Caçadores de Diamantes

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.

Just another Seagal-Van Damme-Dudikoff type movie where martial arts, beautiful Asian women vs ugly Asian men, picturesque Oriental landscape and treasure hunt have been somewhat clumsily mixed into an action movie. Like in many movies with Lundgren, Russians are bad and greedy again... And of course, there are lots of fight and chase scenes so playfully resolved by Lundgren's character himself. In spite of his age (he was almost 50 during the filming) he still looks strong and fit.

The plot, directing and camera work have their shortcomings, but the movie is not "yawning", logic of the course is still there, the ending is not 100% anticipated and the length (1,5 hours) is just appropriate for killing time.

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 :))

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.

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.