Recensioni degli utenti

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.

This remake has no reason to exist. It is shallow and poorly acted and lacks most of the tense emotions and moral questions raised by the original. Hollywood at its worst, cellophane-wrapped, uninspired, made-for-TV quality, cookie cutter remake. Of course, it is padded with clichés, cheap effects and mass-appeal frosting to bring out brain-dead teen movie goers. Why did a great actor like James Wood let himself get suckered into this disaster? This could have been an so-so B-action movie but trying to cash in on the status of Sam Peckinpah's cult classic is a really cheap move. It also forces me to give it a 1-star rating rather than a 4 to 5 rating it could have earned if it didn't ask to be compared with the former.

If you consider watching this movie, please rent the original instead. It is still as intense as it was in 1971 and actually raises a lot of disturbing questions. A true classic.

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.

Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" remains a most disturbing, morally ambiguous confrontation between the brute code of uneducated farmboys with the complex attempts at rationalization by a sophisticated, neurotic, hyper-educated urban college professor attempting to escape the responsibilities of living in an increasingly complex world. It is also a magnificently constructed motion picture, elegantly photographed, brilliantly edited, hauntingly scored, with powerhouse performances from every actor.

This wholly unnecessary remake on the other hand is amateurish swill - banal photography, drama-class acting (and why not? all the characters have been reduced to caricature), and soap-opera rewriting. It's basically a television movie with some sex and violence thrown in for the fan-boy crowd. It's even got the requisite car-chases, and supposedly pointed dialog about adultery and motivations, blah blah blah.

Graceless, visually dull, with no sympathetic characters, but a lotta boom! crash! foe those who think loud noises and pyrotechnics make up for lack of intelligence and imagination.

As a fan of Alexander Skarsgård, I really tried to like the movie - but I just couldn't. If the hushed nature of the theater crowed leaving at the end is any indication - they felt the same way. I feel the cast did well with what they had, but the script was lacking in too many ways. Where the 1971 version had tension and excitement, the 2011 version was often boring and all over the place. I often felt like it was Texas Chainsaw Massacre decided to have a get together with Deliverance and Sweet Home Alabama. The whole thing just felt awkward and thrown together. There were only a handful of scenes where the movie actually had my attention - but they were few and far apart and short lived. There were even moments that were so awkward they were actually uncomfortable. I expected so much more with such a classic movie base and wonderful cast - but ultimately it was disappointing.

I think the rating is low. There is so much crap out there. This movie is a real gem. Gritty and raw. Uncomfortable at times.

An embarrassing attempted 'remake' of a great piece of film making, by a cast and crew who evidently have no idea what the original was all about.

Peckinpah's original raised questions - you left the theater feeling awkward, self-conscious, asking the same question the lead character was asking himself - 'how do I find my way home now?' This pseudo-remake leaves you wondering, "Is it over yet? Why did I waste money on this? Won't this be show up on DVD soon?"

Because that's all it is, a poorly made routine B movie - part domestic melodrama, part crime shocker, aimed at the DVD market.

Wholly forgettable, with blasé cinematography, second rate photography - utterly forgetful.

See the original - a strange, uncomfortable and difficult but insightful film that holds its own after 4 decades.

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

There will be those who slam this as a poorly-made remake of Sam Peckinpah's 1971 original and claim that it misses the point altogether, but that's simply not true. This film is actually pretty good. James Woods helps out quite a bit in the role of the old man who eggs it all on, but all the performances are solid. I live in the South (not the DEEP South, but...) and I promise you the characters are right on the money. Actually, in this version, the transformation of the main character is a bit more believable than Dustin Hoffmann's original. You don't go from Marshmallow to the Terminator as Hoffmann did and in this version, there's a bit of "tense" in the main character that makes his eruption more believable.

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.

