movie review straw dogs

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

Sam Peckinpah's " The Wild Bunch ," one of the great movies of the decade, saw violence as essentially unselective. That was unusual in a Western, where violence has always been highly selective; with all those bullets flying around, you might get a good guy wounded once in a while, but somehow, mostly bad guys got killed.

The Western reflected our national view of violence, of foreign policy, of a lot of things. But Peckinpah seemed to be recasting it in a new mold, throwing out the moral extremes and stranding everyone in a gray, blood-soaked middle ground. In the shoot-out at the end of "The Wild Bunch," everyone caught it: men, women, children, dogs, chickens, regardless of guilt or innocence.

"The Wild Bunch" was attacked because of its nihilism, but I didn't see it that way. It seemed to me that Peckinpah was simply clearing away the moralistic oatmeal so we could see what was beneath the Western -- and beneath our regard for it.

For a long time, the old Hollywood production code required that justice be rewarded and evil punished (a requirement that inspired not a few bizarre endings for gangster movies). But even after the production code was junked, the Western still subscribed to it. We wanted it to.

Peckinpah was asking us not to kid ourselves, I thought. But now he comes along with "Straw Dogs," a major disappointment in which Peckinpah's theories about violence seem to have regressed to a sort of 19th-Century mixture of Kipling and machismo.

You have to understand, first of all, that the movie ends with maybe 20 minutes of unrestrained bloodletting, during which people are scalded with boiling whisky, have their feet blown off by shotguns, are clubbed to death and (in one case) nearly decapitated by a bear trap. The violence is the movie's reason for existing; it is the element that is being sold, and in today's movie market, It should sell well. But does Peckinpah pay his dues before the last 20 minutes? Does he keep us feeling we can trust him? I don't think so.

The movie is set in a British village apparently populated only by the movie's cast. This is a little unsettling, but we soon find that we don't need extras because the movie is going to be in close-up, and the close-ups are going to be of grotesque, melodramatic parodies, larger than life and smaller than cliche.

The movie's first shot is of children torturing a dog; the first shot of "The Wild Bunch" was of children torturing a scorpion. This has gotten to be Peckinpah's trademark, sort of his Leo the Lion, advertising his baleful opinion of the human prospect. A young American mathematician ( Dustin Hoffman ) comes to the village with his wife ( Susan George ), an English girl whose father owns a home there. They plan to make repairs and settle down while he gets on with his work. His work involves theory on the interiors of stars, but never mind; for Peckinpah's purposes he is an Intellectual.

That means of course that he lacks physical courage, can't mix freely with the local roughhouses, and manages by his every thought and deed to alienate all Good Old Boys everywhere. During one brief scene in the local pub, he manages to do no less than three terrible things: He orders "any kind of American cigarettes," he walks between a dart-player and his board and he buys a drink for the house but does not stay to have it. Such a boor deserves his comeuppance, and this being a Peckinpah universe, we somehow know it will involve rape and murder.

A gang of local handymen and layabouts come to fix the young couple's garage, and we learn that one of the men once went with the girl. He resents the American terribly, of course, and begins to taunt him in various ways. Their cat is hanged in the closet and things like that.

Meanwhile, Peckinpah is setting us up for the conclusion with a series of scenes that outdo anything Western Union has yet achieved with the telegraph. We meet the village idiot, a towering, blank-eyed chap who "made a mistake" once with a girl. We meet the town tart, who is a tight-sweatered tease. We learn that her father is the crudest man in the local pub. As sure as when Garbo coughs we know she's got TB, we know the idiot is going to go after the girl, and the brute is going to go after the idiot.

Through a series of melodramatic coincidences, the idiot winds up in the mathematician's barricaded house, while the lout and four or five drunken friends try to break in. They already have shot the magistrate dead, and now they demand the life of the idiot. Hoffman, taking a Moral Stand for once in his life, decides his home is his castle, etc. He figures out all the tricks like the boiling whisky.

The problem with this whole scene is that we have to believe the behavior of the men outside. They are drunk, and they are capable of total physical savagery without any thought of their own danger, it would appear. Getting into that house is worth their lives to them.

Well, the hard thing to believe is that anyone could get drunk enough to get into that state of frenzy and still be sober enough to do anything about it. One or two guys, maybe, but half a dozen? As they hurl themselves against Hoffman's barricades, we realize that everything is a setup to allow more variety in the violence.

And then the movie ends with the worst piece of pseudo-serious understatement since Peyton Place left the air. After Hoffman has killed them all, he drives the idiot back to the village.

"I don't know where I live," the idiot says.

"That's all right," says Hoffman, "neither do I."

What conclusions are we supposed to draw? That Hoffman achieved defeat in victory? That Peckinpah believes in the concept of a Just War? That drink drives men to the grave?

The most offensive thing about the movie is its hypocrisy; it is totally committed to the pornography of violence, but lays on the moral outrage with a shovel. The perfect criticism of "Straw Dogs" already has been made. It is "The Wild Bunch."

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Stress Positions

Peter sobczynski.

Disappear Completely

Brian tallerico.

Asphalt City

Glenn kenny.

Simon Abrams

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver

Film credits.

Straw Dogs (1971)

118 minutes

Colin Welland as The Rev. Mr. Hood

Dustin Hoffman as David

Susan George as Ann

Peter Vaughn as Tom Hedden

T. P. McKenna as Maj. Scott

David Warner as Niles

Del Henney as Venner

Directed by

• Sam Peckinpah

Produced by

• Danley Melnick

Screenplay by

Photographed by.

• John Coquillon
• Jerry Fielding

From a screenplay by

• David Zelag Goodman

Latest blog posts

New 2025 Oscar Rules Specify New Composer Eligibility, Inclusion Requirements, No More Drive-In Eligibility

Luca Guadagnino Is Love

Sonic the Hedgehog Franchise Moves to Streaming with Entertaining Knuckles

San Francisco Silent Film Festival Highlights Unearthed Treasures of Film History

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Straw Dogs – review

F orty years ago my main regular writing spot was a weekly page of general commentary on the arts for the New Statesman , and due to the current discussion provoked by Julian Barnes's The Sense of an Ending and the appearance of Rod Lurie's 40th anniversary remake of Straw Dogs , two of the items in the column of 2 December 1971 have a certain topical interest. One is about the third winner of the Booker prize, of which I observed: "VS Naipaul's In a Free State is a splendid book but is it, as the Booker conditions demand, a full-length novel?"

The other is about a film that had opened the previous week: "I was at the press show for Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs , and rarely have I experienced such a palpable sense of shock and disgust sweep through an audience. Peckinpah is an artist I admire immensely and I wouldn't want to ban his film, but outside the conventional allegorical framework of the western his personal obsessions have exploded like grotesque forces released from some Pandora's box."

This view was widely shared, though after further viewings I saw the film in a more positive light. The movie became the centre of an Anglo-American storm over censorship alongside Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange , which like Straw Dogs was based on a British novel and set here. Also concerned in the furore were The Devils and two films attacked for allegedly glorifying fascistic vigilante heroes, The French Connection and Dirty Harry .

