Cães Selvagens

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.

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

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.

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.

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.