Straw Dogs(in Hollywood Movies) Straw Dogs (2011) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Straw Dogs on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: L.A. screenwriter David Sumner relocates with his wife to her hometown in the deep South. There, while tensions build between them, a brewing conflict with locals becomes a threat to them both.
Runtime: 110 mins Release Date: 16 Sep 2011
Intense film, great acting, true to the original (by ManBehindTheMask63)
Sam Peckinpah's original classic is one of my favorite thrillers. So when I heard they were remaking "Straw dogs", I wasn't surprised but somewhat leery of having high expectations. But once I read the casting and saw the trailer, I became excited for the remake. I was not let down. "Straw Dogs" is one of the most intense films I've seen in years."Straw Dogs" 2011 did right, what so many other remakes do wrong. It didn't alter the story drastically or disrespect the original's legacy. The director simply rebooted and modernized the tale for <more>
a new generation. Everything that shocked you and every scene you loved in the original is still in the remake. The change of setting actually benefited the film and gave it a little more realism in terms of violence and social dysfunction.The violence is high and the rape scene is disturbing. But the acting was top notch by everyone involved. James Marsden did a great job playing the weak, timid, and quiet intellectual who eventually turns into the strong, violent, and "manly" protector. His performance was very "Hoffman" essque but he still made the role his own. I think a lot of girls came to the film solely for Alexander Skarsgard true blood fans and they were generally disturbed by his turn as a heel. There were a lot of gasps during a particular bear trap scene. Bosworth, Woods, and Purcell were all perfect in their roles as well."Straw Dogs" is as raw, interesting, and powerful as it's original. A film that deals with aggression, manhood, and human connections pushed to the extremes. There are many subtleties in the performances and some great metaphorical images. A great thriller that literally intensifies until it's satisfying climax. Best film I've seen in months.
* Spoilers - Don't let them in! - Spoilers * (by lynn-ash)
And in the case of David: when they invite you "in," don't go. One of the themes of this film was xenophobia. If you're not like us, you can't be one of us. Symbolic of that is the local treatment of the man who is retarded. "We take care of our own." Well, no, you don't. Charlie didn't "take care" of Amy in the past, and he's not going to do so in the present or the future. The coach couldn't take care of his daughter; she would get out from under his watchful eye.Amy and David's "crime" was to "come in" in the <more>
first place. They didn't "fit in." To show how they didn't belong, the workman walked into their house, went further in by opening their refrigerator and taking what he wanted. Their bedroom was violated; another interior space invaded: the closet. Further violation was the killing and hanging of the cat and placed in that interior space. The irony part was, "you can't leave, either," when David left the church service- he placed himself further out. He rejects their invitation to come into the circle of men in the booth in the bar because they had almost killed him on the road into town, and he didn't trust them. His rejection pushed him further out, but if he had joined them, he still would have been out. The time he did go with them, hunting in the forest, again, he didn't belong there. Charlie and his friend went into David and Amy's home, and into Amy herself. When they both tried to go "back into" society, attending the football game, Amy's flashbacks prevented her from ever being in with them – and by not telling David, she didn't let him in, either. Of course, the home invasion was the last "straw." And David kept them all out in the end.The Peckinpaugh Straw Dogs was very layered and complicated and he used five editors to make it come together. Hoffman's David was a sociopath who only did things to please himself. Marsden's David was an alien in a foreign land, who made mistakes of dress and language as well as behavior. He had a breezy, almost dismissive way about him; he treated the locals: cheerfully and offhand. He covered his anger with a smile and falsely friendliness. They almost had him killed on the road, and he bought them $100 worth of beer, rubbing it subtly in their faces that he could do it, he could afford it. He tried to kill them with kindness. James Marsden, please do not participate in another remake. No one will treat you fairly. People will compare you to an actor who played your part two years before you were born. I think the acting was superb; some were miscast, and one went over the top, but that's his style James Woods . Contrary to many others' opinion, I thought James Marsden was the standout. My favorite scene is when he played the Cajun song on the phonograph and stood cleaning his glasses on his shirt. He wasn't going to let them in, either, and if they did get in, they'd suffer for it.