Modern remake from Sam Peckinpah's 1971 controversial shocker in which Dustin Hoffman, who starred in , and famously disliked, the original film, gave filmmaker Rod Lurie his blessing . Released i almost 40 years to the day of the original 1971 version, which came out November 3 1971 . It deals with L.A. screen writer David Sumner (James Marsden) relocates with his wife (Kate Bosworth) to her hometown in the deep South. When they return to her ancestral village tensions build between them, a brewing conflict with locals (Rhys Coiro, Billy Lush and led by Alexander Skarsgård as Charlie) becomes a threat to them both. Meanwhile David is working on a story about Stalingrad (the book is early in the movie is 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beevor). There her former boyfriends become resentful , jealous and desirous of her , as she taunts them with her wealth and nudism and she is viciously attacked . As the marriage is bullied and taken advantage of by the locals (in original rendition were played by Ken Hutchinson, David Warner , Peter Vaughan , Del Henney) hired to do construction. When David finally takes a stand it escalates quickly into a bloody battle as the locals assault his house . David whose pacifism is put to supreme test attempts to protect a dim-witted man (Dominic Purcell) who is suspected of disappearance and molesting a young girl (Willa Holland) , his house is put under siege by the incensed villagers , but David defends the mansion with ferocity .

New but inferior version version about one of the most controversial violence-themed pictures of its day ; dealing with a known plot , as a young American and his wife come to rural little town and face increasingly vicious local harassment. The film, a remake of the controversially violent 1971 movie, is considered fairly faithful to Sam Peckinpah's original, though the location has been moved from Cornwall, England to the U.S. Mississippi Gulf Coast, and the hero's profession has been changed from an intellectual mathematician to screenwriter . The title comes from the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, who wrote, "Heaven and earth are not humane, and regard the people as straw dogs, " Straw dogs were used as ceremonial objects for religious sacrifices in ancient China. The picture is as violent as the first version , in fact, because of its graphic portrayal of violence and two brutal rapes, the British Board of Film Censors banned the film from being released on video from 1984 until 2002. The highly charged sequences of carnage in the conclusion make this a controversial movie similarly to original picture .

The motion picture was professionally directed by Rod Lurie though with no originally , resulting to be a simple copy from Peckinpah flick , being equally based on the novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm" by Gordon Williams , including screenplay by David Goodman and the same Peckinpah. Rod is a talented film critic-turned-director who burst onto the scene in late 2000 with his hotly debated political thriller ¨The contender¨. After writing some scripts , Lurie was already hard at work at his next film, working with his acting hero Robert Redford. The result was the 2001 action/drama ¨The last castle ¨ (2001). It centered on an imprisoned military general, forced to go up against a tyrannical prison warden . He subsequently directed ¨Resurrecting the champ¨ and ¨Nothing but the truth¨, both of them were commercial failures despite some favorable reviews as well as ¨Straw Dogs¨.

"Straw Dogs" is a Drama - Thriller movie in which we watch a man with his wife going to her hometown but soon they will have to face some tensions and conflicts with the locals after the occurrence of some events.

I liked this movie because it was intense, it had plenty of suspense and action. There was a mystery during the whole duration of the movie, something that made it very interesting and the expectation of action made it even more terrifying and scary. The interpretations of both James Marsden who played as David Sumner and Kate Bosworth who played as Amy Sumner were very good and they worked very well together, something that was obvious throughout the duration of the movie. Finally, I have to say that "Straw Dogs" is a nice, intense movie and I highly recommend it to any thriller movie fan because I am sure you will enjoy it very much.

David and his wife Amy move to her childhood home in Mississippi. Things take a turn for the worst when David hires Charlie, Amy's ex-boyfriend, as a builder for the renovations.

Straw Dogs is a film I wanted to watch when it was first released but I have never gotten around until now, 10 years after it was first released.

I believe this remake follows the original very closely, with plenty of nods to the 1971 film in its story of human nature and grisly violence. The film is well-casted with Bosworth & Marsden as the leads, bringing simmering intensity to their roles. I found Skarsgard was great too in an incredibly disturbing turn. As a whole, it works well as a visceral, disturbing, and well-made thriller about ordinary people fighting for survival. It follows an interesting story that raises questions about the way we treat each other. The arguably better first half of the film does a great job of establishing its characters and conflicts between them with tense drama, whilst the second half is more focused on emotional, ambiguous, and exciting violence. While it might not be a perfect film and certainly not an original one or for all audiences, it's a testament to the power of the story and it works for what it's intending to do and be. The plot boils up nicely, heated by Alexander Skarsgard's sinisterly compelling thug leader and set bubbling by James Woods's terrific turn as a semi-psychotic town elder. I will check out the original at some point in the future.