The late 60s/early 70s, with the war raging in Vietnam and Nixon attempting to bestride a divided America, was a time of great violence and repression. The cinema became part of this experience, reflecting, refracting and sometimes confusing it, but rarely, except in the case of John Wayne's simplistically patriotic The Green Berets , directly confronting it. Both Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange ran the censors' gauntlet, losing a few feet of celluloid along the way. The events of that time, which included the resignation of the BBFC's secretary, Stephen Murphy, are well covered by Stevie Simkin's thoroughly researched Straw Dogs in a new series of books on controversial films (Palgrave Macmillan).

Rod Lurie, a highly competent film-maker whose best picture to date is the political drama The Contender starring Jeff Bridges as a liberal US president, has not gone back to Gordon Williams's novel The Siege of Trencher's Farm . Instead, he has transposed the screenplay of Straw Dogs (credited to Peckinpah and David Zelag Goodman) from Cornwall to the deep south. Academic mathematician David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman), escaping from a troubled America to the remote home of his young English wife, Amy (Susan George), has become a Hollywood screenwriter (James Marsden) coming to work on a movie about the siege of Stalingrad at the former Mississippi home of his wife (Kate Bosworth) and to repair the family home damaged by hurricane Katrina.

An almost identical narrative follows in which xenophobic locals act with escalating aggression towards the quiet, retiring city boy, then, following a double rape, are provoked into staging an assault on David's farm, ending in a bloodbath and David's emergence as a vengeful, macho protector of home and hearth.

Peckinpah was much influenced by the idea of the playwright-anthropologist Robert Ardrey's book The Territorial Imperative , and noting a similar influence on the works of Harold Pinter (most especially on The Homecoming , which has a similar plot to Straw Dogs ) invited Pinter to work on the film. The offer was contemptuously refused.

There are some key differences of emphasis, and Lurie to his credit doesn't attempt to up the ante on sex and violence as a means of recreating the sensational response to the 1971 version. Moreover he uses rapid editing in the climactic action sequence, rather than resorting to the slow motion that became established as Peckinpah's stylistic trademark. The surly, aggressive, Hardyesque yokels in the English setting are something of a mystery, the projection of urban fears. In Lurie's film they belong to a tradition, now a Hollywood standby, of dangerous, gun-toting, backwoods rednecks, which includes Deliverance , a film Peckinpah was preparing to direct when he was diverted towards Straw Dogs .

A significant change is brought about by the casting of James Woods as the drunken, incestuous football coach who leads the attack on the farm. A specialist in psychopathic racists, Woods virtually reprises the role of Klansman Byron De La Beckwith, the killer of civil rights leader Medgar Evers who escaped conviction for more than 30 years, whom he played in Ghosts of Mississippi .

Woods is wholly repellent. But otherwise, Lurie makes his small-town rabble into a sad collection of resentful losers, lusting after the local beauty who went off to Hollywood and became a minor star. They'd had their one moment in the sun as high-school football stars before settling for a lifetime of boozing, hunting and blue-collar jobs. Never explained in the original film, the title Straw Dogs comes from a gnomic utterance by the philosopher Lao Tzu that had taken Peckinpah's fancy: "Heaven and earth are ruthless and treat the myriads of creatures as straw dogs; the sage is ruthless and treats the people as straw dogs. Is not the space between heaven and Earth like a bellows?" Martin Baum, Peckinpah's studio boss, liked the title but had no idea what it meant. Lurie, however, has David quote these lines to Amy, applying them sympathetically to their tormentors. Ultimately Lurie's film isn't in the same class as Peckinpah's flawed classic, but it's a respectable, respectful and rather good film.

• Drama films
• The Observer
• Alexander Skarsgård

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

• DVD & Streaming
• Action/Adventure , Drama , Horror

Content Caution

In Theaters

• September 16, 2011
• James Marsden as David Sumner; Kate Bosworth as Amy Sumner; Alexander Skarsgård as Charlie; James Woods as Tom Heddon; Dominic Purcell as Jeremy Niles

Home Release Date

• December 20, 2011

Distributor

• Sony Pictures

Movie Review

In Blackwater, Miss., Charlie and Amy must’ve been something like royalty.

Charlie was the high school quarterback. Amy was captain of the cheerleading squad. Inevitably they became a couple, and all these years later, a picture of them together still graces the wall of the town watering hole.

But things change, and even high school royalty must step down and pass on the crown. Amy headed west and became a television star, meeting and marrying David—a handsome-but-nebbish screenwriter—along the way. And Charlie … well, Charlie’s still in Blackwater, working construction. His roots run deep here, and in this small town’s aristocracy he’s still got some power, some pull. But he’s not the king anymore. He’s a working man, surrounded by old friends and hangers-on, laboring a few hours a day before cutting out to hunt or drink or both.

And then Amy comes back—hubby in tow with his classic Jaguar and laceless shoes. Her dad passed away recently, leaving her and David his beautiful farmhouse and barn and acres of history. Sure, they’re city folk now, more at home in Los Angeles than in the backwoods of the South. But David’s got a screenplay to finish, and the isolated farmhouse seems like the perfect place to do it. Nothing but peace and solitude for miles around.

Charlie’s not interested in peace, though. Amy’s back, and he’s starting to feel possessive again. And why shouldn’t he? Her husband’s a joke—a overeducated wimp who doesn’t know the first thing about cleaning a deer or firing a gun or pleasing a woman like her.

So begins the war—slow and cold at first, covered with decorum and salted with innuendo. But long before David can finish his screenplay, it goes hot: burning, boiling, blazing hot, with the Mississippi dirt lapping up its combatants’ warm blood.

Positive Elements

David may, frankly, come across as a little condescending at times. But he actually is trying to make friends and fit in. He gives Charlie and his crew a contract to fix his barn roof, even though he knows that Charlie’s maybe not all the way over Amy. He buys rounds of beer at the bar. He wants to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Amy reads Charlie’s generous nature as cowardice—and perhaps she’s right. When Blackwater’s respected old high school coach Tom flies into a rage and starts pummeling a handicapped man named Jeremy for daring to talk to his daughter, it’s Amy who steps between Tom and Jeremy, not David. And when David scolds her for do so, she’s furious: “Somebody had to do something.”

“I’m not going into the f‑‑‑ing fray!” he shouts. “It’s against my principles!”

But maybe Amy’s got David figured all wrong. Because David, whatever else he is, is a man of principles. Much later, Jeremy finds refuge in David and Amy’s farmhouse as Tom, Charlie and their friends demand that he be given over to them. While Amy considers it, David refuses. He will not allow Jeremy to be killed (which he most assuredly would be), even though by going against this mob he’s putting himself and his wife in danger. When he finally fights, then, it’s for the life of someone else. And that’s pretty admirable.

Spiritual Elements

Straw Dogs can feel, at times, like the violent country fantasy of a city-bound screenwriter with a penchant for stereotype. And if one forces the film into the realm of metaphor, religion doesn’t come across too well.

