VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,1/10
1967
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA mercenary is hired to protect an expedition group while they search for a Tangka, a Buddhist artifact worth millions of dollars.A mercenary is hired to protect an expedition group while they search for a Tangka, a Buddhist artifact worth millions of dollars.A mercenary is hired to protect an expedition group while they search for a Tangka, a Buddhist artifact worth millions of dollars.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
NuoMing Huari
- Sonia
- (as Noming)
Davy Williams
- Jim
- (as David A. Williams)
Senggerinchin
- Goldentooth
- (as Senggerenqing)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
If you like: 'The Order', 'Sahara', 'Men of War'- This film is as good in some aspects as those.
While you basically know what you will get with a Dolph Lundgren movie, this particular 2007 movie was as pointless as it was boring. And it wasn't particularly action-filled either.
The story is about Ronson (played by Dolph Lundgren) who is ridden with a growing debt in remote Mongolia. Facing imprisonment, Ronson comes into lucrative chance to earn money by helping an art collector from New York to collect an ancient Mongolian artifact. But the path to riches is filled with peril.
Althrough the entire movie there was an overshadowing sensation of no one involved with the movie were really buying into the storyline or the movie itself. And that dragged the movie down badly. Even Dolph Lundgren seemed to be running on autopilot.
I didn't really understand the title of the movie as it made no sense to anything that was taking place throughout the course of the movie.
The few action sequences that were in the movie, though, were well enough executed. And that, at least, does count for something.
"Diamond Dogs" is a less than mediocre action movie that offers absolutely nothing interesting to the viewers.
The story is about Ronson (played by Dolph Lundgren) who is ridden with a growing debt in remote Mongolia. Facing imprisonment, Ronson comes into lucrative chance to earn money by helping an art collector from New York to collect an ancient Mongolian artifact. But the path to riches is filled with peril.
Althrough the entire movie there was an overshadowing sensation of no one involved with the movie were really buying into the storyline or the movie itself. And that dragged the movie down badly. Even Dolph Lundgren seemed to be running on autopilot.
I didn't really understand the title of the movie as it made no sense to anything that was taking place throughout the course of the movie.
The few action sequences that were in the movie, though, were well enough executed. And that, at least, does count for something.
"Diamond Dogs" is a less than mediocre action movie that offers absolutely nothing interesting to the viewers.
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 :))
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 :))
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDirector Shimon Dotan was replaced by Dolph Lundgren during most of the production.
- BlooperWhen Anika is assaulted by the Russians her right eye is OK, then when Ronson lifts her up a little later she has a black eye. But when she is seen in the restaurant talking to Ronson, she once again has no black eye.
- Citazioni
Sinister Man: The toughest one is the donkey.
- ConnessioniReferenced in Making of 'Diamond Dogs' (2008)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Diamond Dogs?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Діамантові пси
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 34 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Diamond Dogs (2007) officially released in Canada in English?
Rispondi