NOTE IMDb
4,8/10
10 k
MA NOTE
Une équipe d'ex-détenus est embauchée par un mafieux de Cleveland pour kidnapper le bébé d'un gangster rival.Une équipe d'ex-détenus est embauchée par un mafieux de Cleveland pour kidnapper le bébé d'un gangster rival.Une équipe d'ex-détenus est embauchée par un mafieux de Cleveland pour kidnapper le bébé d'un gangster rival.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Chelcie Lynn
- Sheila
- (as Chelcie Melton)
Avis à la une
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!
Paul Schrader: 'I've made some important films. 'Dog Eat Dog is not one of them'. Sad but true for Director/Writer Paul Schrader - A man with a career of 20 films, among them Taxi and Raging Bull - His career as a director remains unseen by his work as a screenwriter for Martin Scorsese - A legacy we will always remember him for - With Dog Eat Dog, Schrader tries to remind us that he is still relevant in the world - Ignoring one small fact - Everyone in this day and age can and will judge you harshly, no matter the reputation. Stylized as a low-budget Neo-noir crime caper with the talents of Nicolas Cage, Willem Dafoe and Schrader himself taking on a role, respectfully making comparisons to Quentin Tarantino's earlier films - With heavy-handed dialogue, harsh and senseless barbarity and a convoluted plot not worth following to its third act - Which is based on the novel of the same name by Edward Bunker.
Troy (Nicolas Cage), Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), and Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook) are a couple of goofball criminals, all with clichéd traits - Troy (The Straight-Man), Mad Dog (The Loose Cannon), and Diesel (The Muscle), tired of small end jobs they decide to pull off one last big score - Which involves kidnapping the baby of a rival mobster. But like most crime caper films, this goes awry and they are forced to fend for themselves - From the mob and now police following an anonymous tip.
On first glance, one can say that Schrader relates to the author himself - Edward Bunker. Both men looking for redemption, seeking a story that will ignite the spark they once had - For Schrader Dog Eat Dog should've been that story - After the disastrous events of his previous film, also starring Cage - 'Dying of the Light', unhappy with the film's re-cut, Schrader, and Cage publicly dismissed the film.
A similar theme about loss and redemption - A recurring theme for Schrader as he demonstrates it throughout his career as-a screenwriter.
Screenwriter, Matthew Wilder (Your Name Here) writes from a jarring and lurid place - depicting a dark Americana - Which is fine if used effectively. The idea of Troy, Cage's character - A movie buff with delusions of being a Humphrey Bogart lookalike is a small moment that stands out, adding more layers to a none the less complicated character.
In part, Nicolas Cage as Troy is subdued and less comical as we'd expect from a Nicolas Cage performance - Willem Dafoe as Mad Dog is fine and yet misunderstood - A man yearning for love and friendship, yet afraid to admit it. Christopher Matthew Cook as Diesel is less intriguing, as he stumbles with stoic and apprehensive tendencies.
Cinematographer Alexander Dynan never really shows us anything new to take in or marvel at besides the story itself - Perhaps in part to the editing by Ben Rodriguez Jr., who provides quick and fast paced editing.
Dog Eat Dog may inspire some with its unique flare or visuals - Fast and quick insert cuts - Or its simplistic story, whatever the reason only time will tell if we remember this as Paul Schrader film.
Troy (Nicolas Cage), Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), and Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook) are a couple of goofball criminals, all with clichéd traits - Troy (The Straight-Man), Mad Dog (The Loose Cannon), and Diesel (The Muscle), tired of small end jobs they decide to pull off one last big score - Which involves kidnapping the baby of a rival mobster. But like most crime caper films, this goes awry and they are forced to fend for themselves - From the mob and now police following an anonymous tip.
On first glance, one can say that Schrader relates to the author himself - Edward Bunker. Both men looking for redemption, seeking a story that will ignite the spark they once had - For Schrader Dog Eat Dog should've been that story - After the disastrous events of his previous film, also starring Cage - 'Dying of the Light', unhappy with the film's re-cut, Schrader, and Cage publicly dismissed the film.
A similar theme about loss and redemption - A recurring theme for Schrader as he demonstrates it throughout his career as-a screenwriter.
Screenwriter, Matthew Wilder (Your Name Here) writes from a jarring and lurid place - depicting a dark Americana - Which is fine if used effectively. The idea of Troy, Cage's character - A movie buff with delusions of being a Humphrey Bogart lookalike is a small moment that stands out, adding more layers to a none the less complicated character.
