Download, Watch online Straw Dogs Movie.

Linda Cook 12 May 2012

It was a different era, a different time in American culture. Sam Peckinpah's 1971 'Straw Dogs' arguably has become a classic. It was a controversial film when it was released because of its depiction of a sexual assault.

Dippy_Awadh 12 May 2012

As MC Hammer of Hammertime sez, "Can't Touch This!"

First of all,I have never liked remakes and feel they should never bemade but when this movie's promo came..i thought that this would beinteresting to watch,but some days prior to release i watched theoriginal Straw Dog and was absolutely mesmerized by Hoffman'sperformance in the movie which gave him the Filmfare best actor award.Of course,the best thing about original version was it'sunpredictability as we never knew what is going to happen, that's why ithink that a suspense movie like don should not be remade. in the newversion we know everything that will unfold except a couple of twistswith one in the climax, which makes the movie boring, to be honest.Hollywood looks strong in the belief that if something is right firsttime, or will not, and everyone wanted to, then it must be perfect todo again. However, re-do something with a big budget, modern moviestars and the powers of CGI does not always lead to an improved product...... In fact, sometimes it's just a great way to build an expensivewaste.While the original Straw Dog unfolded at a feverish pace with excellentacting and dialogues by American Oscars Award winner Dustin Hoffman, itwas a taut thriller hence keeping everyone glued to their seatsthroughout, this one is slow and boring most of the time, and thecopied dialogues from original Straw Dog is a bad idea. But the newmovie does have a different style, the action scenes are OK.At box office this movie was a moderate success not like the originalStraw Dog which was a Superhit,this movie was a moderate success alsodue to Peckenpaw's popularity overseas while this movie was a belowaverage fare in India but a Superhit overseas..making it a moderatesuccess overall, and also the factor that many people watched it to seehow James Marsden's steps into The Hoffmeister's shoes.Watch it if you are a die hard Peckenfan or like style over substance,but if you've seen original you can clearly feel how much better theoriginal was..Quoth MC Hammer of Hammertime, "Can't touch it!"

Marc Savlov 06 May 2012

This Straw Dogs is nearly all bark, with the occasional, predictable bite that frankly fails to draw any emotional blood.

emw196 06 May 2012

just watch this

This was a great all around movie in its own right. It was veryunpredictable, the directing was good, the casting couldn't have beenmuch better, the acting was great and the conflict was strong andongoing. I did't see the original, but I can't imagine it being muchbetter than this remake. This version is very unpredictable andsuspenseful. You might not like it if you've seen the original, becauseit is a suspense movie and knowing what happens kind of ruins it. Ithas great character development and surprisingly good acting. I wassitting on the edge of my seat for the last 30 minutes of the movie;This is a must-see if you haven't yet seen the original version.

jay10536 05 May 2012

STRAW DOGS is a gripping thriller, in the same vein as THE STRANGERS or LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (Remake)

Every year, a home invasion/rape thriller comes out into the theaters.STRAW DOGS felt a lot like the 2011 version of I Spit On Your Grave. Ayoung couple (Kate Bosworth and James Marsden) move to Amy's (KateBosworth) hometown to stay at her family's old house, while screenplaywriter, David (James Marsden) finishes writing his newest project.As soon as they arrive, Amy discovers that her old town wasn't exactlyhow she left it. While at a restaurant, they meet up with Amy's oldfriends from high school. David hires them to take on a householdproject.Soon, tensions rise and that's where all the horror starts. Many eventshappen, leading up to a brutal home invasion. When I say brutal, I meanthis is a BRUTAL home invasion. It borrows from FUNNY GAMES, in whichthe young couple is terrorized by strange assailants, seemingly for noreason. Also, the record player idea was something we saw in 2008's THESTRANGERS.Overall, this was a good movie for fans of the sub-genre of homeinvasion. WARNING: THERE IS A RAPE!!!! It's not for everyone, but itkept me entertained on a Friday night.

FlashCallahan 04 May 2012

want you to see whats coming....

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

Amy Biancolli 30 April 2012

[It] doesn't bring anything new to the table.

Kristine 29 April 2012

More proof that city and country do not mix?