Straw Dogs: An Entertaining and Frightening Remake (by eytand94)
Sam Peckinpah's 1971 rape-revenge classic "Straw Dogs" was, and still is, pretty damn controversial, due to its pessimism, violence, the performance of Dustin Hoffman, and a shocking rape scene. What in the world makes somebody think they can remake it? Well, someone has done it, and made it work! Rod Lurie's 2011 remake of "Straw Dogs" gets it right.Screenwriter David Sumner played by Dustin Hoffman in the original and his actress wife, Amy, take a break from the big city life and head to Amy's old town of Blackwater. Her presence is welcomed by most, <more>
especially Charlie, her ex-boyfriend. But as soon as David hires Charlie and his crew to fix their roof at the house, things go wrong. Charlie blasts his radio at the crack of dawn, creating a nuisance for David and Amy. Some of the men walk into the house and grab beers without permission. And then Amy catches them sexually eye-balling her. David fires Charlie and his crew, but things only get worse. In order to keep his house and his family safe, David must fight back.2011's "Straw Dogs" is an example of what a remake is supposed to do. Like Cronenberg's "The Fly," Craig Gillespie's "Fright Night," and Matt Reeves' "Let Me In," Rod Lurie's version of Peckinpah's film sticks very closely to the original while still doing some new things with it.The first difference between 1971's "Straw Dogs" and the remake is the setting. Taking it from a British village to a house on the coast of Mississippi, Lurie brings more eeriness to the film than the original did. There are no inbred monsters, like in "Deliverance," but there certainly are creepy locals who we are never quite sure of who they really are inside.Another difference is tone. While Peckinpah's film rubbed your face in its graphic content, Lurie allows the audience to experience a more humanistic and suspenseful approach. He creates a wonderful build-up of tension until things finally take you on the roller-coaster ride you are expecting. There isn't much shown in the rape scene, which makes it all the more effective the remake trades disquieting ambivalence for a restrained and terrifying assault on the senses .Also, the film doesn't celebrate violence, which is the first thing negative reviewers have disliked it for. Like the original, it's a thinking man's thriller. It's not just a "What would you do?" situation. It's more about the things we don't know about each other, the bad side of ourselves that we never show. Amy thinks David is a coward, but he is really pacifistic. He knows there are other ways to solve problems. But when his home is invaded, his anti-violent self is tested, and is forced into violence. Overall, Lurie carries Peckinpah's psychological message throughout the remake.The casting is fantastic! Many will go to see "Straw Dogs" because of "True Blood" heartthrob Alexander Skarsgard's performance as Charlie. With a perfect southern accent, Skarsgard is menacing without going over the top. Like Colin Farrell's performance in the remake of "Fright Night," just a stare can really frighten somebody. James Marsden is not Dustin Hoffman, but he is able to step into some pretty big shoes and surprise people, especially after such comedic films as "Enchanted" and "27 Dresses." I believe in his performance. Kate Bosworth is also great as Amy. More of a victimized survivalist than a whiny damsel in distress Susan George's characterization in the original was good, but far from greatness , Bosworth understands Amy and hits all the right buttons. Another awesome performance is given by James Woods as the football coach with a seriously bad attitude, drunk or sober.Lurie provides some very good symbolism in his version of the movie, as well. Using the town's fascination with football as a metaphor for damage to a human being physically and emotionally adds unsettling detail to some scenes. And the decision to change David from a troubled mathematician to a screenwriter writing a film about Stalingrad a metaphor for the film's psychological warfare is a risk worth taking.Overall, as much as I loved the remake of Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left," I think those expecting a horror movie with intense gore and nude blonds will be disappointed by "Straw Dogs." Those who want an entertaining, full-throttle psychological thriller with good suspense, the right amount of violence, and nifty performances from the cast will find it to be an exceptional remake that stands out among other failures ahem, Gus Van Sant's duplicate of "Psycho" . I really enjoyed it!
