Straw Dogs (remake)
| release date | September 16 2011 |
| studio | Sony Screen Gems |
| director | Rod Lurie |
| writer | Reed Steiner |
| starring | James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard, James Woods, Dominic Purcell, Willa Holland |
| rating | R |
| trailer 1 | Trailer #1 |
2 Comments
It was alright… Definitely not the film I was expecting, nor was it as amazing as it was hyped up to be. I am surprised by some of the very odd random choices some of the characters made in this film, as well as the inclusion of several scenes that either didn’t make any sense as to why it happened or had no relevance to ANY PART of the rest of the film whatsoever. If they had done some things a bit differently and completely cut one of the subplots from the film (considering it served no real purpose to the plot) then it would have been much better. Also note that the film abruptly ends leaving no resolution scene. A bit of a let down. It’s still a good slow burn character driven thriller, it just takes a bit to get to the point and the payoff isn’t that thrilling.
The new Straw Dogs is a uninspired, tepid, predictable remake that does nothing new with the material but just do the expected and that is to be violent and mean spirited. The performances were all strong especially from Kate Bosworth and James Woods who are at the top of their game in the film giving their characters edge and depth but the rest were just not that strong and memorable and though I respect James Marsden I think that he was miscast here and is no Dustin Hoffman but he had his moments here and there. I watched the original years ago and I really liked it and thought it was shockingly brutal and ballsy for its time but this one isn’t nearly as effective and bold but I can tell you this it has a cleverly out of nowhere brutal final kill that had everyone in the theater gasp and scream and I was even surprised and shows you that anyone is capable of violent acts and it’s just a moment in time of how far someone can be pushed before they snap, it’s chilling to think about. Overall the writing and story is kind of weak and they did little to improve and surpass the great original and as a whole it leaves a bad taste for the senses and the type of film you feel bad for watching and want to take a shower afterwards and the film tried but just didn’t have enough balls to succeed a 100% but it was expertly filmed and acted but even that can’t push this unecessary remake from standing out and becoming its own . Skip it. 5.5 out of 10
A big let down. I remember seeing commercials for this thinking it looked like a pretty cool thriller/horror movie. I never saw the original so I have nothing to compare it to, but from the things I’ve heard about it, it sounds a lot better than this remake was. I went to the first showing on the first day (today) and there was only five or six other people in the theater and even they said it sucked as they were walking out talking to each other. I don’t recommend this movie, you should go see The Lion King instead (I know I did, I snuck into it when Straw Dogs was over. Got to see one of my favorite childhood movies on the big screen for the first time!) This movie is very boring up until the last twenty minutes or so, and even then it’s not that exciting. Not once was I ever one the edge of my seat, or felt for any of the characters. The only good part of the movie was the bear trap on the guy’s head at the end. Other than that, stay away from this shitty movie.
Well-acted, viscerally engaging, beautifully photographed, Rod Lurie’s remake of Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 violent classic comes far enough down the road that it will find its own audience, while those of us who remember the original may carp a little if it falls just a tad flat. My own reservations are of the condescending attitude the new reworked screenplay has toward southerners and Christians in general. Apparently we’re supposed to believe we’ve travelled to the land of the Neanderthals, just because the setting has been switched to Mississippi. And the equation of football violence to rape in one montage is just plain silly. Some will praise James Woods’ portrayal of the chief bigot as good acting, but I find it so over the top that it throws the more subtle performances of the rest of the cast off balance. The less said about Dominic Purcell’s embarrassing performance as Jeremy, the mentally impaired pervert, the better. A word of praise for James Marsden… an engaging nuanced performance.
I thought it was a good fim and well intended remake. There are a few flaws but overall it was a good suspenseful film. I just wish the last act was a little longer and that those dirt bags were put through more torture. James Marsden and Kate Bosworth really did a good job with there performances. Definitely check this one out.
Filmed in the old-fashioned style of a long, slow build up to an intense finale. Aside from an utterly stupid subplot that unfortunately was necessary to set up the climax of the story, the film was otherwise well done. Not for everyone, but if you have patience, it pays off in the end.