I don't know what it is about film trying to steer city people from thecountry, but they sure do try hard in film with Deliverance to StrawDogs. I have to admit, I've never seen the original Straw Dogs, and Iam ashamed as I've heard it's a good movie. Just never had theopportunity to see it, but hopefully that'll change soon since it looksreally interesting. So I can't compare the original with the remakejust yet. But I think that's pretty fair to judge on since I heard thatthis is a bit different from the original with the setting. This timeit takes place in the country. I visited Idaho a few years ago to meetmy ex's family, I'm a born and raised Chi-Town girl, very city, butwhen I went to Idaho, I thought it wouldn't be a big deal. Apparently Iwas very wrong, I felt like I was in a different country, people aredifferent and it's a bit scary the way they look at you as I'm sure myex felt with the city being a little more isolated being in a busyplace where people don't notice each other. Whole point to this storyis that it's amazing how scary it can be being from a city or from thesouth and not knowing your surroundings is scary enough as it is, StrawDogs explores that terror to the enth degree.David Sumner and his wife and TV actress Amy, move to Mississippi,where Amy grew up, to rebuild Amy's recently deceased father's house,and so that David can finish a script. David meets Amy's ex-boyfriendCharlie and his friends, whom he hires to fix the house's roof, whichwas recently destroyed by a tornado. Charlie and his friends begintaunting David, who is initially condescending to their customs. Thetaunting escalates into harassment as they make crude remarks towardsAmy and play loud music to annoy David and prevent him from working onhis screenplay. The taunting gets more and more threatening leading tophysical violence. The boys taunt that David is not a man, but they maywant to be careful on pushing him too far.Today with horror films, we have torture porn such as Saw and Hostel. Imay have not seen the original Straw Dogs, but I'm sure that the deathswere not as dramatic as they were in this film. I felt that the extremeviolence really took away from the film. First off I'm guessing thatI'm supposed to take this movie realistically, so why would this smartguy murder the southerners so viciously? Granted he has a witness thatcould back him up and say it was self defense, but I'm pretty sure thepolice are going to look at a bear trap over the head as a bit extreme.I know that the audience wants the entertainment, but I think this wasa bit too over the top with the gore factor.But the film does have some perks, the whole setting is horrific. Beingisolated from the city is scary where you're used to having everythingat your fingertips, but not knowing where to go for help is horrible.Alexander Skarsgård takes a break from True Blood, somewhat with theover southerness, and makes a great creeper. James Marsden does analright job as David, though he plays him very blandly so honestly Ireally didn't care much for his character. Kate Bosworth did alright,but again her character is kinda on the mean girl level, so I don'treally care for her as well. James Woods, what can I say? He's JamesWoods, he's always a pleasure to watch on the screen and does give hisbest to the character. Is the film scary? In some ways yes with it'satmosphere and fear of the unknown, not knowing what these crazy boyswould do next could be a bit creepy. But also since most of thecharacters were a bit dull, it took away any sympathy you could havefor them. The film is certainly flawed but I don't think it wasterrible, they gave a good effort for the most part. I would just saythat this is a rental and now I'm going to get my butt in gear and getthe original Straw Dogs.5/10

Kevin Williamson 28 April 2012

Like its predecessor, this Straw Dogs lights a long, deliberate fuse from its opening deer hunt to its climactic home invasion. These days, that's called restraint.

seanhimdb 28 April 2012

What was shocking in 1971 becomes dull in 2011

The reviews here fall into 2 groups: those who've seen the original1971 version, and those who haven't. The first group review bycomparison with what was a shockingly controversial and influentialfilm in its day.But the second group saw the movie without preconceptions, and I'minterested to see they mostly found it dull, boring, slow, pointlessand generally unsatisfactory, despite a decent cast and smoothproduction.So, what was shocking in 1971 is boring to today's audiences? That maybe the most shocking thing about this remake. I watched both versionsback-to-back to find out for myself, and yes, the original is a gooddeal more daring (for its time), the retread pulls its punches whileotherwise doing a decent job of relocating and updating withoutchanging the story.One other point I notice: the reviewers who know about the location -the US Southern Heartland - are the ones most critical of the way thelocals are portrayed.In this I must say the remake more than mirrors the original: Knowingrural England of the 1970s, I found all the local characters veryunrealistic and badly acted. I know the original movie is highlyacclaimed, but really, the local English actors all came across asbit-players from the old Ealing comedies, middle class city dwellingamateur dramatics types playing at being working class country folk,with dialog and mannerisms that only a foreign director could fail todetect as phony.So, a polished but flawed remake of an unpolished, also flawed, butcontroversial original. 7/10 for effort.

Rachel Lee 26 April 2012

bad cast, except Dominic

I've never seen the original. So I can't compare the two. Watching thisstory for the first time, I am quite disappointed. The biggest problemmight be the cast. James Marsden is just not right for this role. Kateis beautiful, but I can't understand her. I don't understand theirrelationship, either. There should be some problems in their marriage.But the movie fails to convey that. Alexander is very bad-ass, as hischaracter should be. The only shining star in this movie is DominicPurell. I love him in 'Prison Break'. He is still very manly as hephysically can be. This movie just proves that he can play a very widerange of roles and make them convincing.

Glenn Kenny 26 April 2012

The filmmaker's ham-fisted attempts to supply some socio-political relevance to such intractable material finally lands him in a deeper, murkier swamp...

