This movie is about a foreigner, David Sumner, who is rejected by his new community. He is a very cerebral and principled man, which the vulgar villagers tragically mistake for weakness. Their view of him permits them to ridicule and abuse him and his wife. The best example of David's principled nature is when he wants to protect a suspect of a crime, who stays in his house, from being lynched. The locals want immediate revenge, which they associate with strength. But the real strength lies in fighting for your believes, which David does. He cannot back up and ends up fighting for the lives of his wife, the suspect and himself.The greatest tragedy is that even David's wife, who grew up in this neighbourhood, regards him as weak and inadequate. The fact that they are not acting in a unified way, makes it easier for her fellow villagers to attack them. Her disappointment in David goes back to the circumstances in which they left their American home. Not much about this is revealed but she vaguely accuses him of having fled, implying cowardice. Since the movie stems from the height of the Vietnam war, my best guess is that he is a conscientious objector, forced to flee the country to escape the draft. While conscientious objectors had a brave and noble cause, their stance was often misinterpreted as cowardice. In the same way, David's civilized nature is misunderstood as weak. This makes him a truly lonely hero. As in Tao Te Ching's quote, which inspired the movie's title, heaven and earth are indifferent, treating him and all creatures as 'straw dogs.'

Not many mainstream movies feature an attractive leading lady who doesn't wear a bra. This flick was interesting if not confounding. Takes place in a tight time frame, a matter of days, and generates more questions than it answers. If you like closure and clean story lines, this is not for you. Hoffman was great as usual, even if he reminded me of Benjamin Braddock in some ways. I liked the Irish setting and the acting. The story didn't quite do it for me. About my reviews: I do not offer a synopsis of the film -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A Classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating)

I never saw a film so simple and yet so complex at the same time. This is how sophisticated Sam Peckinpah was as director of Straw Dogs. He must have had a god-like understanding of human beings and their vulnerabilities, or Straw Dogs would have turned out a forgettable made-for-TV movie. On the contrary, the film is increasingly relevant to mankind as time goes by, surpassing even a classic branding. The story plot and the script are exceptionally well-done, as it rids the viewers of any disbelief from early on. You stop asking why they move there, why Amy Sumner chooses to conduct herself that way, why there is tension between her and the husband. Why the rape is emotionally mixed between yearning and disgust on her part, and all the rest. You subscribe to the film from the beginning, and helplessly follow them every step of the way until every bit of emotion is brutally unfolded and till tail lights of that white car disappears into the darkness. If you show this 1971 film around the US today, it would be easily alleged of campaigning for the National Rifles Association to support the rights to bear arms. It is scary to discover that violence does not have to start from your own inclination or their provocation. Violence can be a result of mutual contempt without you being conscious of helping to develop one. In this film, violence is much a combination of David, Amy, Charlie, Chris, Norman, Henry, Tom, Reverend Barney Hood, to even the lawman Major John Scott, who represents a mindset of "the law is dead". Sam Peckinpah, as this film was first released, was condemned almost unanimously by critics and viewers alike. He was accused of glorifying violence, in support of a lawless society, and in favor of Doomsday's analogies. Today we see him as a prophet who was and is wise. His analysis of social problems is second to none. You can even restructure all governments' crime-preventing policy based upon his films, particularly on this one. Someone made the right call not to try any sequels of this film. The reason is obvious: we now become the real-life sequel of David Sumner's driving Henry Niles into the dark on that fateful night.

I was a 16 year old girl (maybe 15 cant remember) I read about it in the TV guide and decided to give it a go. I recorded it (too late for me) then watched it one cold winter evening alone in my bedroom. I remember what scared me the most! Tom Heddon, that big scary fat man! When he did his intimidation to David in the pub I was literally shaking thinking this is my idea of hell being around such scary violent people. And one thing that also scared me was when Janice's cousin dragged her inside, I felt scared and glad I wasn't in her position, being stuck at home with these scary rapist men. And I remember thinking when I saw Amy and how young she was and how she reminded me of myself, how I wondered why she wasn't scared of anyone. I thought wow, shes a stronger girl than me, and I never wanna be in her or Janice's situation. Just watching it on TV scares me! I watched the film a couple more times in my 20s and I wasn't scared at all and neither of the idiot men really scared me, I suppose back then I was just an innocent teen! Just thought I'd share my little story.