Visitors Review

Matt Pais (2012-05-26 07:59)

A battle between liberals and conservatives in which each looks like a fool unable to meet the other halfway, until a gruesome, deadly finale feebly asks, 'Why can't we all get along?'

Gary Thompson (2012-05-25 22:48)

It plays like black comedy and an NC-17 "MacGyver," with the anti-gun writer coming up with novel ways to repel a gang of home invaders.

James Kendrick (2012-05-22 22:51)

essentially turns the film into exactly the kind of primitive masculine revenge tale that the original's detractors mistook it for

moviewizguy (2012-05-22 16:49)

Everyone Has a Breaking Point

STRAW DOGS is a remake of the 1971 thriller of the same name bydirector Peckinpah and is surprisingly similar to the original. It'sabout a couple, David and Amy, who moves to Mississippi in order forDavid to finish his screenplay in a remote, quiet area. When the coupleneeds their run-down barn to be fixed, they hire a group onconstructors, one of who is Amy's ex-boyfriend, Charlie, from way backwhen. From then on, a conflict begins to grow between the couple andthe workers as a series of escalating events start to take place.There's also a heated subplot involving the town's mentally-handicappedJeremy and the retired coach, Tom, in which we don't know theimportance of until later on in the film.As a remake, STRAW DOGS retains the ambiguous nature that made theoriginal so great. For example, look at the film's main villain,Charlie: David calls Charlie and his friends a bunch of "straw dogs,"which he explains to be ceremonial objects that were used in China.During the ceremony, the straw dogs were dressed and looked up upon,but once the ceremony was over, they would be thrown away andforgotten. In essence, what David is trying to say is that Charlie usedto be big and famous several years ago, but now he's just anotherinsignificant person in the town, and we see that in the scene whereCharlie first sees Amy. He still likes her and wants to rekindle theirlove. One can argue that the bad and evil decisions Charlie makes isbecause he knows he's not important anymore, and all he wants is to winAmy back. As you can see, Charlie isn't your typical two dimensionalvillain.The other more obvious issue regarding the film's ambiguous nature isthe character of David. Throughout the film, David is pressured intobeing "a man," like Charlie and his friends. Even his wife tells him tostep up as he failed to take things into his own hands. We can see thathe's a nice person, and he doesn't want to "get in a fray," as he saysin one scene. But the film's main theme can be seen in the tagline:Everyone has a breaking point. Inevitably, we see the change in Davidas the film reaches towards its conclusion. With all that being said,yes, I think the remake handled the ambiguity really well, and it'sobvious the film holds much respect for the original.However, in order for the film to work, the actor playing David'scharacter must be up to the task, and that's where the film falls shorton. I think James Marsden is a good actor in general. However, I washesitant to see if he could play the character as effectively as DustinHoffman did in the original. Marsden played the good, civil side ofDavid really well. Marsden is likable, so it's no surprise that hecould pull that off. However, he wasn't good playing the dark side ofthe character, and that flaw alone really makes the film disappointingas a whole and the explosive, climatic battle a little...off. If theycould have gotten a better actor to play David, then I have no doubtthe film could be as good as the original.Fortunately, the supporting players are much better. Kate Bosworth isvery good in her role as the wife, in which her character goes throughhell. James Woods, who plays the coach, is very effective as beingscary when he's drunk and violent and even worse with the combinationof the two. However, the real star is Alexander Skarsgård, who playsthe intimidating Charlie. He brings depth and complexity into whatcould have been a forgettable villain. Lastly, I'd like to mentionDominic Purcell, who plays the Jeremy, but not because he's good. Infact, I thought he was miscasted playing a mentally-handicapped personbecause his performance felt over-the-top.Overall, STRAW DOGS is a well made film and is more respectful to itsoriginal source compared to other remakes. However, Marsden couldn'tpull off the transformation of David, and, as a result, that reallydoes bring the effectiveness of the film down quite a bit even thoughthe rest of the cast are on top of their game. If you're interested inseeing this film, I'd say to go out and rent the original versionstarring Dustin Hoffman instead.

Frank Wilkins (2012-05-22 08:28)

It's a good movie, but not a better remake.

mikethevike (2012-05-21 21:15)

If you're going to remake a nearly perfect movie, don't botch it!

This remake has no reason to exist. It is shallow and poorly acted andlacks most of the tense emotions and moral questions raised by theoriginal. Hollywood at its worst, cellophane-wrapped, uninspired,made-for-TV quality, cookie cutter remake. Of course, it is padded withclichés, cheap effects and mass-appeal frosting to bring out brain-deadteen movie goers. Why did a great actor like James Wood let himself getsuckered into this disaster? This could have been an so-so B-actionmovie but trying to cash in on the status of Sam Peckinpah's cultclassic is a really cheap move. It also forces me to give it a 1-starrating rather than a 4 to 5 rating it could have earned if it didn'task 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 ofdisturbing questions. A true classic.

