Metacritic-Rezensionen

A funny, elegiac, uplifting, and deliciously different movie.

While the story details of Dogs in Space tend to evaporate quickly, the raw emotional power of the film makers' aspirations leave a profound imprint. Almost instinctually we sense tragedy, and it's to the film makers' and cast's great credit that we hope against hope that somehow it can be averted. [9 Oct 1987, p.6-24]

It's a safe bet that those who like the music will like the film, and those who don't would find it uncomfortable. But as a combination of historical homage, docudrama and concert film, it is well acted, well filmed and well mixed. [3 Dec 1987, p.E07]

Slightly weird, occasionally funny thriller.

Sex, drugs, delirious camera work, and a great deal of noise are the foundations of this aggressively bizarre Australian production. [9 Oct 1987, p.21]

This film, which tries to use chaos creatively-by shaping it and sculpting it-finally seems little more than a well-filmed mess. [4 Dec 1987, p.B]

There's a certain midnight-movie attraction to Lowenstein's unencumbered madness in "Dogs." Until it all gets encumbered, that is. He tacks on an ending almost worthy of Nancy Reagan -- if she'd stayed this long with the movie. Suddenly there's a Just Say No consequence to this Kind of Lifestyle. It changes the whole cast of the film (suddenly we've been watching a message picture), and it doesn't conclude the movie so much as rip the plug out. [22 Jan 1998, p.N23]

The background is energetic; too bad the foreground is just as chaotic...Mr. Lowenstein - whose work includes many rock videos and ''Strikebound,'' a film about Australian miners - prefers sensory overload to coherence.

Interminable...Writer-director Richard Lowenstein seems as bored with the proceedings as most spectators are likely to be; consequently there's probably more gratuitous camera movement per square inch here than in any other film of 1986.

The filmmakers obviously had something to say, but Dogs in Space is wretched. The photography is fine, and some of the performers do well, but sitting through this film is headache- inducing. [4 Dec 1987, p.D5]