David and Amy attend a “pray and play” rally for the local football team, where the minister prays for the safety of soldiers who protect us from “those who would challenge You, O Lord.” He also reminds the faithful that God will “unleash His wrath” on unbelievers—before blessing the local football team. “God stands with you when you stand with Him,” he says, suggesting that a holy team is a winning team. The pastor then starts teaching from the Book of Revelation.

David walks out of the service and naps in his car where Charlie confronts him. “Don’t you believe in God?” he asks. “No,” David says. “He sounds like a bully to me.” It’s a line that links Charlie’s later actions with what would appear to be the screenwriter’s concept of God. When Charlie says, “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” David responds, “The most dangerous words in history.”

David tells Charlie that he does believe in one biblical passage: the part about not coveting a neighbor’s wife.

Sexual Content

Amy’s garb throughout the film is tight and revealing—and much appreciated by Charlie and his leering pals. When Amy insinuates that David should do something about their unwanted attentions, he suggests that she wear a bra.

“I dress for you, David,” she says. “Not for them.” David tells her that he already knows what she looks like naked. In retaliation for this comment, Amy goes upstairs, opens a window and disrobes in front of Charlie and his crew.

Of course Charlie takes this as a sign that Amy’s still interested in him. And he quickly arranges for David to be out of the way for while—while he rapes Amy. The scene is filmed with erotic overtones as if seen through Charlie’s eyes. And it includes the removal of clothing, partial nudity, and explicit sexual motions and facial expressions. For Amy the scene is one of horrific violation and betrayal. And it’s immediately followed by one of Charlie’s friends pulling Charlie off Amy and raping her again—violently. (The camera zeroes in on Amy’s screaming, weeping face.)

Amy doesn’t tell David about the rapes. And the two of them go to a football game together, where every collision on the field brings to mind the rape as we see undefined flesh and contact flash across the screen.

David and Amy engage in foreplay involving chess pieces, which he runs up her leg and uses for (it’s implied) sexual purposes. They also make out in their car, with Amy reaching for David’s crotch.

Tom’s daughter, who is 15, flirts with Jeremy and during a game leads him away from the crowd. In a dressing room she kisses him and kneels down as if preparing to give him oral sex. Charlie and his friends talk about sex and joke about who’d they’d rather have sex with, Hank Williams or Johnny Cash.

Violent Content

The original Straw Dogs , made in 1971 and starring Dustin Hoffman, was renowned for its violence, and this remake does what it can to not only pay homage to its bloody forebear but supersede it.

The rape is both violent and violating. Amy is physically and psychologically shredded by it. And then it’s on to the life-or-death siege of the farmhouse that serves as the film’s gore-covered centerpiece.

A quick rundown of that siege: Hands are nailed to a wall with a nail gun. A foot is nearly blown off by a bullet. A throat is sliced with jagged glass. A head is snapped in a bear trap. A body is pummeled to death with a crowbar. Shotgun blasts send several folks into eternity. A would-be invader is scalded by burning oil. Two other people are beaten severely and thrown up against the house’s rock walls.

Elsewhere, a man gets hit by a car. He sits in the middle of the road, a bone sticking out of his blood-covered forearm. A woman is smothered to death, kicking weakly against the strong grip. A man has his hand driven into a beer glass, severely cutting his palm. David, driving his Jaguar, nearly smashes into a logging truck after being waved around by Charlie and his friends. He spins out but survives.

David barely dodges a bullet during a hunting expedition. Two deer are shot, and a man nearly saws the antlers off of one of the beasts while it’s still alive. David and Amy’s housecat is found dead, hanging in their closet.

Crude or Profane Language

Nearly 100 f-words are used, along with another 30 s-words. Crass characters say “a‑‑,” “b‑‑ch,” “h���‑‑” and “p‑‑‑y.” God’s name is misused at least 25 times, most often alongside “d‑‑n.” Jesus’ name is abused another half-dozen times.

Drug and Alcohol Content

Charlie, Tom and their friends seem in a state of perpetual inebriation (partial or full). Someone jokingly whispers that Tom—who always seems drunk and angry—is going over his 12-drink limit at the bar. Someone ransacks David’s fridge for beer, taking an armful of cans back to his mates. During the night of the siege, the members of the mob look as if they’ve all been drinking heavily. David guzzles beer to prove his manhood.

We see folks smoke cigarettes. David plays with a pipe left in the farmhouse.

The original Straw Dogs was one of the most violent, most controversial films of its era, with some critics calling it a potentially fascist celebration of vigilantism and a disturbing amalgamation of sex and violence.

The 2011 remake wasn’t even the most violent movie I reviewed this week.

That statement reflects more on our times than this film, I believe. Because so much blood is shed here that characters literally slip in the stuff. Corpses pile up like logs. And a brutal rape is given explicit screen time.

Sam Peckinpah, the director of the original, later defended his work, telling his critics that Hoffman’s David Sumner was the real villain in the film, and that the retribution he wreaks at the end reveals his true, homicidal self. I have not seen that film, but perhaps because of its deep and sometimes conflicting layers, Straw Dogs is now considered a classic within the Hollywood system.

The remake has little of that kind of complexity with which to commend itself to the entertainment intelligentsia. This Straw Dogs is a strictly low-brow affair—a story in which alcohol, conflicting values and lust lead to a long and pointless cataclysm.

Paul Asay has been part of the Plugged In staff since 2007, watching and reviewing roughly 15 quintillion movies and television shows. He’s written for a number of other publications, too, including Time, The Washington Post and Christianity Today. The author of several books, Paul loves to find spirituality in unexpected places, including popular entertainment, and he loves all things superhero. His vices include James Bond films, Mountain Dew and terrible B-grade movies. He’s married, has two children and a neurotic dog, runs marathons on occasion and hopes to someday own his own tuxedo. Feel free to follow him on Twitter @AsayPaul.

Latest Reviews

Challengers

Boy Kills World

Spy x Family Code: White

Villains Inc.

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

Straw Dogs (2011)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Straw Dogs Review

Straw Dogs has its flaws, but is a visceral experience and definitely worth seeing.

Sam Peckinpah's 1971 classic, Straw Dogs , gets the Hollywood remake by the excellent critic turned director, Rod Lurie. The original was a sensation, violent and disturbing. I am happy to report that this adaptation, despite a few issues, lives up to the first film and is equally provocative. James Marsden, in his finest performance yet, stars as Hollywood screenwriter David Sumner. He and his beautiful wife, Amy (Kate Bosworth), decide to return to her hometown of Blackwater, Mississippi. The town is another world for the glamorous couple, especially when they run into Amy's high school sweetheart, the hulking Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard). David decides to hire Charlie and his friends to fix the roof on their dilapidated farm house. This turns out to be a big mistake. Charlie and his gang begin to harass the couple. Soon their actions become horrific and violent, forcing David and Amy to react in ways they never imagined.

I've heard the term 'slow boil' used to describe this film and I agree it is an excellent analogy. From the first frame, their is a sense of uneasiness. Foreboding doom builds as the characters interact. Charlie's lust for Amy has not abated. You can see the disgust in his eyes when he sees her with David, who he considers weak and puny. David also tries to fit into the Southern ways, but is spectacularly out of place, no matter how hard he tries. Amy is caught in the middle. She senses danger, and despite her best efforts to warn David, fails to convince him of their situation. Her character takes the blount of the agression, marking the turning point for all in the plot.

