person. The entertainment value is more or less dependent onyour level of tolerance for plot build up, and character development.Viewing this film will probably lead to some interesting over coffeeconversation- and that can't be a bad thing. I feel like many peoplewill end up hating it for the same reason they hated the original, andthats okay too- i know in our culture there are certain things we stillcan't look past.*** On that final note; i'd consider the original a water-down versionfor those who are not enticed but do not wish to take on "this"version, and who doesn't enjoy seeing Dustin Hoffman get angrier andangrier (you won't like him when he's angry) I also want to defend thatactually enjoying this movie does not make you a bad person but more sojust smart enough to get the "bigger picture."- Review By Brandie Tschauner

classicsoncall (12 May 2012)

"Get your Daddy's gun, and shoot anyone that's not me".

As a warm up for this picture, I watched the Peckinpah version justlast week, having seen it during it's initial release back in 1971 andone other time a couple of years ago. I'm generally predisposed tooriginal films and not their sequels, so my antenna was up for thispicture figuring that I would likely be disappointed on one hand, whilerealizing that films made today make the most of a grittier and moreintense style when it comes to themes of violence and revenge. I'mgoing to go out on a limb and take the minority view here (so far), asI found the picture to be a worthy remake and a compelling story init's own right.I think if you've seen the original, the comparisons will beinevitable, and virtually impossible to ignore given a screenplay thatutilizes much of the very same dialog. Moving the story from theEnglish countryside to the deep South was an interesting decision,setting up an expectation of redneck hostility against the refinedsensibilities of the Sumners (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth).Reprising the Dustin Hoffman role as David Sumner, I think Marsden dida fairly credible job, knowing that he'd be compared to an actor who'sestablished himself as one of the modern day legends.Regarding Rod Lurie's reworking of the screenplay, I think there were acouple of points to consider that distinguish the story versusPeckinpah. The first has to do with the hunting trip. When Hoffman'scharacter killed a fowl in the earlier picture, he conveyed a sense ofdisgust at the idea of killing a defenseless bird, further adding tothe image of his character with no backbone. When Marsden brings downthe deer, I had a somewhat different impression. It looked to me thatthis was a moment when his character realized that he was capable ofkilling, an inkling that the mayhem soon to follow would not be anentirely foreign concept.Another more compelling treatment of the rewrite had to do with AmySumner. Peckinpah created a distinct ambiguity in the rape scene withhis original screenplay. Susan George was torn between revulsion andhorror against her assailants, and a questionable identification withher one time boyfriend Charlie. One could almost say that she wentalong with Charlie in a convoluted payback for her husband's weaknessas a man. I didn't get the same sense with the way Bosworth handled thescene. She was entirely repulsed and humiliated, violated in a way thatleft her totally defeated and helpless. It gave more credibility to theway she would seek her revenge when Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) andNorman (Rhys Coiro) square off against each other during the homeinvasion.Let's face it though, the real reason to see this picture if you knowanything about the 1971 version, is the finale when David Sumnerdecides to cut loose and defend his wife and property. For some reasonI found it surprising that the rowdy hillbillies, led by Coach Heddon(James Woods), would be dispatched in the exact same manner in the verysame chronology as executed by Hoffman's character. I have to say, thenail gun on Chris was an effective improvement over a length of wire.Scalding the coach and having him shoot himself in the foot seemed alot more painful this time around when it was James Woods on thereceiving end. This time though, the old bear trap maneuver wasdistinctively more graphic and satisfying, not to mention bloody. PoorCharlie.

Colin Covert (12 May 2012)

Most details are in place, but the technique and inspiration are missing.

Alistair Harkness (08 May 2012)

Peckinpah's most problematic film gets an intriguing, if flawed, update from film critic-turned-director Rod Lurie.

Jaime N. Christley (08 May 2012)

The fissure between faithful, respectful monument and soulless, hot-**** modernization/transplant also paints Rod Lurie, fatally, into a corner.

R. L. Shaffer (08 May 2012)

There's nothing profound or mysterious about Straw Dogs. The performances are solid, but the movie is mostly forgettable.