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 <more>
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 caught a screening of STRAW DOGS last week. Rod Lurie directed a tight film that kicks major ass."Firstly, Lurie has assembled a dynamite cast: James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard, James Woods and even Walton Goggins who is absolute nitro-glycerin in FX's Justified has a small role. The fact that Lurie was able to attract this cast speaks volumes for his reputation. Is this an award-worthy film? No. Is it a good time at the movies? Hell yes! "A Hollywood screenwriter Marsden and his wife Bosworth are moving into a home in his wife's small rural hometown <more>
so he can write his new script, Stalingrad, in peace and tranquility. She had a small role in a TV show he once wrote but we get the impression she's washed up now she's one of the many Straw Dogs in the film, a.k.a people who peaked to early but are now hollow and easily knocked-around and broken . "Marsden is fantastic in the film. In fact, he's never been better. He exhudes kindness and decency. He plays the soft city boy with a heart. "The happy couple settle into their countryside mansion in the middle of a very isolated forest. In town, they run into Bosworth's old flame Skarsgard . Skarsgard is everything that Marsden is not -- tall, rugged, manly and dangerous. The quintessential bad boy that all girls are attracted to in their teens but eventually grow out of... or do they? "There are two themes running through the film. The first and I'm not too sure I agree with this is that a man can only be a man if he resorts to violence in order to defend his wife. Lurie also straddles a dangerous line in the film by presenting us with a wife who is a provoker. "Marsden kindly hires Bosworth's ex-boyfriend to fix the roof of the barn... and then Bosworth proceeds to jog around the forest in skimpy clothing no bra, barefoot . She then complains to her husband that her former flame and his crew of roofers are eye-raping her. Marsden ever so kindly and he could've been an ass but wasn't suggests that maybe she should consider wearing a bra next time. Bosworth is obfuscated by this suggestion. So what does she do? Goes upstairs, opens the bedroom window and proceeds to strip in front of Skarsgard and his crew. It's an ambivalent, tough scene that says a lot about feminism, power struggles in couples and highlights that actresses in real life and on film are a loopy bunch. Bosworth shines in this film. Playing both beautiful, sexy and aloof. A tough combo but she pulls it off admirably. "Therein lies the second theme of the film: Do women want the stable, dependable good-guy or do they have deep subconscious yearnings for a bad boy? "So far the film is great. Fun set-up and it's fun to see Marsden create his writing workspace - - chalkboard with scenes and notes in a lovely dream office, etc. Marsden is once again great in the film, despite his thankless role -- the pussy-fied husband who must grow a brass- coated set of testicles by the end of the film so his Southern Wife can finally respect him... and he eventually does, in a realistic, believable fashion to boot. I won't go into spoiler territory. There are a few nifty surprises and great performances all around. "The siege-like ending is gangbusters. Violent and very un-Lurie-like. Marsden rises to the occasion and all the plot strands come together. Woods is great as a drunken high-school football coach who doesn't want his teenage daughter flirting with the local developmentally delayed man Dominic Purcell . This is a remake of the Pekinpah classic that is famous for it's ambivalent rape scene. Therefore, I'm not spoiling anything by saying that -- "Yes, there is a fairly graphic rape. Yes, Bosworth is ambivalent in the scene. Does she fight off her rapist as hard as she could during the rape? Nope. Does she kinda like it? Sure seemed like that to me which will surely infuriate the feminists out there . There's also an incredibly satisfying final kill that involves a bear- trap."Straw Dogs is a good, solid movie with great, crowd-cheering moments."