I did not have the knowledge of knowing there was an original version of this film in order to compare, so I am just reviewing on the remake. Being from California, I was able to glean another perspective that I had not seen of a Southern small town and its people. I thought all of the characters did an pretty good job of portraying each of their roles. James Marsden was very much a coward and was definitely not in his “element”, whilst Kate Bosworth was from the South, but was able to branch out to California and live perhaps the dream of leaving her small town mentality. She still let men dominate her and even her husband from another state and different mindset told her what to do, and let himself let the locals take advantage of the situations in the film. The character I was most impressed with was Alexander Skargard, who portrayed the charming, ex-jockey, and “I am gonna push my weight around because I never will leave my home town mentality.” In doing so he had very ignorant “followers” who acted the same and looked to him as their leader. There was definitely some interesting dialogue within the film. The climax was not very climatic, but let’s just say “things got done”. I need to see the original with Dustin Hoffman and see how it compares.
Having never seen the original film starring Dustin Hoffman, I have nothing to compare the remake of Straw Dogs to…except The Last House On The Left. I don’t know why, but this film kept making me think of the remake starring Sara Paxton. The acting, especially by James Marsden and Kate Bosworth, was exceptional, and the fact that this was PG-13, yet still managed to have a rape scene, and large amounts of gore, AMAZES me. With great acting and a slow burn buildup to an edge of your seat climax, the Straw Dogs remake is a great thriller.
I wasn’t exactly sure what I was expecting with Straw Dogs as I began to watch it. And I’ve never seen the original either so I don’t have much to compare it too. But in the end I walked out thinking it was a decent thrill. But don’t get me wrong, Staw Dogs is littered with problems. The acting was sub-par, the script made me laugh unintentionally at times, the editing was so chopped up, and I felt if these problems were more tightly fixed, Straw Dogs could’ve easily been the best thriller of the year. But there’s something peculiar about Straw Dogs. I never felt like I wanted to walk out at any point, never thought to myself this movie sucks. Nothing like that. I actually anticipated the next scene multiple times. It’s a slow burn up until the ending, kind of like Wolf Creek. You get to see the characters slowly turn maniacal until finally they are
pushed to there limit. The end showdown is gruesome. They don’t hold anything back. I can understand why people would say this movie “Glorifies” violence, but there was only one part where I felt it glorified violence and it was pretty left field. It doesn’t deter me much because it was a pretty awesome part anyways. All In All, despite all the flaws in this movie, I strangely enjoyed it. If anything the scene at the end is probably the most suspenseful and fucked up scene I’ve seen thus far. And also the very final shot of the movie was pretty satisfying.
This movie was okay. I didn’t hate it, nor love it. It had good actors, and decent scenery. I mostly wanted to see it because Alexander SkarsgÃ
the last kill was fuckin awesome!! nuff said
So let me get this straight.. The rape scene had nothing to do with anything.. Who in the hell wrote the screenplay and I don’t care If the original was similar. This was so stupid. James marsden goes crazy bc he is protecting a mentally challenged dude who he has NO connection with? Wow.. Easily one of the dumbest most bizarre motive I’ve seen in any movie.. Absolute crap.. And not to mention his wife totally asked for it.. No bra.. Flashing dudes.. But like I said.. The rape had nothing to do with the movie.. Pointless trash
Hated this movie. It was boring and just stupid. By far one of the worst movies of the year. Not worth the money.
My problem with this movie is I couldn’t stand any of the characters. I literally despised Amy. Her character was stupid. Why in the name of god would she run around without a bra and tight shorts and then flash the rednecks? Personally I would’ve fed her to them if I had been her husband who was a total jerk too. I never felt any connection to these characters and the idea that he would become mister moral compass to save Jeremy at the end seemed a real stretch to me. Maybe if I had given a damn about anybody in this movie it would’ve been better, but seriously, that was weak!
