In_Correct

(2012-04-30 09:52:15)

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.

John Beifuss

(2012-04-29 18:35:12)

Lurie tries to eliminate the more controversial elements of Peckinpah's film, but in the process he loses what made the original such a transgressive, unsettling, mysterious and necessary landmark of screen violence.

jaxbubba

(2012-04-28 15:20:55)

No Joy in Blackwater

Movie Review: "Straw Dogs" – A scene-for-scene remake of the 1971 SamPekinpah film which featured Dustin Hoffman and Susan George. This timearound James Marsden and Kate Bosworth are David and Amy Sumner; twoL.A. socialites who have returned to Amy's childhood hometown ofBlackwater in the Deep South. David, a writer, has come to Blackwaterto find the peace and quiet that he requires to finish his novel. In anattempt to appease some of the local redneck hillbillies, David triesto extend the proverbial olive branch and hires them to re-roof theirbarn. As the tension between the Sumners and the locals escalates, thetown of Blackwater becomes unhinged as a local 15 year old girl goesmissing. The prime suspect is Nils, a local retarded man and the town'sregistered sexual offender. Nils finds refuge with the Sumners after hewas injured while actually fleeing the scene of the crime. However, asthe film reaches its climax and mob mentality begins to reign…. DavidSumner, after being emasculated all film, finally decides to make hisstand and fight back. I didn't care much for the original 1971 film,and this remake isn't much better; however, kudos to the last 15minutes of this film. The battle sequence at the end of the film isboth graphic and gruesome; two aspects I really enjoy. However, my mainissue with the film is that Nils was actually guilty. I really believethat writers of this film could have easily found a better reason forDavid to make a stand than protecting Nils from mob justice (maybe hiswife's virtue for instance). Either way, a "just cause" would havedefinitely made the ending sequence much more enjoyable.

Tim Brayton

(2012-04-28 06:18:29)

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.

rikbikboo

(2012-04-28 07:36:19)

A good film if you have not seen the 1st.

Having read the reviews here I was not going to watch it due to its lowscore.In my opinion its score is unfairly low because people are comparing itto the original movie.If you have not seen the original movie then I would highly expect youwould find this movie a good watch.Its got a smattering of stars that I was surprised to see and in acouple of parts I was even hitting the rewind button to watch again.Its a great movie. Do not be put off by the other reviews.Worth a watch 88% good.

Owen Gleiberman

(2012-04-28 00:24:31)

The original Straw Dogs, at least to me, isn't close to being one of Peckinpah's masterpieces, but it's a movie that the people who first saw it still remember 40 years later. I doubt that anyone will remember the new one by next month.

Wesley Morris

(2012-04-26 18:08:42)

The movie is like being waterboarded by liberals outside a Democratic National Committee event.

virek213

(2012-04-26 09:51:05)

Impefect Remake Of Peckinpah's Nightmarish Classic--But I've Seen Much Worse

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 isin remakes or sequels, Hollywood has this way of repeating itself. As aresult, it seems most unsettling that one of the films from the pastthat should be remade for a 21st century audience would be a film that,when released near the end of 1971, caused extreme uproar because ofits explicit violence and sexual material. The film in question isdirector Sam Peckinpah's controversial shocker STRAW DOGS, whichremains, alongside Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, among the mosthotly debated films of its time or any time in history. For whateverreason, though, Hollywood thought it needed an updating, and so formerfilm critic turned director/screenwriter Rod Lurie stepped into theshoes 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 screenplaywritten by David Zelag Goodman and Peckinpah, this particular versionwas moved from the original's setting on the Cornwall coast of Englandto a backwater town somewhere along the Mississippi/Louisiana border.James Marsden takes on the role of David Sumner (played by DustinHoffman in 1971), who has come to this small Southern town with hiswife Amy (Kate Bosworth, taking over for Susan George) to work on amovie screenplay based on the 1943 battle of Stalingrad. And as it sohappens, his seeming demure nature puts the redneck boys down there inthe position of superiority over him, first when Bosworth's pet cat isfound strangled in the closet, then, to make matters even moresinister, when Bosworth is raped by her former boyfriend (AlexanderSkarsgard) and another man (Rhys Coiro).Marsden, however, comes to his senses when he takes in the local mentalinvalid (Dominic Purcell) who has unintentionally strangled thedaughter (Willa Holland) of the town's ex-football coach (James Woods).Woods, Coiro, and Skarsgard show up on Marsden's property and brutallydemand that Purcell be handed over to them, but Marsden, knowing fullywell what will happen to him, Purcell, and Bosworth, does no suchthing. The end result is ultra-violent mayhem in the film's last twentyminutes.Lurie, who made two of the best films of the year 2000 (DETERRENCE; THECONTENDER) likely set himself up for a fall in trying to tone down themost objectionable parts of the Peckinpah original that made it, in theeyes of some, a "fascist" work of art: the rape scene, which is a bittoo 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 onthe works of noted anthropologist Robert Ardrey, that Man's penchantfor brutality and violence, far from the common notion that they wouldgo to any means to protect their "property", is ingrained in him fromthe start. The other thing that is objectionable about this new versionof STRAW DOGS is that, unlike the English village where Peckinpah seesthe seemingly primitive villagers as every bit the match for Hoffman,the ones in this small Southern town are the unfortunate stereotypicalinbred rednecks, especially Woods, who, normally a solid actor, isallowed by Lurie to overact outrageously. And the siege, though fairlywell staged, is nevertheless so hyper-violent that the audience becomesa tad bit detached, instead of really being forced to confront theirinner demons, as Hoffman's character, and to a great extent Peckinpahhimself, did in the original film. Whereas Peckinpah was deliberatelyambiguous 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 reachingthe nightmarish heights of Peckinpah's, the 2011 STRAW DOGS featuressolid enough performances from Marsden and Bosworth, who are able tocapture the psychological torment that their characters feel. They arestill in the shadow of what Hoffman and George did in 1971, but theyare able to bring a certain kind of resolve and emotional gravitas tothe situation that Lurie doesn't always provide in his direction orscript. Larry Groupe's score, though distractingly loud at times (thisin contrast to the subtlety of the original film's excellent JerryFielding score), also works in those moments where it's supposed to.The end result is, like many remakes, rather imperfect. Still, therehave been far worse remakes that Hollywood has done, and will yet do.