The original film was set in the English countryside with the backdrop of the Vietnam war. Lurie has updated to the backwoods South, easy targets for Hollywood always. The primary flaw of the film is how cookie cutter the locals are. It's the same hillbilly, pickup truck driving, confederate flag waving, critter hunting rednecks that are standard foils. Charlie's gang could have been taken out of any film and transplanted here. Ony Charlie has motivation and subtext, thin as it may be. His behavior / actions are key to progressing the story, but is so one-note, it seems buffoonish. I have no doubt someone like him is capable of doing what he does, the character just needed a bit more to not be generic.

Lurie does have several elements that work in building tension. The first is the relationship of the couple. James Marsden and Kate Bosworth are very good here. As highbrow, intellectual people, they sell the fish out water concept. They also react accordingly when events begin to escalate. Amy demands action from David, but as an peaceful rational person would do, he draws back because he believes everyone is as thoughtful. The transformation of David is what sells Straw Dogs . The tag line for this movie is 'everyone has a breaking point'. David will protect his wife and house. Other critics who saw the same screening I did, thought his reaction was exaggerated, unrealistic. I disagree, I buy the idea of snapping, of reaching the point where all civility is gone, and life or death instincts take over.

It's well known what happens to Amy and David, as the first film caused quite a stir. I allude, but avoid giving specific plot details because it does take away from the film. I recommend avoiding all spoilers and going in cold. The savagery of the climax, and other scenes, are jarring and thought provoking. Straw Dogs is most certainly not the feel good film of the year. Lurie doesn't miss a step capturing the hard elements. He would have had a tremendous film if the ancillary characters and Charlie were better visualized. So Straw Dogs has its flaws, but is a visceral experience and definitely worth seeing.

Den of Geek

Straw Dogs review

Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs gets a remake, but how does it compare to the original? Here’s Ron’s review of a tense, violent thriller…

• Share on Facebook (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Linkedin (opens in a new tab)
• Share on email (opens in a new tab)

Seeking a quiet, peaceful place to write, Hollywood screenwriter David Sumner (James Marsden) and his beautiful actress wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) return to her parents’ old farm in the swamplands of Mississippi. The house itself is in good condition, but the barn needs work. The hurricane took the roof off, and since David isn’t the handiest guy in the world with his hands, he turns to some of the folks in town for help.

As it turns out, the crew he hires is led by Charlie Venner (Alexander Skarsgard), who at one point was the high school sweetheart of Amy. Thing is, Charlie’s still got eyes for Amy, as do most men in the town. When the stares turn into leers and catcalls, and the local color gets to be a bit too much for David, he puts his foot down, only to find out that it takes more than a little stomp to defend house and home from those who wish to engage in violence.

Does David, the meek and brainy, have what it takes to defend himself when no one else is willing or able to come to his defense? Is what we perceive as civility and principle really just a cover for our own murderous impulses? Such is the question at the heart of Straw Dogs .

If you’ve seen the original version of Straw Dogs , you know what you’re in for with the remake. It’s tough to out-do a master of filmmaking like Sam Peckinpah, but writer/director Rod Lurie does the original justice with his new version. He swaps England for Mississippi, keeps the dilapidated farmhouse and the clash between witty city boy and the earthy locals, but changes his job from a mathematician to a Hollywood screenwriter to further up the ante of culture clash.

Ad – content continues below

Here, folks from the South don’t have problems with people who have learning: Southerners have problems with people who look down on them. The script, by Lurie, also makes it clear from the very beginning that David Sumner doesn’t belong in Blackwater, Mississippi. David himself makes it very clear that he feels superior to the locals, and he very subtly condescends to them while simultaneously trying to make friends with them. He tries, but it’s clear that he’s just following the axiom “When in Rome.” (Which he also says at one point, to boot.)

It has to be hard taking on a role made famous by Dustin Hoffman. Were I an actor, I wouldn’t relish taking that on. Yet here’s James Marsden, donning the circular eyeglasses and rocking the curly mop just like Hoffman did in 1971.

Marsden, to his credit, actually puts forth a surprisingly adept performance. He handles the transition from bookish, cerebral writer to shockingly effective defender well, becoming more of a “man” without becoming Superman.

Speaking of Superman, his co-star Kate Bosworth also handles the material well, especially the key, challenging scene on which the movie depends. Alexander Skarsgard handles the role he’s given well, and James Woods is a scene-stealer every time he’s on the screen. Make no mistake, this cast is stellar.

The only real problem I have with the movie is one I have with pretty much any remake. If you’re not going to make things different, then what’s the point of doing a remake? Yes, there are some subtle differences in the two versions, but they’re similar enough that there’s no real reason to do it again. Were people not paying enough attention to Straw Dogs before now? Was the fact that it was old keeping people from seeing the movie? I just don’t get it. I mean, this is a good remake, but it’s still money that could have been spent to do a new project.

That said, Rod Lurie has crafted a very good movie. It’s suspenseful, gritty, and doesn’t shy away from the things that made the original so controversial in the first place. It retains the truth of Peckinpah’s original, and that’s a pleasant surprise in and of itself.

Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

US correspondent Ron Hogan isn’t a fan of remakes, but for some reason Straw Dogs has proven itself a worthy return to the original material. Find more by Ron daily at Shaktronics and PopFi .

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here . And be our Facebook chum here .

Ron Hogan is a freelance writer from Louisville, Kentucky who got an English degree from a college no one has ever heard of. After dropping out…

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Challengers Link to Challengers
• Abigail Link to Abigail
• Arcadian Link to Arcadian

New TV Tonight

• The Jinx: Season 2
• Knuckles: Season 1
• The Big Door Prize: Season 2
• THEM: The Scare: Season 2
• Velma: Season 2
• Secrets of the Octopus: Season 1
• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story: Season 1
• We're Here: Season 4

Most Popular TV on RT

• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• Fallout: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• Under the Bridge: Season 1
• Sugar: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Under the Bridge Link to Under the Bridge
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

DC Animated Movies In Order: How to Watch 54 Original and Universe Films

The Best TV Seasons Certified Fresh at 100%

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Watch An Exclusive Pixar Studio Tour, Plus Inside Out 2 Secrets From The Set

Weekend Box Office Results: Civil War Earns Second Victory in a Row

• Trending on RT
• Rebel Moon: Part Two - The Scargiver
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
• Play Movie Trivia

Where to Watch

Rent Straw Dogs on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy it on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV.

What to Know

This remake streamlines the plot but ultimately makes a fatal mistake: It celebrates violence.

Audience Reviews

Cast & crew.

James Marsden

David Sumner

Kate Bosworth

Alexander Skarsgård

James Woods

Dominic Purcell

Jeremy Niles

Best Movies to Stream at Home

Movie news & guides, this movie is featured in the following articles., critics reviews.