Peter Sobczynski 25 April 2012

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

Tony Heck 24 April 2012

A movie where the main character is unlikeable and is hard to root for when the problems start. Very OK, end is good. I say B-

"That boys got some man in him after all." Screen writer David(Marsden) and his wife Amy (Bosworth) move from LA to Amy's hometown inthe south. They run into one of Amy's ex's named Charlie (Skarsgard)and the tension between them starts. While David and Amy are trying towork through their problems Charlie and his friends begin to mess withDavid. The only way to review this to me is to think of it as twomovies. The first hour and a half is pretty slow and a lot of build upto the climax. The last half hour is tense and makes you glad you keptwatching. The big problem to me in this is that the person you aresupposed to root for and feel bad for is David, and after ten minutesyou realize he is not a likable guy and don't really feel bad at allthat he is being messed with. The only person that I felt any sympathyfor is a secondary character who is barely in the movie. Having onlyseen part of the original it's hard to compare the two, but based onthe last few re-makes I would have to think the original is better.This one did have it's moments though and the last half hour makes it adecent watch. Overall, a very OK movie with an ending that saves it.The kind movie where you aren't sure who to root for though. I give ita B-.

cjally 23 April 2012

Great movie!

I have never written a review on IMDb before but I felt compelled to doso after watching this movie. I almost didn't watch it due to the otherreviews but I'm pleased I did. I had never heard of the original beforeand I had no idea what the movie was about. I found it thoroughlyenjoyable, gripping and tense from start to finish. After reading allthe hype about the original and how good it is I decided to watch itand I was disappointed. The main reason for writing this review it tostate that it's better than the original! Miles better! Don't listen towhat other nostalgic fans of the original are saying, they are livingin the past and do not appreciate this movie for what it really is.There is no need to compare it with the original, put it in it's ownspotlight and you'll have a great movie experience.

Van Roberts 22 April 2012

This "Straw Dogs" Is A Breed Apart!

Imitation, Mohandas Gandhi said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Theghost of Sam Peckinpah would be flattered with the new tricks that"Deterrence" writer & director Rod Lurie has taught the old "StrawDogs" for contemporary audiences. Although it isn't a carbon copy ofthe volatile 1971 melodrama, the new "Straw Dogs" replicates theoriginal in many respects. Mind you, nobody could set aside Peckinpah'sgritty epic which still sparks controversy for its misogynistic sexualpolitics. Nevertheless, Lurie's politically-correct remake polishes offthe rough edges and makes everything objectionable palatable. In theprocess, he sacrifices some of the ambiguity that made Peckinpah'smessy masterpiece a more memorable movie. Of course, the new "StrawDogs" lacks the rabid ferocity of the Peckinpah picture. Nevertheless,the original and the remake both wound up with an R-rating forviolence, sexuality, nudity, and profane language. Like the original,the remake features a vicious rape sequence, but with virtually nonudity. What may sicken some otherwise stout hearted spectators morethan the man versus man violence is the mysterious strangulation deathof a white cat. Yes, the original had a similar scene where ourprotagonists found their pet cat dangling from their closet light cord.Otherwise, the new "Straw Dogs" boasts a gripping story, interestingcharacters, and some surprises that ought to keep audiences guessingthroughout this unsavory saga. Along the way, Lurie has made somechanges. First, he shifted the setting to rural Mississippi and takesadvantage of the tradition of Southern violence. One of the fewproblems with the original was the lack of familiarity with the Englishsetting. Hollywood has not made as many movies about sadistic Englishvigilantes as it has about xenophobic Mississippi racists. Second, thehero is a film scenarist rather than an astrophysicist. Third, thementally handicapped supporting character is not as unsavory. Fourth,David and Amy have a stronger marriage. At the end of Peckinpah's"Straw Dogs," the husband left the wife because she had betrayed himduring the home invasion. Hollywood scenarist David Sumner (James Marsden of "X-Men") and hisgorgeous young wife Amy (Kate Bosworth of "Blue Crush") return to herhometown of Blackwater, Mississippi. Sumner has to pen a screenplayabout the landmark twentieth century battle of Stalingrad, one of theturning points of World War II, and he wants to write it in the bucolicbackwoods of the south. David and Amy met during a television seriesthat he wrote for her, but the show has been canceled. Unfortunately,the Harvard educated David isn't prepared for the reception that heencounters. Essentially, David is a fish-out-of-water. Not only does hediscover that his debit card is worthless, but he doesn't share thesame relish for fried pickles as a delicacy that Amy's friends do. Oneof Amy's friends, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård of HBO's "True Blood"),wants to resume their former relationship as lovers. She was acheerleader, and Charlie was the star football quarterback under theguidance of old school coach Tom Heddon (James Woods of "Ghosts ofMississippi") who made his players grovel. When he meets Charlie at thelocal watering hole, David makes the mistake of hiring Charlie and hisredneck hillbilly pals to rebuild a garage on Amy's property thatHurricane Katrina ravaged. Charlie and his pals start work too early for David and thingsdeteriorate from that point. One of Charlie's crew, Bic (Drew Powell of"The Marine"), ambles into Amy's house without an invitation and helpshimself to a beer from the fridge. Amy thinks coming home is avacation, but David is serious about his work. Amy aggravates matterswhen she jogs around the property without a bra. She reminds David thatshe dresses for him and he reminds her that he knows what she lookslike without a bra. Meantime, Charlie interprets Amy's behavior assolicitation, and he invites David—who knows little about firearms—tojoin them for a hunt. Charlie slips away and rapes Amy while David isoccupied in the woods. Later, one of the town citizens, a mentallychallenged man, Henry Niles (Dominic Purcell of "Prison Break"),accidentally kills Tom Heddon's daughter. All chaos breaks loose. Davidshields Niles from a vengeful Heddon who demands that David relinquishhim. Heddon persuades Charlie and his friends to help him storm thefarmhouse and take Niles. Suffice to say; what ensues isn't a picnicfor anybody. Lurie has done a splendid job of fleshing out the heroes and villainsin a different locale. He lets the antagonism smolder, and then heorchestrates a savage finale where our hero takes no prisoners. Oneweapon that our hero wields was not available to the English yahoos whoassaulted Dustin Hoffman. James Marsden wields an automatic nail gunwith devastating results. Similarly, the English yahoos didn't smashthrough the farmhouse with a pick-up truck. Comparatively, theEnglishmen were armed with only one shotgun rather than an arsenal ofhigh-powered hunting rifles. Marsden plays a different kind of nerdfrom the Hoffman hero. Lurie rewrote the Kate Bosworthdamsel-in-distress role so that she possesses more maturity than SusanGeorge's petulant Lolita-like wife. Unlike the Hoffman-George marriagethat strained credibility, everything about the Marsden-Bosworth unionseems believable. As a couple, their characters seem far morecompatible. We are told more about their back story than Peckinpahrevealed about the Hoffman-George marriage. Meantime, AlexanderSkarsgård and James Woods emerge as stronger villains than Peter Vaughnand Del Henney in the original. While the film relied on GordonWilliams' novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm" for its source material,Lurie derived most of his inspiration from the David Zelag Goodman &Sam Peckinpah script. Lurie lifted several lines straight from theoriginal, though he left out Hoffman's memorable line: "I will notallow violence against this house!" For the record, although the actionoccurs in Mississippi, the filmmakers lensed the story in Shreveport,Louisiana. Nevertheless, as remakes rate, "Straw Dogs" qualifies as abreed apart.