If I was remaking Straw Dogs I think I would avoid casting for the Dustin Hoffman role an actor who has played a superhero. I am sure Hoffman never appeared in an action role prior to Straw Dogs.

I do not regard Sam Peckinpah's original version as a classic. It took an age to get going and there are ambiguities in that film which still incites debate to this day.

Writer and Director Rod Lurie has decided to follow Peckinpah's version closely which is a mistake. He should had reimagined his version of Straw Dogs.

The setting has moved from the Cornish countryside of England to the Deep South. James Marsden plays a Hollywood screenwriter rather than a mathematics academic with his wife Kate Bosworth playing an actress.

Alexander Skarsgard and his posse of construction workers supply the creeps. He is Bosworth's ex boyfriend and still takes a shine to her, while Bosworth still leads him on with revealing clothes and teasing behaviour.

James Woods is the former high school football coach and the rowdy drunk who still commands respect from his former players. Dominic Purcell is the dimwit who gets egged on by Woods teenage cheerleader daughter.

Marsden and Bosworth return to her home town so he can write his new screenplay. Skarsgard starts flirting early on with Bosworth and he is then engaged to do building work for them but soon the alpha male Skarsgard sees Marsden as a figure of fun and entices him away from the house so he can catch up with Bosworth even forcing himself on her.

When Purcell is taken in by Marsden for protection he decides to fight back against Woods, Skarsgard and the rest of the gang.

The film is a by the numbers remake, sterile, weak and clichéd. Even the climax when Marsden and Bosworth are attacked in their house is underwhelming compared to the original.

STRAW DOGS is an outstanding movie! It's a character-driven thriller that builds to an explosive climax. The performances are well-directed across the board, and Alexander Skarsgard and James Woods are especially effective in their roles.

The setup is simple: a California couple relocates to the wife's hometown in the deep South and they become steadily antagonized by a local group of men. Where this film really excels is in its execution. The opening scene really sets the tone for the film. You can tell immediately that this movie is going to be about survival. Rod Lurie does a great job introducing the major characters in a sharply delineated fashion and then layering the characterization so the conflict, both internal and external, unfolds at a deliberate pace. It grounds the story in character and makes the third act very satisfying, exciting and earned.

The entire film is very well made. Strong script, precise direction, a lot of symbolism and thematic resonance. It's well worth a trip to the theater to see it. It's engaging, sometimes funny, often intense, and excellent performance-driven filmmaking.

I'm supposing that there would be more identification with America when this remake of Straw Dogs had its location changed from Cornwall in England to Mississippi in the USA. It's the reddest of red states with a troubled past and a propensity to violence among the good old boy villains.

Screenwriter James Marsden and his wife Kate Bosworth have moved back to her small Mississippi hometown where at one time she was going with local redneck Alexander Skarsgard. God only knows why Marsden thought this place would provide peace, quiet and inspiration to finish his screenplay for a film about the battle of Stalingrad. Skarsgard thinks this might be the opportunity to show Bosworth what she's missing.

The other element here is mentally challenged Dominic Purcell who retired football coach James Woods an old pre-civil rights era good old boy who hates him for the attentions he keeps paying to his tease of a daughter Willa Holland. When Marsden and Bosworth offer him some shelter after a tragic event happens the climax starts with the invasion of Skarsgard and his pals.

This version sure matches the violence of the Sam Peckinpah original without the Peckinpah style. Still shows what anyone is capable of if pushed far enough. Marsden's worm really turns here.

Me and my roommates were all so excited to see this movie, and they are both obsessed with Alexander Skarsgard, which I will admit was the only awesome thing about this movie. None of us could remember the last time we had seen a movie so we despised so much. There was no plot development, you don't get to know any of the characters, and all in all, it was just plain and dull from beginning to end. Even in the ending where the action kind of picks up a little, I suppose, the conclusion was aaaaawful, I tried to appreciate it in a tormented "Funny Games" kind of way, and I just couldn't do it. This movie was a complete flop. Ugh.