Straw Dogs - Wer Gewalt sät

Most modern remakes carry with them a whiff of disappointment, a general feeling of déjà vu and a sense that watching is time wasted because they're invariably going to be worse than the original (apart from in a few instances). The same can well be said of STRAW DOGS, a film that relocates Sam Peckinpah's controversial classic in the southern USA but otherwise tells exactly the same story, with the same sequences and even the same dialogue beats.

Put simply, STRAW DOGS is a fine enough film in itself and would be more impressive if the original didn't exist. Compared to the original, it comes second in every way; the cast is a lot worse, the direction is non-existent compared to Peckinpah's masterful stylistics, and the power is just lacking. Fans of the original would do better to stick with that because there's no way this film has a hope of coming close to it.

Taken as a standalone movie, though, and compared to other modern thrillers, it turns out to be…well, not bad. The slow-building plot is as effective as ever, and the climax doesn't disappointment when it arrives and unleashes a wave of violence upon the screen. James Marsden struggles because you can't help but compare him to Dustin Hoffman in the role, and Kate Bosworth doesn't really capture that level of coquettishness that the Susan George character had, either.

But the supporting players are better, and Alexander Skarsgard is particularly sinister as the bad guy who doesn't really do anything all that bad – although we hate him anyway. James Woods ignites the screen, as ever, and Dominic Purcell offers a completely different performance to David Warner's, so his role is all the better for it.

So what we have here is a film that can be taken in two different ways. As a remake, it's a pale effort compared to the vibrant original. As a standalone movie, it's a pretty tense thriller with a gripping storyline. I liked it enough the first time around, but is it worth a rewatch? Not like the original.

After reading the reviews of this film and seeing the original, I wasn't really looking forward to watching this movie but glad I did

I suggest to ignore all previous bad reviews & not to compare with the original 1971 film I thought this was a well made movie, with a good cast. The story line is similar to the original but in my opinion better but just bought in to the 21st century.

Acting was very good, very surprised & quite annoyed at some of the comments

I enjoy watching many movies & have to say this has been one of the better movies I have watched recently.

Watch it with an open mind Enjoy as I did. Very good movie

Greetings again from the darkness. If you have seen Sam Peckinpah's classic 1971 original with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, it is impossible 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 version have never seen the original.

Director Rod Lurie follows the Peckinpah version pretty closely with the obvious changes being a move from the English countryside to the deep south (Mississippi), and the main characters are now a screenwriter and actress instead of mathematical whiz and ... well, whatever Susan George's character was in the original. Those are the obvious changes, but not the most significant. I really missed the subtlety and psychological trickery delivered by Peckinpah, especially in the relationship between David and Amy.

Lurie chooses to take advantage of the physical screen presence of Alexander Skarsgard (True Blood) as Charlie, the local stud and Amy's ex. Charlie's past exploits on the football field and his creepy leadership skills with his posse of thugs, provide the yin of physical strength to the yang of David's intelligence. It's interesting to note that this version spells out Sun-Tzu's description of "straw dogs" while Peckinpah left his audience to fend for themselves. But, of course, what this boils down to is just how far can a civilized person be 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 must play a role. Woods is the former high school coach who is now a violent drunk, and still leader of his former players. He is a sadistic type who picks on Jeremy Niles (Dominic Purcell), the slow-witted brother of Daniel (Walton Goggins) and constantly accuses him of inappropriate behavior with his 15 year old cheerleader daughter.

James Marsden (Hairspray) and Kate Bosworth (Remember the Titans) play David and Amy. They come back to Amy's childhood home so she can rest and David can have some peace and quiet while writing his screenplay on the Battle of Stalingrad. Well, we couldn't really have him writing a rom-com, could we? From Day One, the peace and quiet is clearly missing and 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 go hunting with them. What happens with Charlie and Amy during this time changes everything. This sequence was the key to the controversy of the original 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 brilliant psychological undertones which left me feeling very uncomfortable and questioning what I might do in this situation. Lurie's new version offered little of that but does work fine as a straightforward suspenseful thriller.

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

While there are probably people out there who could pull off a remake of the classic Straw Dogs, this isn't the group.

I tried real hard to like this film since I'm a huge fan of Walton Goggins, but this should have been left on the shelf.

The actress playing the wife did a rather good job, though, in a role that is not easy to pull off and achieve a believable balance.

Overall I wouldn't give this more than about 4 or 5 points.

Next time someone tries this I really hope they can give us something worth watching. This is a truly worthwhile script that can be done better, perhaps even better than the original. I'd like to see that.