Hellmant (07 May 2012)

A good old fashioned nasty horror film!

'STRAW DOGS': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)This remake is just a good old fashioned nasty horror film, completewith brutal violence and stereotypes galore (including exploiting thehandicap, 'Of Mice And Men' style). Rod Lurie wrote and directed thisupdated version of the popular 1971 Sam Peckinpah classic (which was inturn based on the novel 'The Siege of Trencher's Farm' by Gordon M.Williams). I never saw the original (it's one of those rare classics Inever got around to seeing but hopefully will soon) but I've heard thisnew adaptation is very faithful to it. This one stars James Marsden andKate Bosworth in the roles made famous by Dustin Hoffman and SusanGeorge. It also stars Alexander Skarsgard (of 'TRUE BLOOD' fame),Dominic Purcell (of 'PRISON BREAK' fame) and James Woods. There's muchnot to like or enjoy in this disturbing psychological thriller butthere's also a lot to find interesting and involving and the filmmakersdid a pretty good job bringing those themes to the screen. Marsden and Bosworth play David and Amy Sumner, a couple who move backto Amy's hometown in Mississippi in order to fix up a house her familyowns while David, an L.A. screenwriter, works on his writing. They hirea group of local 'rednecks', led by Amy's ex-boyfriend Charlie(Skarsgard), to fix up the barn next to their house. Cultures clashright off the bat as Charlie takes an immediate disliking to David andDavid in turn feels threatened by Charlie. Charlie and his boys harassDavid and Amy to increasingly escalating levels while David fails toreact until things, of course, eventually reach a breaking point. Thesetting was changed from England to the South for this remake andDavid's profession was altered from a mathematician to a writer. Otherthan that I've heard the film pretty much follows the same course asthe original. My interest in seeing the original film is definitely peaked now. I ama fan of Peckinpah and Hoffman and love horror films. I have found thatthe horror films released in the 70's were some of the most disturbingand raw of any decade. I've also noticed that several dealt with verydisturbing subject matter, like rape (as well as exploiting thehandicap), in very controversial ways (like the original 'STRAW DOGS','I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE' and 'LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT'). The original filmreceived a lot of negative criticism, at the time, for it's rape scenebut I've heard the new film handles the material in a much better way(I'd have to see the original film of course to state my own opinion onthe subject). The new film does depict the rape scene in a prettyunbelievable way in my opinion (at least the events that follow it). Iknow the film is supposedly really faithful to the original but thematerial doesn't quite stand the test of time. What was realistic fortyyears ago wouldn't quite pan out the same way now. This new film wascriticized for glorifying violence (like the original) though and Idon't really think it does. At no time during the film did I think theviolence was 'cool' or enjoyable. It was pretty disturbing in myopinion and really hard to sit through (like violence donerealistically should be). Film, like anything, is completely subjectiveand all about the interpretation of the viewer. I don't think thefilmmakers intended to glorify violence though and I actually thinkthey did a good job with the action scenes. They also did a good job ofdeveloping the David character and exploring his transformation fromwuss to 'man of action' in a very relatable way. As far as horrormovies go I think the whole movie was generally well made as well. Thedirecting was interesting, the score haunting and very fitting and theacting was at least decent (with Marsden being the stand out in myopinion). The film is nasty and ugly and above all disturbing butthat's what good horror should be. It shouldn't be a fun time at themovies (unless it's camp) and I don't think this film was. It works onit's own level.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlB8eyvpck

Peter Travers (04 May 2012)

Lurie wants us to see the moral wounds that come from losing control, a solid reason for a remake. Both takes on Straw Dogs hold up a dark mirror to humanity. Choose your own bad medicine.

ramin99 (03 May 2012)

Why

Sam Peckinpah is one of my favorite directors. He was a genius thelikes of whom we may never see again. Whoever thought it a good idea toremake one of his best works should be brought to justice to answer forthis blunder. What's more they should be banned from film-making forbeing arrogant dips***s; it's like attempting to remake Michelangelo'sMoses after experimenting with play-doh in kindergarten.I saw the theatrical trailer and have had enough of this travesty. Itlooks like a cheap TV show for teenyboppers. This movie is a joke.One reviewer wrote, "Watch it if you are a die hard Peckenfan...," aPeckinpah fan would not care to watch a cheap imitation of the realthing. This is one of the most idiotic things I have read in this siteso far, not to mention he/she misspelled Peckinpah's name. I'd saywatch it if you are %100 ignorant of Peckinpah's work. What's next? Remaking The Wild Bunch making it look like Twilight?

