Dog Eat Dog

This movie just fell off the cliff halfway through. Willem Dafoe is one of my all time favorite actors, to see him going through this was painful to watch. The set up was great, but the movie lost itself halfway through. Think of having sex with a Victoria Secret model and great foreplay then she abruptly walks out on you, leaving you hanging. This film does that to you! Cage has been doing such odd work of late, I almost think he is purposely picking mediocre scripts because he owes everyone favors since his bankruptcy or maybe this is all he can get these days. Whatever the case, he needs a good movie soon or he'll soon fade away into obscurity. What a horrible flick!

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

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.

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.

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.