Straw Dogs

Straw Dogs_360P

source: Straw Dogs

Straw Dogs (2011) *** (out of 4) Remake of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film has a husband and wife (James Marsden, Kate Bosworth) moving back to her hometown where they're not completely welcomed. The husband does what he can not to cause any trouble or go out of his way to stop things until being pushed too far. I will start off by admitting that I think the original movie is one of the greatest of its kind and a truly well-made and at times frightening film. This 2011 version is an extremely well-acted and well-made movie but it never quite reaches the level of the original. Whereas everything here is good to very good, everything in the original movie was excellent to exceptional. With all of that said, I'll quit comparing the two because I really do mean that everything in the original is better but that certainly doesn't mean this one here isn't a good movie. As I said, this is an extremely well-made movie that features some pretty good style and director Rod Lurie certainly keeps everything moving. I thought the director did a very good job at building up this "Southern comfort" feel and he certainly didn't make any of the locals morons or some sort of cheap stereotype that you usually find in these kind of movies. The director was also quite smart in knowing how to slowly build up suspense. There's certainly several moments where the director manages to build it up and this is especially true towards the end once the home protection thing starts. I'm not overly familiar with Marsden but he comes off extremely well here. The husband's profession has been changed to a screenwriter and I think this change fits the actor just right because he certainly comes off well playing the smart guy and I enjoyed the laid back approach and style. He's completely believable in the scenes where he's being pushed around but when the tables turn you believe him as well. Bosworth is also very good in her role and I especially liked the scenes where she confronts her husband for not standing up to the locals. Alexander Skarsgard is really effective as the leader of the pack and the wife's ex-boyfriend. We also get James Wood in a terrific performance playing a local drunk whose daughter is constantly flirting with the Niles character. Wood was born to play this type of role and he certainly does it well. If you're unfamiliar with the original movie and you're willing to put up with the slow pace then I think you'll find this to be a great movie. If you've seen the original then the one big burden here is that it's pretty much a scene for scene remake. Sadly, outside of a few minor things, everything happens here just like in the original so if you're already familiar with the story then there's nothing here that you won't see coming. I must admit that I was a little disappointed by the filmmakers not trying to do something on their own to keep those familiar with the original off guard while watching. Still, there's no question that this is a well-made movie and one that's worth watching.

Sam Peckinpah's original classic is one of my favorite thrillers. So when I heard they were remaking "Straw dogs", I wasn't surprised but somewhat leery of having high expectations. But once I read the casting and saw the trailer, I became excited for the remake. I was not let down. "Straw Dogs" is one of the most intense films I've seen in years. "Straw Dogs" (2011) did right, what so many other remakes do wrong. It didn't alter the story drastically or disrespect the original's legacy. The director simply rebooted and modernized the tale for a new generation. Everything that shocked you and every scene you loved in the original is still in the remake. The change of setting actually benefited the film and gave it a little more realism in terms of violence and social dysfunction. The violence is high and the rape scene is disturbing. But the acting was top notch by everyone involved. James Marsden did a great job playing the weak, timid, and quiet intellectual who eventually turns into the strong, violent, and "manly" protector. His performance was very "Hoffman" essque but he still made the role his own. I think a lot of girls came to the film solely for Alexander Skarsgard (true blood fans) and they were generally disturbed by his turn as a heel. There were a lot of gasps during a particular bear trap scene. Bosworth, Woods, and Purcell were all perfect in their roles as well. "Straw Dogs" is as raw, interesting, and powerful as it's original. A film that deals with aggression, manhood, and human connections pushed to the extremes. There are many subtleties in the performances and some great metaphorical images. A great thriller that literally intensifies until it's satisfying climax. Best film I've seen in months.

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.

I would give anything to have the 10 bucks I paid to see this awful movie back! Bad acting, ZERO suspense, cheaply made and directed all are things that describe what this was. From the idiot husband, to the ever so random angry coach, to the completely unnecessary explicit rape scene, there was not one decent moment in this film. It was a total disaster! It felt like it just drug on for hours before finally getting to the point. And when it did, it definitely just led to disappointment. If I can stop just ONE person from paying their hard earned money on this movie then it will have been worth the time I took to write! Please spare yourself the 110 agonizing minutes and do something more useful/entertaining with your time!!!