Tim Brayton (02 May 2012)

Other than its wildly over-the-top treatment of native Mississippians as a pack of thuggish tribalists.. the film doesn't seem to have any ideas but to tread water until the big action scene.

In_Correct (01 May 2012)

Is it a dumb story or dumb actors:

I unfortunately watched this film at other people's houses. They wereexpecting Paranormal Activity but that disc was scratched or something.(Isn't technology wonderful?!) They really need to start releasingfilms on Hard Drives, preferably Solid State Disks, instead ofDVD/BluRay/Whatever And so the movie rental people were like "we areout of paranormal activity; try this instead" and so we all watched.my explanation, not that you care, of why I would bother with a filmthat I didn't like.Right before I wrote this review I learned that this is a remake. (Hey,I can't know Everything!) and the original actually sounds much moreinteresting than the remake because the remake is set in U.S.A. inMississippi (but resembles Alabama) with some silly Hollywoodstereotype couple with acting that I didn't like, but I am still notsure if they are SUPPOSED to be like that, so it might be thecharacters that are silly instead of the acting being silly.And the nice rich Hollywood people go Alamaba ... I mean Mississippi tolive in their inherited old McMansion. Awww, how nice! (barf) but if Iwere them, I would sell the place in an instant...especially if therewas trouble brewing in the black cauldron of redneckville. perhaps theywere going to renovate it first and THEN sell it to see if it wouldincrease the value of it before they sell it. (I mean, why live in aplace with bad cell phone reception?!) They hire a crew to renovate thehouse because the guy is too wimpy to complete the repairs himself. Butthese super tough guys are able to do the repairs, and cause issues(because the husband dude is wimpy) Husband Dude's wimpiness alsocauses marriage problems with Wife Wifely. And then the king of thetough guys tries to flirt with Wife and Wife decides to flirt back. Inthe version that I watched it was edited out, and I am surprised. Themovie gets interesting albeit dull and it would be nice to watch thestupid people cause drama with each other. Perhaps the woman would endup with King Tough Guy and it would be a happy ending...but this is a horror film and so anyways the locals are very religious,and they also like to hunt (they like to hunt Husband Dude) and AW thepoor cat gets hung up in the closet.and then the Wimpy Husband Dude has them set a bear trap, in theirhouse! which is quite silly. They hang it up, but that is still verysilly.And then the movie gets darker and darker. The guys take turns atraping the woman. I read that there is criticism that she enjoyed it?but if they were together before, she probably did! and so she washaving mixed feelings about it, which is why she did not tell herhusband. you know...the guy that jumpropes? they go to a small townevent and this girl walks off with this mentally disabled guy. He isapparently too rough with the women. So I am guessing that all the redneck men are all abusive?! Really... Every One of the redneck men inthis film are all abusive! And in a sense the wimpy guy is abusivealso, by simply jumping rope (in front of his wife too!).And Spoiler: the mentally disabled guy kills the girl by muffling her.(She does not say "I won't yell, but move your hand from my nose!") andthen they run him over after he dumps the body.Husband and Wife take the man to their place, and all the drunks(including the girl's father) demand his release. They break in and oneof them gets oil and hot water thrown at him, another gets shot,another one gets nailed to the house, and the worse one of all. (Butprobably the best scene to most people) the wimpy guy takes the beartrap and traps King Tough Guy's head in it. He dies of quite a slowdeath.Where are the police? They were shot too. (by the drunks) All the badguys are killed, the house and barns burn down, and Wimpy Guy has fullinsurance on his vehicles and buildings and land, and gets to cash inon the destruction.Now for Straw Dogs 2: Rise Of The Zombie Werewolves, starring KingTough Guy (Alexander Skarsgard), costarring Taylor Lautner.