Review by Brian Eggert September 11, 2011

Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs is a film about man’s ravenous appetite for violence, a natural instinct passed down from the whole of human history, itself so often written in blood. Violence was one of many themes pulsating through The Wild Bunch , Peckinpah’s archetypal Western from 1969; but this film, released two years later, uses violence as its thematic centerpiece, forcing its audience to confront man’s innate desire for and repression of violence. This desire, Peckinpah argued at the time of the film’s release, is frequently defended or justified through false motivations to protect one’s property or one’s wife, but violence has more to do with our “primitive thirst for blood.” Upon its release, Straw Dogs was both attacked as a misogynistic tirade and lauded as a cautionary tale that warned about the costs of violence. Today it stands as a precarious landmark to the power of cinema as an interpretive art form.

The film opens as David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and his British wife, Amy (Susan George), have moved from America into a farmhouse in Amy’s hometown village in the English countryside. He’s a mathematician and professor whose work consumes him; she’s likely a former student of his, and she tests their love every time David chooses his study over her need for attention. Marital resentment runs wild, as neither partner will relinquish their tension and, in fact, opt to antagonize each other. When she can’t get attention from David, Amy takes to flirting with the workmen who are repairing the Sumner’s farmhouse. A child of the Sixties, she walks about brawless, and Peckinpah’s camera stops to ogle her from the workmen’s point of view. Her flirtations escalate the workmen’s jealousy of the smartypants American and his beautiful wife, and they begin taunting him. Playful jibes become threatening displays from which David always backs down; rather than stand up for himself, he tries to become their friend. And it seems they go along with his plan when they invite him to go hunting in the woods.

While on their faux hunting expedition, the workmen abandon David, and hours pass before he realizes he’s been ditched. Back at the house, one of the workmen, Amy’s former lover Charlie (Del Henney), reminisces with her about the old days before forcing himself on her. Amy resists at first, but all of her contained resentment comes pouring out, transforming a rape scene into one of sudden passion. That is, until fellow villager Norman (Ken Hutchison) enters, and Charlie offers Amy up to his comrade, holding her down as Norman rapes her. There’s a clear disconnect during this scene. Audiences never quite know how to reconcile their emotional reaction to their intellectual one, which, of course, is the point. The scene itself, as well as the depiction of Amy (and the concentration on her breasts), most commonly serves as a prime example of male-chauvinist fantasy in feminist theory, the smoking gun against Hollywood’s representation of women as sex objects just asking for, and not completely opposed to, a rape that blurs the borders between pain and pleasure—a vile example of that old myth that a woman never knows what she wants until it’s given to her. That Amy never tells David what happened is further testament to this theory and further evidence that David is incapable of protecting “what is his.”

Based on Gordon Williams’ story The Siege of Trencher’s Farm , Peckinpah was asked to change the title because it sounded too much like a Western, the only genre Peckinpah had explored on film thus far. The director lifted his title from Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu’s The Book of 5,000 Characters , from a passage that placed “straw dogs” between Heaven and Earth, caught between two ideals, always divided in a torturous existence. In this ambiguous zone, where the screenplay adapted by David Zelag Goodman (with constant rewrites by Peckinpah, producer David Melnick, and later Hoffman) takes place, the protagonist is likewise divided between his intellect and violent impulses. Reactions to the film were and still are equally polarized between those who grasp that Peckinpah was after more than an exploitation of masculine ideas, and those who see a celebration of man’s violent nature.

Peckinpah’s approach to Straw Dogs exists somewhere between two other similarly themed films: Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring and Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left . Both involve rape and violent retribution (Craven’s film was actually based on Bergman’s). The former weighs the moral implications of violence through open dialogue, a philosophizing protagonist compelled toward revenge but beset by his religious convictions that teach him not to kill. The latter, in both its original and remake forms, follows an uninhibited outburst of vengeance by two parents after their daughter is brutally attacked. Peckinpah’s film doesn’t engage in Craven’s mindless abuse of raw violence, at least not completely; the film’s slow build and final coda indicate a more significant purpose behind the story. But he doesn’t have David pondering ethical concerns in any meaningful way prior to his own film’s eruption of violence, either. The story plays out, and it’s up to the audience to decide what it means.

As a result, Straw Dogs works better as an art piece ruminating on violence as neither “good” nor “bad” but merely a fact of “man’s” existence. Naturally, the majority of audiences won’t see it that way, and unfortunately, that’s why Peckinpah’s film, though controversial and confronting and an important work of art, fails for so many viewers, myself included. There is a great difficulty that comes with watching irredeemable people do horrible things and have horrible things done to them, and then being told that “chaos reigns” (to quote another divisive film, Lars von Trier’s Antichrist ). Cinema is at its best when art and entertainment converge into something accessible, yet thought-provoking. Here, the entertainment component is almost nonexistent, whereas the art component meets its audience with an unforgivably aggressive confrontational purpose. So while I understand this film and welcome its message, it’s a film that I wouldn’t want to revisit, whereas The Wild Bunch redeems its violence by way of friendship or the moving nobility among its thieves and killers. The intellectual part of me knows this film deserves a four-star review, but the emotional part rejects its interpret-as-you-will structure and its refusal to offer characters to which we can attach. In other words, I admire Straw Dogs , but from a safe distance.

Related Titles

The Definitives

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• Boy Kills World 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Tuesday 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver 0.5 Star ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Sasquatch Sunset 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Abigail 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Challengers 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Civil War 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• LaRoy, Texas 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Blackout 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Monkey Man 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Short Take: Baghead 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: The Public Eye 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Wicked Little Letters 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 3
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - 3 movies you need to see in theaters now
• MSPIFF 2024 - Dispatch 2
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 1
• MSPIFF 2024
• The Definitives: Ocean's Eleven
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Twelve
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Thirteen
• The Definitives: The Abyss
• Guest Appearance: Feature Fanatics Podcast - John Grisham Movies Retrospective

Screen Rant

'straw dogs' review.

Is Rod Lurie's 'Straw Dogs,' starring James Marsden and Kate Bosworth, a worthy re-imagining of Sam Peckinpah's 1971 classic (which featured Dustin Hoffman) or just another unnecessary remake? Read our review.

Screen Rant's Ben Kendrick reviews Straw Dogs

Original ideas are somewhat hard to come by these days - especially in Hollywood. We've seen blockbuster franchises built on 80's nostalgia, board games and countless remakes of recognizable, as well as some not-so-recognizable, existing films. Now we can officially add Straw Dogs to the list of story ideas that Hollywood studio executives hope will enjoy a fruitful double dip.

Reimagining Sam Peckinpah's 1971 film, Straw Dogs (which starred a young Dustin Hoffman), is Rod Lurie, a name most moviegoers will recognize as the writer/director/producer responsible for The Last Castle and Resurrecting the Champ. In an attempt to put his own stamp on the "lovers under siege" story, Lurie ditched the rural English setting, and subsequent international complexities, of the original for small town America. Does the change up pay off and make for a more relatable (and modern) psychological horror film or does Lurie strip an already thin plot of any substantial weight and potential enjoyment?