Nick Pinkerton

(2012-04-26 18:41:42)

There's no matching the sinister village faces in Peckinpah's cast or the psychological acuity of his scene-making, but Lurie shows himself man enough for the material.

Andrew Simpson

(2012-04-26 03:41:03)

The hunting scenes and the brutal farm siege are solidly gripping, and Lurie doesn't shy away from David embracing his inner savage.

Michael Phillips

(2012-04-20 06:48:40)

Rod Lurie's bird-brained remake of "Straw Dogs" doesn't work on its own terms, and it can't hold a candle to the unruly, unstable merits of Sam Peckinpah's 1971 original.

Jim Lane

(2012-04-19 10:53:41)

... remakes Sam Peckinpah's 1971 sex-and-violence fantasy almost scene for scene (including Peckinpah's they-all-wanna-be-raped misogyny).

westsideschl

(2012-04-17 04:16:57)

An Interpretation for Today's Audience

This movie and it's '70s counterpart would be excellent sources fordiscussion in any humanities or contemporary history course. This isnot a remake but a reinterpretation, an update if you will, to fit 21stcentury America. What changes: How women are treated and how they reactto that treatment from the earlier version of submission to thecontemporary version of independence. What doesn't change: Idolatrypersists whether it's on the field or in the pews; hatred persistswhether it's race, or mental/physical disabilities. The symbolism ofhunting, whether it's deer or women, to prove manhood and superiorityis iconic. An implied, and controversial, characterization of regionalinstitutionalized intolerance as a function of mistrust of educationalattainment and religious zealotry is present in both versions. What arestraw dogs? They are the scapegoats, the easily discarded, theoutsiders on which to place blame and thus, perhaps, release innerguilt. Guilt creates tension and the characters, both the locals andthe newly arrived couple, hide but cannot escape those tensions. Kudosto the director, cast and crew for building that tension for theaudience. The actors portraying the southern antagonists did anadmirable job of setting up Marsden's character and Marsden did such aneffective job of portraying a wussy wimp (e.g. clumsily bumping andtripping over the most trivial obstacles; sucking up to gain stature)that my normally humanistic compassionate self was looking for to hisdemise.

Dustin Putman

(2012-04-16 16:01:42)

Watching it is like gazing upon a plagiarized essay; no matter how good its content might be, it doesn't take away the knowledge that it was just copied over from someone else's paper.

sstaber89

(2012-04-13 18:39:28)

Do Not Waste Your Time On This Movie!