Kristine (27 April 2012)

More proof that city and country do not mix?

I don't know what it is about film trying to steer city people from thecountry, but they sure do try hard in film with Deliverance to StrawDogs. I have to admit, I've never seen the original Straw Dogs, and Iam ashamed as I've heard it's a good movie. Just never had theopportunity to see it, but hopefully that'll change soon since it looksreally interesting. So I can't compare the original with the remakejust yet. But I think that's pretty fair to judge on since I heard thatthis is a bit different from the original with the setting. This timeit takes place in the country. I visited Idaho a few years ago to meetmy ex's family, I'm a born and raised Chi-Town girl, very city, butwhen I went to Idaho, I thought it wouldn't be a big deal. Apparently Iwas very wrong, I felt like I was in a different country, people aredifferent and it's a bit scary the way they look at you as I'm sure myex felt with the city being a little more isolated being in a busyplace where people don't notice each other. Whole point to this storyis that it's amazing how scary it can be being from a city or from thesouth and not knowing your surroundings is scary enough as it is, StrawDogs explores that terror to the enth degree.David Sumner and his wife and TV actress Amy, move to Mississippi,where Amy grew up, to rebuild Amy's recently deceased father's house,and so that David can finish a script. David meets Amy's ex-boyfriendCharlie and his friends, whom he hires to fix the house's roof, whichwas recently destroyed by a tornado. Charlie and his friends begintaunting David, who is initially condescending to their customs. Thetaunting escalates into harassment as they make crude remarks towardsAmy and play loud music to annoy David and prevent him from working onhis screenplay. The taunting gets more and more threatening leading tophysical violence. The boys taunt that David is not a man, but they maywant to be careful on pushing him too far.Today with horror films, we have torture porn such as Saw and Hostel. Imay have not seen the original Straw Dogs, but I'm sure that the deathswere not as dramatic as they were in this film. I felt that the extremeviolence really took away from the film. First off I'm guessing thatI'm supposed to take this movie realistically, so why would this smartguy murder the southerners so viciously? Granted he has a witness thatcould back him up and say it was self defense, but I'm pretty sure thepolice are going to look at a bear trap over the head as a bit extreme.I know that the audience wants the entertainment, but I think this wasa bit too over the top with the gore factor.But the film does have some perks, the whole setting is horrific. Beingisolated from the city is scary where you're used to having everythingat your fingertips, but not knowing where to go for help is horrible.Alexander Skarsgård takes a break from True Blood, somewhat with theover southerness, and makes a great creeper. James Marsden does analright job as David, though he plays him very blandly so honestly Ireally didn't care much for his character. Kate Bosworth did alright,but again her character is kinda on the mean girl level, so I don'treally care for her as well. James Woods, what can I say? He's JamesWoods, he's always a pleasure to watch on the screen and does give hisbest to the character. Is the film scary? In some ways yes with it'satmosphere and fear of the unknown, not knowing what these crazy boyswould do next could be a bit creepy. But also since most of thecharacters were a bit dull, it took away any sympathy you could havefor them. The film is certainly flawed but I don't think it wasterrible, they gave a good effort for the most part. I would just saythat this is a rental and now I'm going to get my butt in gear and getthe original Straw Dogs.5/10

James Verniere (26 April 2012)

Straw dogs, indeed. This new 'Straw Dogs' from writer-director Rod Lurie is a second-rate remake of a memorable and controversial, if not quite great, Vietnam-era Sam Peckinpah film with Dustin Hoffman and British actress Susan George.

Dave White (24 April 2012)

If making the action beats more booming and more blunt is all you have in mind for capturing and amplifying the substance of the original product, then maybe you already got your head caught in a different kind of trap.

Rebecca Murray (24 April 2012)

With Straw Dogs, the moral of the original story is just as important, just as relevant today as when Peckinpah's film was released in the early 1970s.

Willie Waffle (17 April 2012)

Uses violence to blow you out of the theater instead of beating you over the head with pointless, non-stop visual images of it.

Roger Ebert (17 April 2012)

I found it visceral, disturbing and well-made.