Unfortunately Lurie's Straw Dogs is a mess of a film that does little more than rely on graphic violence as well as outdated stereotypes to keep the tension high. As previously alluded to, the original Straw Dogs storyline offered a much more compelling setup (with a number of factors to play on: socio-economic and nationality differences as well as significant disfunction in the couple's relationship). Before the remake even gets started it's already at a disadvantage, since the subtle change of location and less complicated protagonist pair strips the film of the unseen tensions that made the original so compelling. Instead, Straw Dogs 2011 seems to favor slasher film-like "heroes" and "villains" with paper thin "he's not like us" motivations.

While Hollywood might view the Straw Dogs storyline, which is based on the 1969 novel, "The Siege of Trencher's Farm" by British author Gordon Williams, as provocative - it's actually a pretty basic setup. David Sumner (James Marsden), who is a Hollywood screenwriter, and his wife, Amy (Kate Bosworth) leave the big city behind to spend some time in Amy's Southern hometown - following the death of her father. As David tries to get aclimated to his new surroundings, he's quickly pit against a group of protective locals. The group's leader, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård) is Amy's high school boyfriend, and outwardly resents David for being an outsider and an intellectual. As tensions between the men rise, an increasingly violent set of events leads to an all out, bloody, siege of the couple's house - forcing David to put aside his "violence is not the answer" approach and brutally fight for his family's life.

While the storyline in the remake closely follows the original progression moment to moment, none of the scenes offer any compelling improvements to the narrative (and, as a result, actually detract from the success of the remake) - as if the primary filmmaking goal was to recreate the classic scenes in a modern (and domestic) setting, instead of compose a fresh take on the narrative that would make it even more terrifying, and timely, than the original. Not to mention, a lot of the ideas that Straw Dogs borrows from the original film do not translate successfully - making for some especially jarring character portrayals (David Werner's aged "village idiot" is now a mentally handicapped young man portrayed by Dominic Purcell) as well as heavy handed thematic elements (David is working on a historical script about the siege of Stalingrad).

While performances are competent (not great) all around, the stereotype-heavy presentation of the "villains," the self-described "rednecks" of Blackwater, have absolutely nothing unique to offer: they are a batch of beer drinking, God fearing, football loving, blue collar guys that love to hunt - and, of course, resent big city intellectuals. As events unfold in an increasingly violent set of circumstances, whenever the film flirts with complicated internal character conflicts, it nearly always abandons ship and locks back into trite and convoluted stereotypes.

The lack of unique, or even interesting, characters wouldn't be such a problem if the film was actually tense or scary - but for 5/6 of the film, there's very little but awkward, and at best heated, banter between David and the team of local men. As a result, when things start to get especially violent, it's hard to truly "believe" what's unfolding - since the build up is mostly flat. Additionally, while the siege on the Sumner house is the result of several interwoven story beats, the thread that's primarily responsible for the actual altercation is poorly implemented throughout the overarching narrative - as is nearly every character's motivation at that moment.

In general, Straw Dogs appears to fancy itself as significantly more profound than what is actually in the film scene to scene - but nearly every attempt at something more than just play by play, and less successful, recreations of the original are glossed over too quickly or are so heavy-handed, such as the explanation of the "Straw Dogs" monicker, that it's hard to be affected by the extreme violence perpetrated on screen. Instead, Straw Dogs revels in its violence and then fumbles around trying to make sense of what it had just presented - failing to communicate anything profound about the characters or their relationships. None of the brutality is "earned" through compelling and tense character drama - it's just manipulative violence thrown at the audience to get them on Sumner's side.

No doubt some moviegoers will defend the film by saying that it's not supposed to be a character drama - it's supposed to be a horror film. However, even if that were the case (which it's not, given the amount of heavy-handed theme pumped into the project), Straw Dogs would be a lackluster horror movie, with very little compelling build up to the last set piece. The final "siege" scene definitely has some brutal moments but isn't nearly cathartic enough to sit through the sluggish, and bumbling, build up. Recommendation: just rent the original Straw Dogs - which successfully delivers more compelling character drama, earned on-screen brutality, and true psychological horror.

If you’re still on the fence about Straw Dogs , check out the trailer below:

[poll id="195"]

Follow me on Twitter @ benkendrick - and let us know what you thought of the film below:

Straw Dogs is now in theaters.

• Become a Critical Movie Critic
• Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: Straw Dogs (2011)

• Mariusz Zubrowski
• Movie Reviews
• One response
• --> September 16, 2011

Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs” released theatrically in 1971. Based on the novel “The Siege of the Trencher’s Farm” by Gordon Williams, it came out the same year as “A Clockwork Orange,” “The French Connection,” and “Dirty Harry,” causing quite the uproar from conservative Americans, who were worried about the increase of violence in movie houses. Nevertheless, that didn’t stop many critics from eating it up, despite countless censorship issues and its purported endorsement of misogynistic sadism and fascism. Today, it stands as one of the filmmaker’s best works, and in the lead, Dustin Hoffman gives one of the most enticing performances of his career. But, as with every classic film (that’s not entitled “The Godfather”), studio execs have adapted Peckinpah’s work for a modern audience (who obviously couldn’t have just rented the original). And director/writer Rob Lurie is responsible for the tasteless exploitation that is 2011’s Straw Dogs .

In this eponymous remake, James Marsden (“ Hop ,” “X-Men”) fills the role of David Sumner, a screenwriter working hard on his debut screenplay, a Stalingrad war-epic. Eager to escape urban temptations, he travels to the deep South alongside his wife, Amy (Kate Bosworth), a somewhat successful actress and former resident of the Mississippi town. Once there, they move into her old home, a comfy old retreat, where James expects to churn out a classic. What’s stopping him, however, are the neighbors: Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård), leader of a group of misfits (whom David hires to fix his barn roof) and Amy’s former spark; the mentally-handicapped Jeremy Niles (Dominic Purcell), a domineering lad, ostracized because of his dark past; and Tom Heddon (James Wood), a former High School coach and rowdy alcoholic, who spends his days at the local pub, downing beers, telling stories (amongst them, a riveting tale about a man who, armed with a machinegun, fends off a vicious bear), and attacking any bartender brave enough to say that he’s had enough to drink. With that, there forms a schism between the locals, a close-knit community of churchgoers, football fans, gun enthusiasts, and handymen, and David, an atheist, artist, classical music junkie, and city slicking creampuff. Of course, the good ole boys don’t like outsiders, and will do anything to force them out: What starts with the murder of their cat, and hoots and hollers at Amy, results in rape and torture. But is the thick-rimmed Mr. Sumner strong enough to fight back? Unfortunately, you’ll need to see the film to find out.

There isn’t a shred of likeability in this watered down rehash. Unlike Peckinpah’s production, a tense, sometimes nihilistic, ‘Nam-era exploration into the human psyche, Lurie’s Straw Dogs is a celebration of gratuitous violence, which, by sick faith, has become a trademark in mainstream horror. And, not being a fan of mutilations, amputations, and decapitations (or really anything that ends in an “ations,” save for vacations), it’s ironic that I found the inventive uses for bear traps, nail guns, and boiling water, an appreciated escape from sheer boredom. But it’s not unlikely that there are sociopolitical undertones hidden beneath the bloodshed and inept writing, however, it becomes a chore to decipher them, especially considering the one-dimensional stereotypes we’re stuck to trudge along with.