The B Team hits one out of the park (by Mfbarry-90-773507)
The original 1971 "Straw Dogs" is one of my favorite films of all time. Rod Lurie's update of "Straw Dogs" is a major improvement in several ways.The most obvious being Kate Bosworth's character, Amy. No longer is Amy a one dimensional "evil, back stabbing temptress." Amy can still be a petulant child, but she is no longer driven by spite. This is an important distinction and prevents her character from becoming "one of them," betraying David, earning the audiences anger and losing their understanding. Amy still "relaxes" about mid way <more>
thru the rape, not because she is excited but because she is disgusted with Charlie and with herself. Let me be clear: she doesn't blame herself for the rape! she's disgusted that she could ever have desired Charlie in the first place. Charlie realizes he has completely deluded himself and lost Amy in the worst way imaginable. Amy no longer sees Charlie as a human being never mind her old high school flame. It is with this realization that Charlie DOES stop being human and turn his back on Amy....high school..homecoming king..all his past accomplishments and also his future. Amy's cries for help fall on deaf ears. Kate Bosworth exhibits a depth here I didn't know she had. Her character of Amy, though flawed and STILL not as well developed as David and Charlie, is quite an accomplishment. You have no doubt where her emotions lie during some pretty raw, complex scenes. Alexander Skarsgard is equally if not more impressive. His performance of Charlie is nothing short of revelatory. Charlie is an "uber-villian," not only did he rape David's wife, he set up David to be killed! AND IT WAS PRE-PLANNED! This is a bad guy! Yet Skarsgard is able to bring layers to the character that make you feel sorry for Charlie no pun intended! His constant struggle to get out from underneath the shadow that has haunted him since high school. The shadow that James Woods' "Coach" represents. The shadow that Amy and David have evaded. The shadow that engulfs him, the shadow that makes him HATE them Amy & David . In the middle of these two is, of course, our hero anti-hero? David Sumner. The center piece, the force around which the others gravitate. Without a strong performance here the movie falls apart. James Marsden has always been capable in the X-Men movies, but whereas in the comics Cyclops is THE leader, in the movies, Marsden just kind of fades into the background, giving up the lead to Wolverine. His performance here makes me want to believe its more than just a one-off. From slapping the hundred dollar bill on the bar he has no idea he's insulting them to shooting the deer in the forest tragic? to the end scene "I got them all" is that a smile on his face? this is an Oscar worthy performance. A multi-layered performance to his character that just wasn't there in the original. Which brings us to Rod Lurie. First thing I realized when I started watching his 2011 version of "Straw Dogs," is Mr. Lurie knows the original AND is a huge fan. This is not a remake, nor an homage so much as a realization of the potential of the original material. Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" has always been a flawed masterpiece by those who love it, myself included. Dustin Hoffman is at his peak, Susan George gives the performance of her career. David Warner God himself would never be better. The build up to the climax is unbearable. But there are problems. Amy's former "friends" are interchangeable. The two leads themselves are hard to emphasize with. Amy isn't just childish, she's vain, opportunistic and she stabs David in the back to save her own skin we won't go into the "rape is enjoyable" misogynist fantasy here. Davis IS a coward, he ran from the states not because he was avoiding the war but because he wants to avoid the CONFLICT over the war. Not exactly admirable. Throughout the movie David and Amy's "snipes" at each other are made out of spite and escalate accordingly. Unlikeable characters. And they are the two leads! I can't tell you the names of Charlie's friends in the original but I can tell you they're names after one viewing of the remake. This is where Rod Lurie shines. He has filled the movie out in ways few people would realize. For instance, no longer is David a mathematician, above Amy's head, now he's a writer, she's an actor. They are on equal ground. this is a significant change in establishing their relationship. In Lurie's version, David is no longer the failed father figure to Amy's ingénue. David even worked as the writer on Amy's TV show in the new version! Amy and David have a confidence both in themselves and as a couple not on display in the original. Something Charlie clearly lacks. He's still there. Lost in the past. And here again Mr. Lurie is able to fill this in by putting the story in the gulf coast. Not only have the local "boys" lost their youth and their football dreams, they have lost their self respect and their future....there is no work! Mr. Lurie drives this home by having David !?! talk of the economy and, of course, when he has Miss Bosworth say "They don't need sympathy, they need jobs." Some other nice touches on Mr. Lurie's part that add exceptional resonance to the characters: having James Woods Character, Coach drive most of the reprehensible action. He's still "coaching" the "boys!" How humiliating! A point driven home even further when he has Norman say "You're the quarterback" at the exact moment Charlie realizes he is nothing but a follower and always will be. Strong Stuff. This isn't a remake, a re-imagining or a reboot. It is, as Peckinpah would say, Just damn good film making."