I don't know what it is about film trying to steer city people from the country, but they sure do try hard in film with Deliverance to Straw Dogs. I have to admit, I've never seen the original Straw Dogs, and I am ashamed as I've heard it's a good movie. Just never had the opportunity to see it, but hopefully that'll change soon since it looks really interesting. So I can't compare the original with the remake just yet. But I think that's pretty fair to judge on since I heard that this is a bit different from the original with the setting. This time it takes place in the country. I visited Idaho a few years ago to meet my ex's family, I'm a born and raised Chi-Town girl, very city, but when I went to Idaho, I thought it wouldn't be a big deal. Apparently I was very wrong, I felt like I was in a different country, people are different and it's a bit scary the way they look at you as I'm sure my ex felt with the city being a little more isolated being in a busy place where people don't notice each other. Whole point to this story is that it's amazing how scary it can be being from a city or from the south and not knowing your surroundings is scary enough as it is, Straw Dogs 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-boyfriend Charlie and his friends, whom he hires to fix the house's roof, which was recently destroyed by a tornado. Charlie and his friends begin taunting David, who is initially condescending to their customs. The taunting escalates into harassment as they make crude remarks towards Amy and play loud music to annoy David and prevent him from working on his screenplay. The taunting gets more and more threatening leading to physical violence. The boys taunt that David is not a man, but they may want to be careful on pushing him too far. Today with horror films, we have torture * such as Saw and Hostel. I may have not seen the original Straw Dogs, but I'm sure that the deaths were not as dramatic as they were in this film. I felt that the extreme violence really took away from the film. First off I'm guessing that I'm supposed to take this movie realistically, so why would this smart guy murder the southerners so viciously? Granted he has a witness that could back him up and say it was self defense, but I'm pretty sure the police 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 was a bit too over the top with the gore factor. But the film does have some perks, the whole setting is horrific. Being isolated from the city is scary where you're used to having everything at your fingertips, but not knowing where to go for help is horrible. Alexander Skarsgård takes a break from True Blood, somewhat with the over southerness, and makes a great creeper. James Marsden does an alright job as David, though he plays him very blandly so honestly I really 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't really care for her as well. James Woods, what can I say? He's James Woods, he's always a pleasure to watch on the screen and does give his best to the character. Is the film scary? In some ways yes with it's atmosphere and fear of the unknown, not knowing what these crazy boys would do next could be a bit creepy. But also since most of the characters were a bit dull, it took away any sympathy you could have for them. The film is certainly flawed but I don't think it was terrible, they gave a good effort for the most part. I would just say that this is a rental and now I'm going to get my butt in gear and get the original Straw Dogs. 5/10

I expected this movie to be yet another terrible remake and turn it off after 15 minutes. But know know what? This was actually a good remake. While the movie is very similar to the original, they did make some small changes here and there, mainly in the characters background and their motivation - which might help explain some things that seemed a bit odd in the original (for example, why would a beautiful blonde marry a geek). Others may claim the writer ruined some ideas. It's hard and unfair to compare the actors' performance to Dustin Hoffman and David Warner in the original, but I have to say that all the cast actually did a decent job. James Woods was excellent as a southern redneck and Kate Bosworth was surprisingly good too. I'm not familiar with any of the other actors, who were all decent in their roles. The ending had some small changes too - again, made in order for the characters to have a better motivation. Still, I prefer the ending of the original, which I recall was more intense and more "surreal", made to show a man protecting his "castle". All in all, this remake is much better than many of the recent remakes I've seen (or chose to skip). Was this remake necessary? Probably not. 5/10 Worth watching

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.

When I heard about "straw dogs the remake" I thought it was the last thing the world needed. But i decided to give it a shot, being a solid fan of the original by Peckinpah. There's a lot i didn't like about this remake. First i didn't like they changed Sumner into a screenwriter instead of a professor, i mean WTH? That's so cliché. And I just think you can't replace Hoffman as the lead and get away with it. He was too good in the original. And Kate bosworth she's all right, I'm a fan of hers, but she's not like amazing for the role. Overall, I think was not needed. It didn't improve upon the original film. It's just roughly the same story, it didn't even have to be called a remake. Humble opinion is it ought not be remade this way.