David’s from L.A., wears John Lennon-esque shades, drives a convertible Jaguar (complete with fake hood ornament), owns several bathrobes (a staple to any esteemed gentleman’s wardrobe), and drinks Bud Light. As an urbanite, it’s his job to be insecure, meek, and Harvard-educated. As a Southern chap, it’s Charlie’s role to be emasculated, jealous, and prone to violence. Though, what should play out as a balls to the wall game of cat-and-mouse between brute force and calm wit, is reduced to 90 minutes of Amy stripping down for no apparent reason, Coach throwing punches, Jeremy having strange, unexplained, pedophilic delusions, and jabs at Sheriff John Burke (Laz Alonso), for being one of two African-Americans in the area (the other, is Larry, an auto mechanic, played by Tim Smith). The last few minutes are dedicated to the advertised showdown, a less-than-subtle sequence, in which David must fortify his retreat to protect Amy from rampant rednecks. Here, Lurie tries to explore whether or not it’s possible for the pussycat to become a lion, but what was shocking in the ’70s, doesn’t have much of an impact nowadays.

The film’s title, Straw Dogs , derives from a classic Chinese text called the “Tao Te Ching,” which compares ceremonial straw dogs to objects without substance. That’s the perfect description of Lurie’s latest: Without any fucking substance.

Tagged: novel adaptation , remake , revenge , writer

Eventually I'll put something nifty here. Until then, know that I'm watching you. Closely.

Movie Review: Justice League (2017) Movie Review: My Scientology Movie (2015) Movie Review: The Magnificent Seven (2016) Movie Review: Creed (2015) Movie Review: The Green Inferno (2013) Movie Review: Sicario (2015) Movie Review: Terminator Genisys (2015)

'Movie Review: Straw Dogs (2011)' has 1 comment

September 19, 2011 @ 3:41 am Louie

Watch the Hoffman original.

Log in to Reply

Privacy Policy | About Us

 |  Log in

Straw Dogs Review

24 Apr 1972

116 minutes

Sam Peckinpah's 1971 opus is still a casualty of the BBFC's video-banning shenanigans, and here's your chance to see why. Settling in a Cornish village, all-round Logical Man Dustin Hoffman and his incompatible wife Susan George are at first distrusted then attacked and raped by the villagers. Less sickeningly violent than it is misogynistic.

Related Articles

Movies | 06 12 2016

Movies | 01 09 2011

Movies | 16 07 2009

Movies | 30 03 2007

RETRO REVIEW: “Straw Dogs” (1971)

Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs” was a provocative and (as a result) controversial movie of its time. Yet after watching it just a few days ago (some 52 years after its original release), I was surprised by how startlingly contemporary (and urgent) its themes happen to be. Take something like “toxic masculinity”, an issue which is routinely examined today and almost always through the same lens. Peckinpah approaches it much differently. He not only explores a warped vision of masculinity, but also what can happen when masculinity is lost.

“Straw Dogs” is an undeniably hard watch and was censored in some places and outright banned in others. The pushback came from the film’s disturbing violence, in particularly a challenging rape scene that upset people for a variety of reasons. Peckinpah scoffed at the criticisms in his notoriously abrasive, no-nonsense style. Yet many of the film’s more vocal critics accused Peckinpah of things like endorsing violence and glamorizing rape. Of course neither are accurate, but it was enough to earn the movie quite a reputation.

Written for the screen by Peckinpah and David Goodman, “Straw Dogs” is an adaptation of the 1969 Gordon M. Williams novel The Siege of Trencher’s Farm . Peckinpah infamously disliked the book. But following an ugly falling out with Warner Bros. he was left with limited opportunities. So he took off for England to create his galvanizing version of Williams’ story. It would end up leaving some critics and audiences shocked despite coming from a filmmaker not exactly known for his delicacy.

Dustin Hoffman delivers one of his very best performances playing David Sumner, an American mathematician who has received a grant to research and study stellar bodies. He and his attractive wife Amy (an indelible Susan George) leave the States for her small hometown village in Cornwall where they move into a rustic two-story cottage once owned by Amy’s father. David hopes the quiet rural setting will be a perfect place to study. But things sour pretty quick.

We quickly notice that the village folks aren’t high on outsiders, especially a milquetoast intellectual from America. First David and Amy run into her ex-boyfriend Charlie Venner (Del Henney) and his four ruffian friends. They’re lifelong locals whose eyes are filled with an unnerving mix of resentment and lust. They lock onto Amy with an uncomfortable gaze, setting the table for a cat-and-mouse game that quickly gets out of control.

Charlie and his friends work under a brutish drunk named Tom (Peter Vaughan) who barely attempts to veil his animosity towards David. Tom send his guys to finish putting a roof on David and Amy’s garage. But they spend more time yucking it up and catching glimpses of Amy than actually working. Rather than call them out, David let’s their behavior go, revealing a side of his character that has serious implications on how the story unfolds.

As we spend more time with David and Amy, the cracks in their relationship begin to show. Amy resents her milksop of a husband, calling him a coward for running away from an America amid the chaos of campus war protests, the civil rights movement, and violent riots across the country. David rejects the label even though he proves her right time and time again. For example, she pleads with him to confront Charlie and the other workers; to say something about their lewd catcalling; to threaten to fire them if they don’t finish their work. But David, as self-absorbed as he is spineless, refuses. From there things only escalate, eventually giving way to a combustible third act.

While David’s contempt and cowardice ensures he’s no hero, Amy is far more complex. She rightly calls him out for his haughtiness and condescension. She’s right for expecting him to stand up and defend her and their home. But she’s not above rubbing his insecurities in his face. She’s alluring and vivacious and her provocations range from mocking to suggestive (I’ll leave you to discover what I mean).

Nothing about what happens next is remotely pleasant or cathartic. First is the film’s notorious rape scene – a fixture of controversy as much today as it was in 1971. It’s a fittingly troubling but surprisingly layered sequence that has prompted numerous interpretations over the years. Then there’s the film’s final 30 minutes – a violent siege on the couple’s home where the pacifistic David finally takes a stand. But not out of some noble concern for his wife’s well being. It’s more out of ego and rage which unleashes his own primitive inner violence.

Amy may show bad judgement and sometimes act petulant and juvenile, but make no mistake, she’s the victim of the film. Despite some claims, the film doesn’t cast the blame on her and the complexity of her character doesn’t equal guilt. There’s never a sense that ‘she got what was coming to her’. Peckinpah’s vision isn’t that shallow or misogynistic. Well before the physical and psychological violence Amy is treated with little regard by her husband. She yearns for his attention but David keeps her at a distance, leaving her to feel alone and disconnected. David’s negligence and self-absorption sets into motion much of what follows.

“Straw Dogs” is ugly, disturbing, and hard to take in, just like a story of this nature should be. It’s also hard to turn away from thanks to Peckinpah’s direction, John Coquillon’s fiercely hypnotic cinematography, and great performances especially from Hoffman and George. The film’s ambiguity may be a stumbling block for some, but it has long been a key part of the film’s allure. It opens up the movie to a number of thoughtful (and frankly discomforting) considerations which only intensify as things move from a slow simmer to a scalding boil.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Share this:

10 thoughts on “ retro review: “straw dogs” (1971) ”.

