Diamond Dogs

Every action film fan is a bit attached to the good Dolph, but somehow he never really got his act together, the big waves were already missed in the 90s. Here we are, in the middle of the 2000s, so the glory days are years ago, although he still cuts a good figure visually. Couldn't a producer take pity on the fans and throw them a real hit with a good story and an acceptable budget? Yes, there were some small, and I emphasise small, highs to be found in the linear depth, see "The Mechanik" shortly before, but the film unfortunately catapults everything back to the bottom.

The story is cack-handed and spat out. The rest of the actors, what actors. One low-level action scene follows the next. Ok, chasing is the wrong expression, because the film has many long, boring landscape sequences as filler scenes. There really must have been only a mini-mini-mini budget available.

Judging by the comments here on IMDb, public opinion on this movie is divided into 2 distinct camps.

Firstly you have the salivating fans for whom the mere presence of Lundgren is enough to make any film a work of cinematic genius. If that's all it takes to please you, then no comment on here will change your mind. That's fine, enjoy your Dolf - try not to drool on him.

Then you have those who expect, nay DEMAND that any movie which features plot elements such as relics, temples and gunfights follow the big budget Hollywood formula of intricate death traps, load bearing treasure and near superhuman heroics which made the Indiana Jones movies, Mummy series and Tomb raider so successful.

This is where I begin to have a problem. The aforementioned films derive most of their entertainment value from witty one liners, flashy special effects and slick choreography. Diamond Dogs on the other hand goes in the opposite direction, moving the focus of the film away from elaborate action and adventure, on to the characters and their survival.

The majority of the film appears to have been shot on location and most of the characters (played well by a less than famous cast) lack the exaggerated personalities and convoluted motivations you'd find in a Hollywood blockbuster. The result of this shift is that the whole film feels more 'National Geographic' than 'National Treasure'. The sporadic action is fast and lethal, no fancy footwork and no coming back with multiple wounds for one last shot. The 'bad guys' are bad as opposed to villainous and the 'good guys' are played straight, behaving in a practical and decidedly un-heroic manner. I for one found the lack of comedy quipping a refreshing change. In fact the only thing that bothered me in the whole movie was William Shriver's portrayal of 'Chambers' which WAS admittedly slightly over the top toward the beginning of the film.

All the above waffle basically boils down to this; You want an action adventure romp, packed with booby traps, wisecracks and villains? Go watch something else. If however you think you could appreciate something a bit different, with beautiful scenery, an unusual soundtrack and a sizable (but rarely flashy) body count, then you could do an awful lot worse than Diamond Dogs.

Well if your on this page your either a fan of Dolph Lundgren movies or Action/Adventure films. This is a good one, either way. The story is about an ex-military expert guiding an expedition to retrieve an ancient artifact. The details aren't necessary The feel is that the filmmakers were going for an 'Indiana Jones' or 'National Treasure' vibe, what they got was more reminiscent of Van Damme's 'The Order', though this film's tone is more serious.Whats important is that Lundgren is good in an 'Indiana Jones' type role. He brings a nice touch of humor and world-weariness to the proceeding's, especially in the open scenes. He doesn't display the kicks or athleticism that defined his best work, but the shoot-out and fights are staged well enough to catch and hold your attention. Which is about the best compliment you can give a B-movie straight-to-video action adventure film. This role suits Lundgren and he seems to be enjoying himself, which in turn engages the viewer more. I recommend it, cool flick.

If you like: 'The Order', 'Sahara', 'Men of War'- This film is as good in some aspects as those.

Nothing positive to say about this other than the scenery. Filmed in Mongolia and some of the scenery is breathtaking.

I gave it 4/10 as I did finish it. I think the quality of the film is more a 3/10 Its not offensively bad but, it is very poorly made.

On the DVD cover I had Dolph was not listed as the director but is on IMDB I have read there were problems on set and Dolph finished the movie as the director left.

Under the circumstances he probably did the best he could.

This film looks very cheap. I imagine they had a very limited budget and very limited time to finish the movie.

This film is strictly for Dolph completists.

1/5 stars. Avoid.

A low budget, badly acted film............ everything about this film is poorly staged, wooden acting by C list actors and unbelievable settings, I'm still watching this as I write........... OMG so awful.

What more can I say, the scenes do not fit together....

The 'escape' scenes well, simply not believable.

Best line ... He's dead (immediately pull sheet over head LOL)

I'm still cringing as I write this, if second graders presented this as a home movie I would expect better acting (and sets :) )

Please, let me write this comment without having to make up ten lines about a film that doesn't even deserve one!!!!!

Even if you are desperate to watch a film, don't bother with this - paint a wall and watch it dry or sit in the garden and watch grass grow, so much more entertaining :))