I enjoyed this better than the original, very well made, very tense thriller
Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs” was released in 1971 and was immediately misjudged, seemingly at the very moment of its arrival. It sent movie-goers either running for the hills – never to look back again – or scratching their chins in an attempt to find some sort of intellectual meaning for what they had just witnessed. The film itself was the story of a mathematician and his wife who moves back to the latter’s hometown – a small, quiet little town in England – who face harassment that I’d describe as of both the verbal and physical variety. Peckinpah had created a powerful, philosophically engaging meditation on the subject of violence that is both admired and reviled to this day. Some say it has not aged particularly well; others say it hasn’t budged in terms of quality. Nevertheless, it was a film made in a style that simply could not be improved upon in a remake or re-imagining of some sort; the visual stylistics weren’t overly flashy (and THEY certainly aren’t dated), and the characters might still be believable today as they were when the story was set in the lower end of the 1970′s.
Here’s my point: there was no need for a remake; the remake that has been made is unnecessary. But if you’ve got the talent to make an unnecessary film completely entertaining and perhaps even a little provocative; I’d say you’re pretty damn good at what you do. The director of the 2011 “Straw Dogs” is Rod Laurie; an obvious admirer of the original film. He might not have admired it enough to give the opportunity to remake it an easy “pass”; but he’s given us the “Straw Dogs” remake that we never wanted nor thought we would see. It’s just as intense – although not quite as memorable – as the original film. It neither improves nor disrespects the overall image and quality of the story as it once was.
Laurie’s re-telling of the story is not set in England. Instead, the action takes place in Mississippi. The central characters remain almost entirely the same however, and the couple emerges in-tact for this version of the tale; although the man of the house is no longer a mathematician, but instead a screenwriter. Their names are David (James Marsden) and Amy (Kate Bosworth). Indeed, just like in the original film, they have just moved to their new location (of Blackwater Mississippi); where Amy grew up during the course of her childhood and teen years. Upon arriving, the two get acquainted with the town pub as well as those who often occupy it; particularly a suave character from Amy’s romantic past named Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and his redneck buddies.
Charlie and his entire circle of friends have agreed to fix up the roof on the barn that lies on the land that Amy and David have purchased. They’re mostly consistent in their work; although when they’re not hammering away at boards, they’ve got their eyes on David’s beautiful wife, and other times, on him. This appears distressing; perhaps Charlie wants Amy back; although we know she does not want him. However, Charlie is a determined fellow; discreet in his impeccable hatred for David and the prize that he has coveted; which was once his.
Let’s see. I don’t think I’d be spoiling too, too much if I told you that the film ends in a particularly violent shoot-out between the drunken local hillbillies and the two main characters. The struggle is over a man that they are sheltering in their home; the village idiot (Dominic Purcell) who has been engaged in a secretive romantic relationship with the town football coach’s (James Woods) young daughter. The coach fears that the poor man has done something wrong to his girl, and thus, he will stop at nothing to “bring him to justice”, even if it means killing those unassociated with whatever crime he believes this man has committed. No matter, if the coach is going to load his gun and fire it at either Amy or David; they’re going to fight back, and what ensues is a bloody show-down of sorts. Like in the original film, it’s thrilling and exciting, but meant to bear some deeper, more thought-provoking message about violence and its affects. This remake does not shed such skin; although I found myself rooting for the struggle instead of being repulsed by the inhumanity exploited within it, which takes away from the power of this version of “Straw Dogs”.
No matter, as a fan of the original movie, I have a lot of respect for Laurie’s envisioning. It didn’t absolutely NEED to get made; but it was made, and it was made well. That is all I ask from Hollywood these days when it comes to remakes; and “Straw Dogs” brings just a bit more than usual to the table. Performances from Marsden, Bosworth, and others are first-rate; as is the level of suspense and tension. I enjoyed watching this version of the “Straw Dogs” story because it mixes the things that I liked about the original film with things that were not present at all. Laurie has made his “Straw Dogs” a new movie in itself, rather than making Peckinpah’s film all over again. He may lack the man’s philosophical brilliance, but he has all the skill necessary to deliver the goods; and that he does. “Straw Dogs”, like its great original, may not be for the squeamish; but I recommend it to the strong-stomached and the strong-minded, wholeheartedly.
I thought it took to long to get into but it all lead up to a good movie and the kill with the nail gun was epic!