I love this film. Then again, I love Sam Peckinpah as I just love his exploration of violence as well as what pushes a man to his limit. Dustin Hoffman fucking kicks ass in this film. To me, that run from The Deadly Companions to Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia if you count the uncut/extended version of Major Dundee is really unlike anything as there was no one like motherfuckin’ Sam Fuckin’ Peckinpah!

And isn’t it true that there just aren’t many filmmakers like him anymore? I swear, I look back at so many of the classic directors and wonder “where are our modern day equivalents?” We have some that certainly are influenced by the greats. But few even come close to them.

You know something. Yesterday, I was watching YouTube on my big TV where Letterboxd interviewed Emilio Estevez as he talks about being on the set of both Badlands and Apocalypse Now where he saw these filmmakers creating films that were like paintings.

Yes, back then. We had filmmakers who really put a lot of stake into the art they were making and studios were backing them up. It has changed nowadays as we don’t have many of those filmmakers. Whenever I hear the news of a new film from Quentin Tarantino, Sofia Coppola, Lars von Trier, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Lynne Ramsay, Martin Scorsese, and Terrence Malick coming. I’d do whatever I can to fucking go see it in the theaters. It’s not the same anymore as films were events back then.

I always filed this under “sounds rapey, not watching” I remember when they tried to remake it a while ago.

I never bothered with the remake.

That rape scene is tough to watch but there are a lot of layers to it. Still, I COMPLETELY understand someone skipping it due to that. Makes total sense.

Great movie, and glad to see you doing these retro reviews. They are fun to read.

Thanks so much Tony. I actually about five others written and finished. I’m just trying to space them out. I’m not sure why though. LOL

Concern about your readers getting eye fatigue. Or yelling at you for spamming them 😆

LOL. I have this weird idea in my head that it’s better to have one or two pieces posted each day Monday through Friday than just dropping reviews or features as soon as I write them. That way I have something new for readers most every day.

But honestly I have no idea if it’s actually smart or better. I’ve thought about just posting whenever I finish writing a review or a feature. But then I change my mind. It’s a silly conflict, I know.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Too much violence, not enough character in pointless remake.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

The general message here is that the weak, passive

No role models here: The main character is passive

Extreme violence in the final third of the movie,

A married couple is shown kissing and flirting wit

Very strong language throughout includes multiple

The main character uses a Sony VAIO computer that&

Characters are constantly swilling beer (and somet

Parents need to know that this grim remake of the powerful 1971 Sam Peckinpah movie (which starred Dustin Hoffman) has very strong violence, including many gruesome murders, a brutal rape scene, and dead animals. While the original used its edgy content to explore character, the remake is much less subtle, which makes…

Positive Messages

The general message here is that the weak, passive main character must eventually "man up" and defend himself and his wife. This requires him to engage in all kinds of gruesome violence. His success is therefore an ironic and bitter achievement.

Positive Role Models

No role models here: The main character is passive and ineffectual and resorts to brutal violence to "regain his manhood"; his wife is shallow, petty, and manipulative; and the villains are murderers and rapists.

Violence & Scariness

Extreme violence in the final third of the movie, with many characters dying in gruesome ways: nail gun to the hands, shotgun blast to the chest, bear trap to the neck. A woman is raped by two men. A man accidentally strangles and kills a teen girl. A man is hit by a car and breaks his arm; blood and bone are shown. Deer are shot and killed, and a dead cat is seen hung by its neck in a closet.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

A married couple is shown kissing and flirting with each other, preparing to have sex (though it's not shown). A woman deliberately undresses by a window, though nothing is shown other than her belly button. Men ogle a woman's behind in tight running shorts. A woman is shown without a bra, her nipples visible through her top. A man slaps a waitress on the behind.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Very strong language throughout includes multiple uses of "f--k," "s--t," "p---y," "a--hole," "d--k," "goddamn," "ass," "damn," "hell," "for Christ's sake," and more.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

The main character uses a Sony VAIO computer that's visible in several shots. Characters drink and mention Budweiser beer throughout.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Characters are constantly swilling beer (and sometimes whisky). They occasionally appear staggering drunk. One supporting character is shown to be upset when he can't continue drinking.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that this grim remake of the powerful 1971 Sam Peckinpah movie (which starred Dustin Hoffman ) has very strong violence, including many gruesome murders, a brutal rape scene, and dead animals. While the original used its edgy content to explore character, the remake is much less subtle, which makes the violence seem intended to be thrilling rather than thought provoking. There aren't any positive messages or role models here; the main character is a passive, ineffectual man whose only way to regain his "manhood" is to defend himself and his wife through violence. There's also frequent strong language ("f--k," "s--t," "p---y," etc.), sexual situations (though no nudity), and lots of drinking (always Budweiser), including one character who's shown to have a drinking problem. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (4)
• Kids say (6)

Based on 4 parent reviews

original was better

Adults only.., what's the story.

Actress Amy ( Kate Bosworth ) returns to her small Mississippi hometown with her Hollywood screenwriter husband, David Sumner ( James Marsden ), so he can work on his new script. They hire Amy's former boyfriend, Charlie ( True Blood 's Alexander Skarsgard), and his buddies to repair the barn roof ... and so begins a series of subtle psychological games designed to make David look foolish and weak. Eventually, a deadly incident leads up to a violent stand-off, in which David must take up arms to defend his wife and his home.

Is It Any Good?

Film critic-turned-director Rod Lurie unwisely tries to redo Sam Peckinpah with this incendiary tale. In Peckinpah's hands, the story (which was originally based on a 1969 novel by Gordon M. Williams) was an intensely psychological thriller about perceived masculinity. The remake avoids anything psychological -- or even emotional -- and turns it into a rather empty and soulless revenge thriller. This time the characters don't make much sense, and when they change or snap, it seems too sudden, rather than gradual.

Now we merely have a thoughtless, empty exploration of "what makes a man," all the way down to a bizarre and ill-advised montage mashup of a deer hunt and a rape. But the real point seems to be to see how many gruesome and bloody murders can be crammed into one film. It's vile and pointless. The only saving grace is a terrifying performance by James Woods as a backwoods, alcoholic hillbilly who's pathologically obsessed with defending his daughter's honor.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the movie's violence . What is its purpose? Do you think it's necessary to the story? How does it compare to what you see in horror movies?

How does the movie address the idea of "manhood"? Is it a relevant concept? Does a guy have to act strong or do violent things to be considered a "man"?

Are there any good people in this movie?

Movie Details

• In theaters : September 16, 2011
• On DVD or streaming : December 20, 2011
• Cast : Alexander Skarsgard , James Marsden , Kate Bosworth
• Director : Rod Lurie
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : Screen Gems
• Genre : Thriller
• Run time : 110 minutes
• MPAA rating : R
• MPAA explanation : strong brutal violence including a sexual attack, menace, some sexual content, and pervasive language
• Last updated : December 9, 2022

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Thriller Movies

Thriller books for teens.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.