Straw Dogs

Audience Reviews

View More (1000+)

Dave S On the long list of totally pointless remakes, Straw Dogs has got to be close to the top of the list. Sam Peckinpah's original, a dark journey into the heart of human nature, was filled with brooding intensity and suffocating atmosphere thanks to its perfectly constructed story, well-developed characters, a memorable score, and the harrowing final thirty minutes. Rod Lurie's useless remake misses the mark on most of its predecessor's attributes, other than the story itself. James Marsden pales in comparison to Dustin Hoffman as the nebbish protagonist. Kate Bosworth lacks Susan George's raw sexuality. The antagonists, led by a laughable James Woods, come across as country bumpkins as opposed to the ominous villagers in the original. Little of what made the original so disturbing works in the remake. If you're going to subject yourself to the horrors of Straw Dogs, stick to the original. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 10/25/25 Full Review Blu B Ummm...This one is a bit complicated. First off the cinematography is half decent here. Some good framing and the setting of the South is interesting and memorable. But the direction while not terrible doesn't hold a candle to Sam Peckinpah's. The kills are kind of decent and the iconic scenes of the original are done fairly competant. But nothing is really added upon and it was just done so much better, more memorably, and more disturbing in the first. The ending especially which felt like a fever dream is more of an action horror movie type of style than anything truly unique. Granted the stlye and tone of the ending of the 71' version is almost impossible to recapture or do better. The visuals are the highlight here for what it's worth. Everything else ok. Nothing broken, nothing blatantly bad like Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor or anything. But this has a couple big problems. First Marsden is probably the wekest of the acting cast. He looks too pretty boy like to be belivable as a awkward pacifist bookworm. And he probably was the least likeable character of the whole thing. Which is crazy given there really isn't any changes to David's character. Save for they made him more of someone who looks down on people vs. wants to say "bro I'm just chillin. Leave me out of this" It's just the acting and direction makes THAT big a difference. Honestly I actually ended up liking the bad guys here more than anything. They never really came across as trolls, menaces, or anything for the most part until the end. That's such an odd "failure". Second, this doesn't expand upon anything the original did. It doesn't add additional backstory or expansion of existing or new characters, it doesn't have any new commentary, or fix any problems the original had. Which is a bit of a trick statement because the original besides being very dark and disturbing is pretty flawless. So as much as I struggle to find something wrong with this, I struggle to understand what the point of remaking this was. It follows 90% of the same beats of the original and the changes that are made. Like the setting, some of the kills, and making David a writer really doesn't add anything. Finally, what made the original more than just an exploitation flick is the commentary of taking a stand, isolationism and the effect it has on others whether you know it or not gets lost in this. It feels like the subtle moments have been removed and what's left is only face value stuff. t's just not as sophisticated with handling the underlying message/characters study elements as the original was. This is much more face value stuff. As violent as the original is, it's one of the most sophisticated character studiy films I've ever seen. Granted the character arc and same message are still there but it's not as "Subtly Refined" as the original. a BIG reason why that one is amazing. If I saw this first over the 71' version I'd think it's probably a half decent action/psychological thriller. Maybe even good honestly. But the whole reason this exists is because of the 71' one. It's not even like a Rob Zombie Halloween but more like a 98' Psycho. Skip This. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 04/16/25 Full Review Terry T So predictable! James Woods sure fits the role of a drunk, mindless, redneck coach with one brain cell & a loud mouth. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 12/09/24 Full Review Jeremy A There were some loose ends that are aggravating. The rest was ok. 3* Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 11/15/24 Full Review Oaklee D Didn't find this film remotely interesting, turned it off over half way through. I tried I really did but it just did nothing for me and James Marsden will forever be that stupid prince off of Enchanted to me no matter how many serious roles he does. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 10/16/24 Full Review Alec B An American set remake of the original could work but this ain't it. The provocative ambiguity is gone and, even more perplexing, this one seems to yearn for the violent finale as righteous retribution rather than the desperate bad vibes found in the same ending of Pekinpah's original. Also you're going to remake "Straw Dogs" 40 years later and pull your punches? Unacceptable. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 02/28/24 Full Review Read all reviews

Straw Dogs

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now