Almost every choice he makes in his screenplay is a misstep. For example, something seemingly as minor as the main character's career change (from mathematician to Hollywood screenwriter) affects a subtle – yet significant – action later in the film. In Peckinpah's original, in a moment of disgust, Amy changes a mathematical sign on the board that David is using to solve a complicated equation. Anyone knows that you don't do something like that to a mathematician. In Lurie's version, however, since David is merely a screenwriter using a similar board for his notes, Amy's spiteful gesture involves changing a digit in a date; this act just doesn't seem as effective, because it won't significantly affect the husband's work (in other words, it wouldn't give him reason to be annoyed or irritated). In fact, he doesn't even notice the change until the climax, when one of the redneck thugs points it out. So, not only does Lurie soften the impact of the earlier scene, but he also expects us to believe that this dumb hillbilly actually learned – and retained – something from World History 101! There are other changes in the screenplay that, similarly, seem subtle but, actually, result in a domino effect, altering the viewer's perception of later dialogue and action.

Actually I feel the movie mostly justifies her opinion of her husband, since not even the audience believes the Dustin Hoffman character can protect her.
Actually he doesn't even act to protect her at the end but some guy he has no reason in life to protect. From her perspective it would be more likely Charlie to assure her survival.
The movie leads the audience to believe his impotence against the scary reality surrounding him..
David Summers has to go out of his way to prove otherwise since all the time the audience is told he is a moron. That is what makes the end so shocking, because he express in a convincing way he can beequally cruel even if for the wrong reasons.

As Sam Peckinpah described himself "David is the real villain because he IS violent, he brought these things to happen."

The final point of the movie is David accepting the violence inside himself he had been hiding from the whole time. After all the reason he moves to England is to avoid the anti-war students.

This is not a movie for a politically correct age where its nihilistic message will be castrated. It was not made to be easy to swallow.

The fact the current director wants to take off the ambigüïty for me is the difference between a hack who will just use other man's film to upper himself and a real creator who has an actual opinion about things and will not compromise his vision despite consequences. At best a remake will be a stupid dumbed down version that will be easily forgotten.

They can make a thousand remakes but the Straw Dogs that matters will be just one.
Te one that deals with uncomfortable places not everybody wants to go to.

I cant take it anymore! Why are they remaking film after film after
film that Do Not Need to be remade? Why would they possibly want to
remake Straw Dogs for? Videodrome?–for God's sake, Cronenberg thought
up that film himself, made it into the best film he could utilizing the
best technology he could afford at the time, the film was his genius,
his creation–and now some bas-tar*s come along to "remake" it. Remake
is a polite term for ripping off! At least if you're gonna steal, have
the balls to steal and slap your own title on it– look at Tarantino;
he takes from the best, states brazenly where the pieces of his films
come from, and they are HIS films. Nothing is more Low than stealing a
film and justifying/rationalizing the theft by calling it a "remake".
At least have the god dam decency to Use Your Own Goddam Title. Eg.
"The thing" vs "The thing from another world"–Different Movies. Why?
Different Titles! Duh! For the love of God, please don't remake this,
and if you have to, Use A Different Title Please!.

People , help me please.