In part, Nicolas Cage as Troy is subdued and less comical as we'd expect from a Nicolas Cage performance - Willem Dafoe as Mad Dog is fine and yet misunderstood - A man yearning for love and friendship, yet afraid to admit it. Christopher Matthew Cook as Diesel is less intriguing, as he stumbles with stoic and apprehensive tendencies.
Cinematographer Alexander Dynan never really shows us anything new to take in or marvel at besides the story itself - Perhaps in part to the editing by Ben Rodriguez Jr., who provides quick and fast paced editing.
Dog Eat Dog may inspire some with its unique flare or visuals - Fast and quick insert cuts - Or its simplistic story, whatever the reason only time will tell if we remember this as Paul Schrader film.
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.
Initially I had low expectations to "Dog Eat Dog", given the fact that it is another Nicolas Cage movie. And I can't claim to be much fan of him or his one-and-only-expression-in-every-scene. However, having Willem Dafoe on the cast list alongside with Nicolas Cage, well that might actually do salvage the movie.
So I sat down to watch this movie. And I must admit that this movie was not in the least a particularly memorable or entertaining movie. It was every bit as slow-paced and fairly uneventful as it was a confusing mess of jumbled events and stumbling dialogue.
The story is about three ex-cons who get together for a last and final job that will set them up with riches for the rest of their lives. However, things does not turn out as they had planned, in fact things take a turn for the worse quite fast.
Right, well the storyline wasn't original. Nope, not one bit. "Dog Eat Dog" offers nothing to the genre that hasn't already been done, seen or attempted in other similar movies.
And watching Nicolas Cage stumble through this script wasn't particularly helpful to the movie. And however good Willem Dafoe is, then he just didn't manage to lift the movie out of the overwhelming less-than-mediocre shadow that shrouded it.
The dialogue throughout the movie was not impressive, and many a times I found myself with my toes curled up because of the dialogue that was presented by the characters on the screen.
My interest and attention to the movie drifted off a couple of times throughout the course of the movie, because it just seemed like a myriad of multiple chaotic and scrambled scenes shot independently were being put together to form a movie; and that movie became "Dog Eat Dog".
I did manage to stick with the movie to the end. And boy, what an ending. Talk about being cliché and ridiculous. I will not give the ending away, you have to witness that stinker for yourself.
"Dog Eat Dog" came and went without even denting anything. This is the type of movie that you watch if you stumble upon it by sheer random luck; nay, make that random accident. And it is the type of movie that you watch once, then never again.
So I sat down to watch this movie. And I must admit that this movie was not in the least a particularly memorable or entertaining movie. It was every bit as slow-paced and fairly uneventful as it was a confusing mess of jumbled events and stumbling dialogue.
The story is about three ex-cons who get together for a last and final job that will set them up with riches for the rest of their lives. However, things does not turn out as they had planned, in fact things take a turn for the worse quite fast.
Right, well the storyline wasn't original. Nope, not one bit. "Dog Eat Dog" offers nothing to the genre that hasn't already been done, seen or attempted in other similar movies.
And watching Nicolas Cage stumble through this script wasn't particularly helpful to the movie. And however good Willem Dafoe is, then he just didn't manage to lift the movie out of the overwhelming less-than-mediocre shadow that shrouded it.
The dialogue throughout the movie was not impressive, and many a times I found myself with my toes curled up because of the dialogue that was presented by the characters on the screen.
My interest and attention to the movie drifted off a couple of times throughout the course of the movie, because it just seemed like a myriad of multiple chaotic and scrambled scenes shot independently were being put together to form a movie; and that movie became "Dog Eat Dog".
I did manage to stick with the movie to the end. And boy, what an ending. Talk about being cliché and ridiculous. I will not give the ending away, you have to witness that stinker for yourself.
"Dog Eat Dog" came and went without even denting anything. This is the type of movie that you watch if you stumble upon it by sheer random luck; nay, make that random accident. And it is the type of movie that you watch once, then never again.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesPaul 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.
- GaffesIt'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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Film '72: Épisode #45.10 (2016)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Dog Eat Dog?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Acımasız Rekabet
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 184 404 $US
- Durée1 heure 33 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Dog Eat Dog (2016) officially released in India in English?
Répondre