AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,3/10
10 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaMercenary James Shannon, on a reconnaissance job to the African nation of Zangaro, is tortured and deported. He returns to lead a coup.Mercenary James Shannon, on a reconnaissance job to the African nation of Zangaro, is tortured and deported. He returns to lead a coup.Mercenary James Shannon, on a reconnaissance job to the African nation of Zangaro, is tortured and deported. He returns to lead a coup.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Jean-François Stévenin
- Michel
- (as Jean François Stevenin)
Pedro Armendáriz Jr.
- The Captain
- (as Pedro Armendariz Jr.)
Joseph Konrad
- Priest
- (as Father Joseph Konrad)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
Oddly enough I have never heard about "The Dogs of War" before now in mid-2019 when I found the movie. I saw that Christopher Walken was in it, and that was all I needed to sit down and watch it.
Turns out that "The Dogs of War" was actually a nice and enjoyable movie. Now, mind you, this movie definitely has its ups and down, some thrilling parts and some less thrilling parts. But the overall result of director John Irvin's movie from 1980 was actually good.
The storyline is good and you easily and quickly immerse yourself into the plot and storyline. And the pacing of the movie was, for the most parts, quite good.
The characters in the movie were fair and well enough detailed to make you have an interest in them. And they had a good ensemble of actors and actresses to portray the various roles. Needless to say that Christopher Walken was of course carrying the movie quite nicely. And he had some good assistance from the likes of Tom Berenger and Paul Freeman. It was a nice surprise to see the likes of Ed O'Neil and JoBeth Williams in a movie such as this, despite having small roles.
While "The Dogs of War" certainly was entertaining for what it turned out to be, I wouldn't really say that this the type of movie that you will watch more than once. It just didn't really have enough contents to warrant more than a single viewing.
There is a wonderful sense of good old days to "The Dogs of War" in terms of the way the story was told and how the movie was constructed and executed. So there could be some nostalgic value to the movie for some viewers as well.
Turns out that "The Dogs of War" was actually a nice and enjoyable movie. Now, mind you, this movie definitely has its ups and down, some thrilling parts and some less thrilling parts. But the overall result of director John Irvin's movie from 1980 was actually good.
The storyline is good and you easily and quickly immerse yourself into the plot and storyline. And the pacing of the movie was, for the most parts, quite good.
The characters in the movie were fair and well enough detailed to make you have an interest in them. And they had a good ensemble of actors and actresses to portray the various roles. Needless to say that Christopher Walken was of course carrying the movie quite nicely. And he had some good assistance from the likes of Tom Berenger and Paul Freeman. It was a nice surprise to see the likes of Ed O'Neil and JoBeth Williams in a movie such as this, despite having small roles.
While "The Dogs of War" certainly was entertaining for what it turned out to be, I wouldn't really say that this the type of movie that you will watch more than once. It just didn't really have enough contents to warrant more than a single viewing.
There is a wonderful sense of good old days to "The Dogs of War" in terms of the way the story was told and how the movie was constructed and executed. So there could be some nostalgic value to the movie for some viewers as well.
Not sure I was really aware of this before flipping it on. I was pretty surprised with some of the directions this one took. It definitely doesn't follow the super generic formulas that most movies would have. The inverse of that is, it's not super memorable in any particular way. So I give it credit for not fitting into a perfect mold of cookie cutter storytelling, but it needed something, a spark to make it stand out more.
Decent watch if it happens to be on, no real reason to go out of your way for it though.
Decent watch if it happens to be on, no real reason to go out of your way for it though.
That is, not for those with child like tastes. If you require non-stop action ... move along. The characters are set up nicely and Walken is just too cool, I think it's his best performance. Most of his fans don't know about this movie but it's a gem. There are a few scenes I would have left on the cutting floor but they can be overlooked. There's a scene with his doctor that is worth watching the whole movie over. But there's plenty more. There's good dialog, nice scenery, some action and some characters you actually care about. This is not an assault on your senses; you will have to pay attention to enjoy it. But it will be worth your time. If you are a fan of Christopher Walken, then it will be well worth your time.