This movie was an absolute disappointment. The whole time I waswondering what the movie was about and when was the plot going tounfold. I was so frustrated the whole time because things were leftunanswered. The main character, Amy, appears to be scared of her ex andhis friends, but you don't know why. She is bra-less the majority ofthe movie (might as well have been naked) and goes on a jog in shortshorts with no bra and a tight tank top. Her ex and all his friendspretty much eyef*ck her and she complains to her husband about it. Hesays maybe you should put on a bra. She replies "Are you saying I'masking for it?!" Angry, she goes upstairs, splashes water on her chest,and slowly takes off her shirt in front of the window so that her exand his friends who are working on the barn's roof will see. I did notunderstand this part. They later rape her while her husband is huntingwhich they tricked him into doing. She pretty much knew she was goingto get raped and didn't put up a fight which made me very upset. Thismovie was so depressing and disturbing. I'm not going to write thewhole plot, but just know that it is not worth watching and in myopinion the worst movie I think I've ever seen.

Eric Melin

(2012-04-13 06:13:36)

It doesn't even work as a thriller. And of course, like the 70s original, it just turns into an all-out blood bath at the end - which can't help but notch up the campiness.

Jonathon Dabell

(2012-04-08 20:26:45)

Rather flat remake of a controversial classic.

Given Hollywood's recent trend for remaking anything and everything, itwas perhaps inevitable that Sam Peckinpah's controversial classic StrawDogs would eventually get a new makeover. Rod Lurie's version moves theaction from Cornwall to the Deep South of America, where bible-bashingrednecks become the new village thugs, and fish-out-of-water Hollywoodwriter James Marsden replaces Dustin Hoffman's meek mathematician. Theremake is generally rather disappointing, with none of the gnawingtension or subtle character development that made Peckinpah's StrawDogs so memorable. What good moments are to be found here are liftedalmost shot-for-shot from the 1971 version… such as the farm siegeclimax, which is so unaltered that every death happens exactly as itdid in the old one, while whole passages of dialogue are re-used wordfor word.Script writer David Sumner (James Marsden) moves to the home town ofhis new wife Amy (Kate Bosworth). He's working on a screenplay for anew war movie and believes that quiet seclusion is exactly what heneeds to get the job done. Amy is something of a darling to thetownsfolk. She's the success story; the one that flew the nest. Herfairly insignificant career in Hollywood is big news back home, and sheis treated like royalty wherever she goes. A bunch of oafish builderscome out to the Sumner's swamp-side house to work on a new barn roof.Among them is Charlie Venner (Alexander Skarsgård), Amy's old flame.Over time, tensions flare between the Sumners and the builders, withDavid in particular finding himself troubled by their backwardsattitudes and the way they lecherously ogle his wife. Things come to ahead at the end, when mentally handicapped runaway Jeremy Niles(Dominic Purcell) ends up at the Sumner place after accidentallysmothering a teenaged girl. The rednecks want to have Niles handedover, but David refuses to let them take the law into their own handsand keeps him inside, resulting in a siege of escalating violence andbloodshed.There's nothing much to add about this Hollywood reboot. By and large,it seems rather tame next to the old version. The rape sequence isn'texactly pleasant, but it is nowhere near as distressing as the oneshown in the older movie; the climactic siege is a bloodily stagedaction sequence but it too lacks the raw shock and terror of itspredecessor. Moving the location doesn't really add anything to thestory, except that the backwoods of America appear too sunny andcolourful to generate the same unsettling atmosphere as a foggy Cornishmoor. The performances are solid but uninspiring; the script is flat asa pancake; the action sequences are put together with competentprofessionalism rather than powerful raw energy. Overall, Straw Dogs isa disappointingly safe retread which does nothing to erase memories ofthe still-potent 1971 original

room102

(2012-04-08 09:46:30)

Good remake, although not as good as the original

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

David Ferguson

(2012-04-07 07:10:56)

What are You Capable of?