Lord_Fecal_Matter (2012-05-19 22:43)

Uhh..

The remake looks like a low budget TV movie, with none of theatmosphere of the original. The actors are badly miscast, and quiteoften perform as if they're just rehearsing. I can understand remakinga film shot for shot, as an interesting film exercise, but not usingthe script word for word. The only thing that makes this filmtolerable, is the use of Sam Peckenpah's original film montages. Thisisn't art, it's a Zerox copy. Worse, it's a poor facsimile. If you copythe Mona Lisa, the original is still priceless, and all you have is areproduction. I'd have more respect for this production if they triedto be different and unpredictable. This looks like amateur hour, whencompared to Peckenpah's version. Enuf said, enuf time wasted on thisrubbish heap.I am interested in Rod Lurie's next experimentation. maybe he'll remakeE.T.

christinengo55 (2012-05-19 15:28)

Remake is always hard

I mean I know this is a hard one to go see, but if you are going forthe entertainment part, it will be a bit tricky because there are someviolence and plot wise in the movie might be offensive to some people.However, that been said, it is also I think this movie is very trickyto make at the first place, with all the original version pressure,casting and Director comparisons and the most importantly the mostnotorious and controversial scene in the movie. I like the movie a lot, but I am not going to compare this one with theoriginal, because I felt they both got a different feeling to it, Rodreally did a fantastic job about letting people understanding thefeeling of being alienated... it's like an adult version of beingbullying by your neighbors without even knowing you. The humanity sideof the movie is that at the end of this movie how the protagonisttotally snapped and freak out, not out of the blue but underextenuating circumstance. Many people been distracting too much away from the notorious scene andforget the real motto and messages the director tried to convey fromthis movie. I think it's also very interesting how many people didn'teven know why the title was named "Straw Dogs"....

Geoffrey Macnab (2012-05-18 16:15)

Lurie makes the same point as Peckinpah, namely that, when survival is threatened, even the most civilised types have a primal capacity for violence. But, 40 years on, the shock factor has gone.

Robin Cook (2012-05-18 06:56)

Nostalgic Classic Remake

Considering how the original Straw Dogs came out in a much differentsocietal climate era to where it was censored and banned from theatersat the time for being "too violent/explicit," this remake could onlyupdate the material content. That was how things were in the 70's andthe hippies were still strong in America. There is no other DustinHoffman or Susan George, that's for sure, but this film did a fair jobin casting. With the way violence and rape content is blasted in ourface today, this remake simply was not able to capture the same essenceand nuances as the original. Even if a now era viewer were to watch theoriginal film, due to be desensitized with so much violence and sexualcontent in media today, I doubt that it would have much of an impact.My vote is a bit influenced from having lived in the time period whenthe original film was done, so my viewing this film I had a feeling ofnostalgia accompanying my senses. Some films like this simply cannotmatch the original due to the nostalgia factor. However, this film isworth at least a one-time viewing since it is rather good, entertainingand well done. Not a blockbuster, but worth watching. With that said, Ido recommend it.

Susan Granger (2012-05-17 14:56)

Intense, ambiguous and exciting, Rod Lurie's remake of Peckinpah's psychological thriller keeps you transfixed with terror.

FlashCallahan (2012-05-17 10:07)

want you to see whats coming....

Pointless remake of the year part 76 consists of nothing new andcharacters you've just gotta hate.Whats the jist? marsden and Bosworth play a couple who go back to her old town, so hecan write something. They are rich and show it.She obviously used to put herself out a bit when she lived there beforebecause her and the bloke from True Blood have longing looks.Soon they are taking advantage of Cyclops by playing music early anddrinking his beer (the rotters!!).And there is also a sub plot involving James Woods being drunk, andtrying to protect er daughter (who is also putting herself out a bit)from the bloke who played another vampire in Blade: Trinity.The tag-line 'everyone has their breaking point' has no real meaning tothis movie. from Marsdens point of view, all they are doing is nickinghis beer and playing loud music.At the end of the film, they are only trying to get in his house,because he is protecting the guy from James woods and the others.The original has tension and a moody, glum feel to it. This hasBosworth just being annoying and unfortunately, come the end f the filmyou think to yourself 'you had it coming woman, and why didn't he justleave her?'.It's worthless stuff, sub-plots are not resolved, and aside from somegood performance from all involved, it just seems so unnecessary.I'm sure Woods must have been method acting, it's the only explanationas to why he'd be in thisAt least the bear trap came into good use..

