Diamond Dogs

This is worth watching just to see how a 50+ year old man can still look like a 21 year old - Wow what a build the guy has got and still looks young too - Seriously jealous am I, it was actually worth watching just to see how some stars do not age and Dolph is definitely in the ageless Tom Cruise club!

Ok, on with the serious stuff - The acting is terribly terrible; so what's new but I did actually like the Kevin Spacey lookalike bad guy! Some of the dialogue made me mess my pontaloons! The story is boggo standard and many scenes are clearly influenced by the daddy of all adventure movies Indiana Jones but on a shoestring budget...nay even a sandal-string budget. The action fight scenes were woefully choreographed as though they were having a bit of a fun day out in the fields playing Japs and Commandos boys with guns but the photography, although it is wobbly and totally incoherent at times it is actually a bit refreshing and for some utterly inexplicable reason I did find some of the movie quite fun!

Yes it is dreadfully unoriginal and made on the budget of 10p and a bag of monkey nuts but it is different and I like different, I also like Dolph even though he cannot act worth a dime but he looks so good for a guy of 51 so I give it a fair 4 x AK47's out of 10 on my action-o-mometer!

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.

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.

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.