Greetings again from the darkness. If you have seen Sam Peckinpah'sclassic 1971 original with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, it isimpossible to watch this remake without comparing the two films.Because of that, these comments will include some comparative notes.After all, it's been 40 years and most people watching this new versionhave never seen the original.Director Rod Lurie follows the Peckinpah version pretty closely withthe obvious changes being a move from the English countryside to thedeep south (Mississippi), and the main characters are now ascreenwriter and actress instead of mathematical whiz and ... well,whatever Susan George's character was in the original. Those are theobvious changes, but not the most significant. I really missed thesubtlety and psychological trickery delivered by Peckinpah, especiallyin the relationship between David and Amy.Lurie chooses to take advantage of the physical screen presence ofAlexander Skarsgard (True Blood) as Charlie, the local stud and Amy'sex. Charlie's past exploits on the football field and his creepyleadership skills with his posse of thugs, provide the yin of physicalstrength to the yang of David's intelligence. It's interesting to notethat this version spells out Sun-Tzu's description of "straw dogs"while Peckinpah left his audience to fend for themselves. But, ofcourse, what this boils down to is just how far can a civilized personbe pushed ... and how far is the bully willing to go? James Woods is a welcome and terrifying addition to the new version.Since it is based in the small town south, high school football mustplay a role. Woods is the former high school coach who is now a violentdrunk, and still leader of his former players. He is a sadistic typewho picks on Jeremy Niles (Dominic Purcell), the slow-witted brother ofDaniel (Walton Goggins) and constantly accuses him of inappropriatebehavior with his 15 year old cheerleader daughter.James Marsden (Hairspray) and Kate Bosworth (Remember the Titans) playDavid and Amy. They come back to Amy's childhood home so she can restand David can have some peace and quiet while writing his screenplay onthe Battle of Stalingrad. Well, we couldn't really have him writing arom-com, could we? From Day One, the peace and quiet is clearly missingand Lynyrd Skynyrd wins out over Bach in the battle of radio volume.Tension builds and David is tested daily over what it means to be a man... tested by the local hicks and doubted by his lovely wife.Things turn from bad to worse when the locals invite David to gohunting with them. What happens with Charlie and Amy during this timechanges everything. This sequence was the key to the controversy of theoriginal and what caused it to be banned in many cities and countries.Lurie chooses to handle it in a very straightforward manner - plus,times and mores have changed quite a bit in the last 40 years.For me, the Peckinpah original remains a classic film with brilliantpsychological undertones which left me feeling very uncomfortable andquestioning what I might do in this situation. Lurie's new versionoffered little of that but does work fine as a straightforwardsuspenseful thriller.

Greg

(2012-04-07 01:41:58)

The Hollywood Recycle Machine Continues

If there was ever a court case accusing Hollywood of having run out ofideas and duping box office patrons with recycled product, Straw Dogs(2011) might be considered exhibit A.Back in 1971, Sam Peckinpah adapted Gordon Williams' novel, The Siegeof the Trencher's Father into a screenplay that attached Dustin Hoffmanto the controversially violent film titled Straw Dogs. On an estimatedbudget of just over $3 million, Straw Dogs told the story about anAmerican mathematician named David Summer (Hoffman) who is provoked bya small town's bullies in Cornwall England. They terrorize theseemingly wimpy David and rape his wife until David decides to fightback in equally violent fashion.The 1971 film went on to gross over $11 million worldwide, but washardly considered neither a commercial hit nor was it one ofPeckinpah's best (Hoffman all but disowned the film and would famouslyadmit to only accepting the role for the money).But here we were some 40 years later and the Hollywood machine was busychurning out 16 remakes and reboots in 2011 – Straw Dogs being one ofthem.In the 2011 edition, James Marsden and Kate Bosworth signed on thedotted line to star as David and Amy Summer. Director Rod Lurie (TheLast Castle) made some major changes to the screenplay and set theupdated version in the deep south of America. David was also changedfrom a mathematician to a screenwriter. But all other major elements ofthe story – in particular the evil townsfolk remained the same.Alexander Skarsgård plays Charlie, a former love interest for Amy thatattempts to rekindle the flame when David and Amy return to the familyhome in an attempt to find some peace and quiet while David writes hisbook. And James Woods plays a complex old man that has a penchant fordrink and the violence that the bottle brings.The tension between David and Charlie starts as a simple indifferencebetween a city boy and a small town country worker. But it escalateswith Charlie's continued pining for Amy – a desire that will haveCharlie break into the home and rape his former girlfriend.But it is when Amy and David attempt to harbor the town idiot, Jeremy(played by Prison Break's Dominic Purcell) that things really begin toescalate. Tom Heddon (Woods) believes that Jeremy did wrong towards hisyoung grandchild and he comes with a town posse to the Summer house toviolently extract Jeremy at any cost.Much like the original version, David is able to use his home and itscontents as protection from the increasing threat and in expectedfashion, a final showdown between David and Charlie will highlight theclimax of the film.Straw Dogs was remade for all the wrong reasons (well, make that noreason that we can think of), and the results provide nothing more thana numb action film with predictable results. The rape and the violencethat was so cutting edge back in 1971 (the original film was banned inmany countries) seems relatively routine in 2011 and serviceableperformances by the film's leads does little to help elevate the filmabove mediocrity.There has been hundreds of films with the protagonist rising to theincreased levels of violence to discourage a threat since Straw Dogs in1971 and Rod Lurie decided that a simple setting change was all thatwas required to draw in a new audience.Lurie would have been better served had he pushed the envelope anddeveloped a remake that was more in line with 2010's I Spit on YourGrave. Instead, the screenplay plays safe and despite a wonderfulperformance by James Woods (who is always at his best when he is evil),the film offers nothing that will have you recollect its details a fewweeks after screening.www.killerreviews.com