Richard_vmt (2012-05-16 09:22)

Brings Authenticity to Action

This is an action film of the genre in which city people are confrontedwith the horror of the rural culture. But here great pains are gone toto make the "rednecks" plausible, even in the right. Thus when Davidwalks out of a sermon he has to have it pointed out to him he is beingimpolite. The other pivotal point is when he comes out from his perpetual pajamaparty with her to request the workmen start their job on the roof at anhour to conform with his private life. One conforms the other way whenone's roof is being worked on. If necessary, one moves out while thework is going on. Charlie is quite justified to be contemptuous. (Ofcourse, you also have to ask what kind of a fool would allow thisparticular roofer--with extreme cutaway sleeves and perfectlyupholstered ass--to do the job in the first place?)Disrespect leads to violation. She is raped by Charlie and his buddygoes in for good measure. What took place is a total subversion of thefamily. This is a church going community, but then there is whatactually takes place beneath the surface.The film leaves no question she was in no way complicit in the rape.Yet she did have this question in her mind about how Davids stacks upagainst these men, what David would do it he had to? Well, she findsout and it is a hysterical performance from all angles.Of course when he is defending the (as we already know, guilty) man itis an animation of liberal defense of the accused in general. A most remarkable performance is James Wood as an embodiment of the oldschool of justice and practically everything else hard-headed. Theyounger men are cool. It is the elder who is the most brash, with hisincongruous vacationers hat. He is full of violence. And yet at alltimes he stands for justice and family values--for his family. This film gives you a view of what takes place off scene in the childweddings of the Jerry Springer Show. It does not develop without alife-death struggle.Anyway, this film is head and shoulders above the typical mindlessaction film.

dougbrode (2012-05-15 23:46)

Lurie has replaced Oliver Stone as our most important creator of socially-conscious films

To call Rod Lurie's Straw Dogs a remake of the famed (infamous!) 1971Sam Peckinpah controversial classic of that name is to do the new filma great injustice as well as to under-rate what has been accomplishedhere. Lurie's narrative follows the same basic storyline, originallypresented in the pulp novel The Siege at Trencher's Farm, about anupscale couple besieged in their rural home by rednecks. All similarityends there, particularly as to the anti-feminist bias in Peckinpah'smovie, most of all as the much discussed rape scene is concerned.Without wanting to give too much away, Lurie has actually managed whatmight have seemed the impossible by transforming this into apro-feminist fable, and the manner in which he has done so will be ofinterest to serious cinema buffs, even as the film will playbeautifully to the mass audience that only wants to see an excellentaction film, perfectly mounted. Lurie draws the best possibleperformances out of actors who have been appealing, if nothing more,before this. Here's a film that demands to be seen at the moment yetwill also prove of long-lasting value. For anyone who has not noticedbefore, Lurie has replaced Oliver Stone as our most important creatorof socially-conscious films.

smokehill retrievers (2012-05-12 20:03)

A Real Dog

While there are probably people out there who could pull off a remakeof the classic Straw Dogs, this isn't the group.I tried real hard to like this film since I'm a huge fan of WaltonGoggins, but this should have been left on the shelf.The actress playing the wife did a rather good job, though, in a rolethat 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 somethingworth watching. This is a truly worthwhile script that can be donebetter, perhaps even better than the original. I'd like to see that.

Chris Hewitt (St. Paul) (2012-05-12 12:26)

The new "Straw Dogs" proves that it would be possible to do a worthwhile remake of that 1971 film. Unfortunately, this is not that worthwhile remake.

Jamie Graham (2012-05-09 02:46)

Rod Lurie's remake transposes the action from cloudy Cornwall to sticky Mississippi but keeps the meat of the story intact, along with the violence.

Eugene Novikov (2012-05-08 23:02)

Turns Peckinpah's deeply ironic attack on typical notions of masculinity into a pretty boneheaded tale of cultured city effetes vs. vicious country bumpkins.

Peter Travers (2012-05-08 04:40)

Lurie wants us to see the moral wounds that come from losing control, a solid reason for a remake. Both takes on Straw Dogs hold up a dark mirror to humanity. Choose your own bad medicine.

Peter Sobczynski (2012-05-07 18:00)

If one is going to be crazy or foolhardy enough to go out and remake a well-known film -- especially one that tends to be regard in cinematic circles as some kind of classic or another -- one had better be prepared to bring a fresh take to the material.