After reading the reviews of this film and seeing the original, I wasn't really looking forward to watching this movie but glad I didI 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 <more>
"Get your Daddy's gun, and shoot anyone that's not me". (by classicsoncall)
As a warm up for this picture, I watched the Peckinpah version just last week, having seen it during it's initial release back in 1971 and one other time a couple of years ago. I'm generally predisposed to original films and not their sequels, so my antenna was up for this picture figuring that I would likely be disappointed on one hand, while realizing that films made today make the most of a grittier and more intense style when it comes to themes of violence and revenge. I'm going to go out on a limb and take the minority view here so far , as I found the picture to be a worthy <more>
remake and a compelling story in it's own right.I think if you've seen the original, the comparisons will be inevitable, and virtually impossible to ignore given a screenplay that utilizes much of the very same dialog. Moving the story from the English countryside to the deep South was an interesting decision, setting up an expectation of redneck hostility against the refined sensibilities of the Sumners James Marsden and Kate Bosworth . Reprising the Dustin Hoffman role as David Sumner, I think Marsden did a fairly credible job, knowing that he'd be compared to an actor who's established himself as one of the modern day legends.Regarding Rod Lurie's reworking of the screenplay, I think there were a couple of points to consider that distinguish the story versus Peckinpah. The first has to do with the hunting trip. When Hoffman's character killed a fowl in the earlier picture, he conveyed a sense of disgust at the idea of killing a defenseless bird, further adding to the image of his character with no backbone. When Marsden brings down the deer, I had a somewhat different impression. It looked to me that this was a moment when his character realized that he was capable of killing, an inkling that the mayhem soon to follow would not be an entirely foreign concept.Another more compelling treatment of the rewrite had to do with Amy Sumner. Peckinpah created a distinct ambiguity in the rape scene with his original screenplay. Susan George was torn between revulsion and horror against her assailants, and a questionable identification with her one time boyfriend Charlie. One could almost say that she went along with Charlie in a convoluted payback for her husband's weakness as a man. I didn't get the same sense with the way Bosworth handled the scene. She was entirely repulsed and humiliated, violated in a way that left her totally defeated and helpless. It gave more credibility to the way she would seek her revenge when Charlie Alexander Skarsgard and Norman Rhys Coiro square off against each other during the home invasion.Let's face it though, the real reason to see this picture if you know anything about the 1971 version, is the finale when David Sumner decides to cut loose and defend his wife and property. For some reason I found it surprising that the rowdy hillbillies, led by Coach Heddon James Woods , would be dispatched in the exact same manner in the very same chronology as executed by Hoffman's character. I have to say, the nail gun on Chris was an effective improvement over a length of wire. Scalding the coach and having him shoot himself in the foot seemed a lot more painful this time around when it was James Woods on the receiving end. This time though, the old bear trap maneuver was distinctively more graphic and satisfying, not to mention bloody. Poor Charlie.
An Interpretation for Today's Audience (by westsideschl)
This movie and it's '70s counterpart would be excellent sources for discussion in any humanities or contemporary history course. This is not a remake but a reinterpretation, an update if you will, to fit 21st century America. What changes: How women are treated and how they react to that treatment from the earlier version of submission to the contemporary version of independence. What doesn't change: Idolatry persists whether it's on the field or in the pews; hatred persists whether it's race, or mental/physical disabilities. The symbolism of hunting, whether it's deer <more>
or women, to prove manhood and superiority is iconic. An implied, and controversial, characterization of regional institutionalized intolerance as a function of mistrust of educational attainment and religious zealotry is present in both versions. What are straw dogs? They are the scapegoats, the easily discarded, the outsiders on which to place blame and thus, perhaps, release inner guilt. Guilt creates tension and the characters, both the locals and the newly arrived couple, hide but cannot escape those tensions. Kudos to the director, cast and crew for building that tension for the audience. The actors portraying the southern antagonists did an admirable job of setting up Marsden's character and Marsden did such an effective job of portraying a wussy wimp e.g. clumsily bumping and tripping over the most trivial obstacles; sucking up to gain stature that my normally humanistic compassionate self was looking for to his demise.