Josh Bell 16 April 2012

Evidence of how Hollywood can take the most charged, passionate material and make it into something generic and forgettable.

Farid_Hijab_Nadweed 15 April 2012

For tiny sissy-boys only...

First off, this movie is for sissy-boys and girls ONLY, girl who thinkvengeance is great, love happens the cute way & US culture is somethingprecious only to be thrown out at the end in 2 minutes. Let me get thatin details, without the Straw Dogs image this movie would be thebiggest flop ever, thus going into the famous ManU star the movieactually gets attention. The outdoor scenes are really bad, staged ofcourse and the camera focuses on the wrong end so as for directing I'mgoing to give it the worst mark for sure. Then the love conflict aredating back from the 1980s British dating, getting annoyed at anotherneighbor so immature shows the screenplay was writted on a abeercoaster with ripped off corners. Every teen girl is going to lovethis but everybody else will be feeling cheated at the story. Then theculture has always been a talked about issue, arranged marriages, innerculture marriages etc...nothing new and then as a stupid twist in thestory the whole issue is forgotten for the sake of a happyending...stupid stupid stupid...'nuff said!

Alison Willmore 15 April 2012

[It] has been contemporized, sanitized and stripped of all complexity, and what's left is as empty as a used piñata.

ramin99 14 April 2012

Why

Sam Peckinpah is one of my favorite directors. He was a genius thelikes of whom we may never see again. Whoever thought it a good idea toremake one of his best works should be brought to justice to answer forthis blunder. What's more they should be banned from film-making forbeing arrogant dips***s; it's like attempting to remake Michelangelo'sMoses after experimenting with play-doh in kindergarten.I saw the theatrical trailer and have had enough of this travesty. Itlooks like a cheap TV show for teenyboppers. This movie is a joke.One reviewer wrote, "Watch it if you are a die hard Peckenfan...," aPeckinpah fan would not care to watch a cheap imitation of the realthing. This is one of the most idiotic things I have read in this siteso far, not to mention he/she misspelled Peckinpah's name. I'd saywatch it if you are %100 ignorant of Peckinpah's work. What's next? Remaking The Wild Bunch making it look like Twilight?