Straw Dogs (2011)

I'll tell you why so serious

How sad is this?

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

My review. this is a very boring and dumb movie. Screenplay is unbelievable, very unreal situation. A very stupid husband and a very wore wife. Why do you think (any of you) if your wife wants to live in a town where she knew an old boyfriend ? And when in some part of the movie she show her titties. to the workers, what it supposed to mean ? I'm not justifying the rape but any normal people goes to the police and moves outThis movie is just as stupid as American beauty was. No matter how many stars it could collect in time.By the way let me ask Avatar was a really a good best seller or it was just another well marketed movie from Hollywood ? There's a lot excellent low budget movies that you'll never see Regards to everyone Dan

As an advocate of Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", I was prepared to condemn this remake and utterly disregard it as for Rob Zombie's "Halloween" duo. Strangely enough, I can't. The film is extravagantly inferior to Peckinpah's incomparable piece of manhood and mankind, but it is not a total failure like many viewers want it to be. For the un-necessity to have it made in the first place, I can possibly subscribe to that notion. Other condemnations, no. The film has tried to adapt the 1970's story to today's world of class differences. Relocating the entire backdrop from rural England to America South, a few of new subplots are added. Such a dramatic change causes the storyline to be less than solid, compared to the original version. The character of Charlie, for instance, is supposed to be of flesh and blood and more real. The new version reduces him to a cardboard character. The rape, the sadism, the religious fanaticism, and the folk leadership are meant to be subtle, as in the old version, and not in the face. David's character is realistic as weakly male of today, but Dustin Hoffman's David is much more believable as a man of softness, weakness, and moral superiority. James Marsden's David falls short. We must blame him for not adapting and standing his ground, as opposed to understanding his higher-moral obligations. On the contrary, I find Kate Bosworth's Amy to be much relevant to the story development, as compared to the slutty Susan George's character of the original. James Woods as the Coach is a pathetic old drunk, incomparable to Len Jones's deeply scary Mr. Hedden. Now, the violence. It occurs to me that simple killings of the 1971 version are real horror because the violence truly comes from inside. We all fear that fellow human beings to become that much violent to us. However, the violence of the 2011 version is commonplace, non-shocking, and failing to address the animal instinct of mankind. This is for me the remake's greatest weakness. Violence for Sam Peckinpah is a major character whom you never forget. Violence here in the 2011 version is a blowing wind that leaves no trace and footprint when it is done. Nice try, Mr. Lurie, but you still come much second to the dead dear director.

I really enjoyed the original not because it came out first, but the direction quality was 10 X better! First of all it was Dustin Hoffman, enough said. That it was set in an English country side vs the rural south. The plots for both were essentially the same but there were enough twists in the remake to contrast the two films. Unfortunately those factors all play in the lesser entertainment value of the remake. The characters lacked personification and just didn't stand out well enough. Actually they were all stereotypical, all the way down to the sheriff. Although James Woods certainly is a classic actor, his role seemed underplayed given his acting ability. There were some good parts to the remake, such as the scene prior to and after the football game. I suppose if the remake was the original, then it would be a better movie. If you only saw the remake, do yourself a favor and see classic Sam P. direction.

There are some goofs in the film, but I guess it all adds to the plot and makes it an entertaining movie. Why in the earth would the wife show her top to the men. Who on earth would do that? How come six armed men get bested by a couple trapped inside a house? What the film does best is creating tension that keeps building and gets more intense as the story proceeds. There is tension in every line dialog and the actors do an excellent job of delivering them convincingly. Shouts to James Woods for portraying a character that is an absolute ass. There a holes in the plot, and it is not meant to be realistic, but to deliver a great Hollywood experience and I highly recommend it to anyone who looks for an intense movie to be thrilled and have a good time. I haven't seen the version with Dustin Hoffman, but am very interested after watching this.