Dog Eat Dog

Three friends, each of whom is facing a third-strike life prison sentence if caught breaking the law, kidnap the daughter of a gangster. A tough character piece from Paul Schrader, the man behind Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, that retains the sensibilities of grim misogynistic crime flicks from the '70s while tipping its hat to more romanticised examples of the '40s. Absorbing and watchable thanks to the three leads, but it's let down by a fanciful finale completely at odds with the low-key realism of the rest of the movie.

First, I read the Eddy Bunker's novel and this was the best experience in my reader's life. An authentic, realistic, fierce crime story, written by an authentic ex con who spent more than ten or fifteen years of his life in jail. This movie is adapted from the novel. The book, I repeat, is really a high grade crime drama, describing true portrait of mobsters. But when I heard that Nick Cage was in the run, and also read the first critics, I was damned afraid of what I was going to see. I thought about a sort of dark comedy, light written, supported by superficial performances. OK, let's be clear and fair, the film is far from the book, speaking of the character's real nature, it doesn't describe them the same than the novel does. Not entirely. Maybe David Ayer or another director really in love with Bunker's book would have given a better job. But after seeing it, I am overall satisfied with the result. After all, all Cage's films since two decades now are nearly all craps.

Do not be too hard with this film, please.

It might be a good thing that I don't know what to think of this movie. I liked it, it's not the best thing Nicolas Cage has been in, but you can't put it under the category of bad Cage movie, Especially when running lines with William Defoe who was worth watching in this flick and brought great essence to it.

I saw someone else review the movie. They stated the the film has Bite but No Bark. It made me curious enough to want to watch it, and after seeing Dog Eat Dog I think I understand what they mean. The film was shot amazingly with some powerful performances. Like I said before, Defoe fills the room and Cage is lucky to have him, but at the same time Cage is no slouch in this either. Plus the chemistry of all the actors together is well received, and once again to look at the movie...it really packs a punch.

But the plot of the movie is almost non-existent. The film is suppose to be about three crooks kidnapping a baby, yet this plot seems subliminal in relation to watching three crooks, one of them just recently released from jail have a good time, and see how they became acquaintances in the first place.

It's like the director is trying to tell us that we don't need a plot for a movie to be interesting, but I have to admit that this point my come across better if I knew it was going to be a convict version of Seinfeld, while waiting for these guys to do something. Still, very good film to watch

Outside the comedy realm, a 'dumb criminal' plot a tough sell. Despite a standout performance by W.D. as a vulnerable sociopath this was tough film to like. In the past, a nihilistic heist story with an 8-Ball's worth of random Hollywood visuals paid the bills. (e.g. Natural Born Killers) Schrader remains unable to parlay his fading nostalgia into something resembling a legacy. Cinematography has advanced to the point that most reverential (self or other) shots are staid. On the story note, Nick Cage's wanton H. Bogart impressions negate character development and story. He needs to: A) Get a new agent (B) Stop phoning it (C) Just retire. But, if there is any takeaway from this pseudo art-house turd, W. Defoe is amazing. In the end it was enjoyable and completely forgettable.

Starts out entertaining enough, the first 10 minutes or so offers some absolutely insane dark comedy from Willem Defoe.

But eventually (fairly early tbh) the script runs out of steam and it takes a more serious (not so comedic at least) turn but more so goes all over the place with little to no coherency at times.

I can't help but to think that this movie must have been at least 30 minutes longer but edited down to the point where one minute for instance a person is caught by the police and the next he's free with no explanation as to how this happened.

Not that I think that the movie being 2 hours instead of 90 would have helped it much though tbh because the editing is far from the only problem this movie has.

Nicholas Cage's character appears to change from one scene to the next after a while, starting off as the more sensible criminal of the trio but eventually lashing off and appears to try to outcrazy Willem Defoe (who is the crazy guy in the group).

Why did I say trio you ask, well there's actually a third guy with the same importance as Cage and Defoe and that is the unknown Christopher Matthew Cook, I'm guessing he is good friends with the director or something because he just becomes 'the other guy' when put in to the same position as 2 stars like Cage and Defoe and doesn't have the acting-chops to rise above it.

Cook's character is said by Cage's character to be incredibly intelligent talking about how if he lived in another universe he would have been a Harvard student, but there's nothing that Cook's character says or does in the film that suggest that he is particularly smart.

There's a lot of random stuff like that that doesn't go anywhere and a lot of random stuff that doesn't come from anywhere, like the last 5 minutes, very random.

Anyways all in all it just becomes a pointless and confusing Tarantino wanna be of a film.