The great thing about reading a Fredirick Forsyth novel is that you're educated while being entertained . He gives you facts and details on everything from modern jet fighters to Ukrainian history . The problem with this though is that the info tend to hold up the narrative which makes a Forsyth novel difficult to successfully translate to screen and to be honest the original THE DOGS OF WAR novel isn't really a book that will appeal to a cinema goer who's into no brain action shoot them ups . I can forgive this since I know what to expect from a Forsyth story but would Mr action fan ? I can just imagine a disappointed Arnie/Bruce/Sly fan slagging the movie off for having only two battle scenes , one at the start of the movie and one at the end , so let me point out that if you're expecting to see DIE HARD IN AFRICA it's maybe not you're kind of movie
If there's a problem with the movie it's mainly down to the structure of the novel with much of the running time taken up with planning the coup , getting the equipment , hiring the boat etc . I also noticed the dialogue was a bit iffy " Which one of your men do I kill to make way for mine ? " . Things like structure and dialogue don't matter too much on the written page but tend to leap out at you on the silver screen , but as many of the commentators on this page have pointed out it's an action film/political thriller with a brain . It's perhaps not as enjoyable as say THE DARK OF THE SUN or THE WILD GEESE but there's certainly entertainment to be had trying to spot the actor before they were a well known face
If there's a problem with the movie it's mainly down to the structure of the novel with much of the running time taken up with planning the coup , getting the equipment , hiring the boat etc . I also noticed the dialogue was a bit iffy " Which one of your men do I kill to make way for mine ? " . Things like structure and dialogue don't matter too much on the written page but tend to leap out at you on the silver screen , but as many of the commentators on this page have pointed out it's an action film/political thriller with a brain . It's perhaps not as enjoyable as say THE DARK OF THE SUN or THE WILD GEESE but there's certainly entertainment to be had trying to spot the actor before they were a well known face
The entire beginning and middle of the film are utterly engrossing. It was a nice change to see a film that showed the amount of planning and attention to detail and contingency plans that goes into preparing a military operation, even a quick raid like the one planned here. The final raid however is a disappointment though, especially because of the realistic and detailed nature of the film to that point. These are serious professional mercenaries in a gritty realistic film and in the final battle, logic and realism go out the window as these "professionals" walk slowly in the open firing from the hip like they were in a Rambo film. Had they fought like that in real life, they'd have all been killed in the first few seconds. I don't think the director understood the nature of combat and that's too bad because otherwise, this film is a gem.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesWhile researching the novel in the early 1970s, author Frederick Forsyth pretended he was actually financing a coup d'etat in Equatorial Guinea. The pretense allowed Forsyth access to a number of underworld figures, including mercenaries and arms dealers. Forsyth has since commented that the arms dealers were the most frightening people he has ever met.
- Erros de gravaçãoAlthough they are supposed to be receiving training in the use of the Uzi sub-machine gun, several of the mercenaries who run across the deck to fire at the floating target are armed with Ingram MAC-10's.
- Versões alternativasAlthough the cinema version was uncut the 1986 UK video was cut by 5 secs by the BBFC to remove shots of broken glass being forced into the mouth of Endean's man before being beaten up by Shannon. The 2001 MGM DVD restored the film to its original 119 minute UK length, which had additional character development, including an early scene of Shannon attending the baptism of a fellow mercenary's child, a bed scene between Shannon and Jessie, a scene of the raiding party being delayed by a closed drawbridge, Shannon pressuring Hackett to deliver the Valencia shipment, and extensive footage between Shannon and Lockhart where the latter persuades Spanish officials to allow the cargo on to the boat.
- ConexõesEdited into Ameaça No Ar (1999)
- Trilhas sonorasEpitaph on an Army of Mercenaries
Sung by Gillian McPherson
Music by Geoffrey Burgon
Poem by A.E. Housman
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Los perros de la guerra
- Locações de filme
- Belize City, Belize(Central America)
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 5.484.132
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 5.484.132
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 59 min(119 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente