IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,8/10
10.171
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Eine Bande Ex-Knackis wird von einem Mafiaboss aus Cleveland angeheuert, das Baby eines rivalisierenden Gangsters zu entführen.Eine Bande Ex-Knackis wird von einem Mafiaboss aus Cleveland angeheuert, das Baby eines rivalisierenden Gangsters zu entführen.Eine Bande Ex-Knackis wird von einem Mafiaboss aus Cleveland angeheuert, das Baby eines rivalisierenden Gangsters zu entführen.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Nominierung insgesamt
Chelcie Lynn
- Sheila
- (as Chelcie Melton)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I can honestly say this one of Nicolas Cage's worst films and I think his career is tanking. From the opening scene it was appalling. It is extremely dark, weighing heavy on valleys and missing any peaks. Also, being as I am a Clevelander, it does not portray an accurate portrait of the city I love...not even in regards to crime. This is a despicable display of cinema art. I have no known issues with crime films or violence. What I do have an issue with is is poorly written, directed, and produced work like Dog Eat Dog. The actors in this film are legendary but their work is sub par, at best! Save yourself the time that I wasted by not viewing this film.
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.
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.
I wasn't expecting much but was happy to see Nick Cage and Willam Dafoe together. A collaboration with these two makes it interesting in itself.
A standard crime movie with down on their luck thugs trying to get free of the lifestyle. Looking for subtext, I think the director is trying to display the amoral, nihilistic despair of people born into a life of crime. We see glimpses of their lighter, humane side in order to remind us that even though these are hardened criminals, you have to look deeper to see a man who wants to find peace.
Outside forces, and those of their own making, demonstrate that life has a way of choosing your options, an example of which is when Cook accidentally shows his gun reaching for grocery meat, leading to the final confrontation. An unthinking impulse, hunger, led to his demise.
A standard crime movie with down on their luck thugs trying to get free of the lifestyle. Looking for subtext, I think the director is trying to display the amoral, nihilistic despair of people born into a life of crime. We see glimpses of their lighter, humane side in order to remind us that even though these are hardened criminals, you have to look deeper to see a man who wants to find peace.
Outside forces, and those of their own making, demonstrate that life has a way of choosing your options, an example of which is when Cook accidentally shows his gun reaching for grocery meat, leading to the final confrontation. An unthinking impulse, hunger, led to his demise.
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.
Do not be too hard with this film, please.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesPaul Schrader said he approached Michael Wincott, Michael Douglas, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Nick Nolte, Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Rupert Everett for the role of Greco the Greek, but it didn't work out with any of them. In the end, to avoid going over budget, he played the role himself in what will be his acting debut.
- PatzerIt's unlikely the grocery store manager would call police if he sees a gun in Diesel's back pocket, as open carry of a weapon is legal in Ohio.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Film '72: Folge #45.10 (2016)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Dog Eat Dog?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Acımasız Rekabet
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 184.404 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 33 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen