Home
search
more | tips
IMDb > Dogs of Hell (1982) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Dogs of Hell (1982) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 10 comments in total 

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't waste your time on this movie, 10 February 2002
1/10
Author: wbells (whisperingbells@webtv.net) from New York

This movie was very disappointing. When I chose this movie to watch, I expected to see lots of dog scenes & lots of blood. Most of the attack scenes consisted of some snarling then somebody screams & runs from the camera & then you see them with some scratch marks on their face & throats. I could have done better effects from my kitchen. The dialogue was awful & boring, the editing was terrible, there is not one thing worthwhile about this movie.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Rock-bottom cheapie., 6 October 2002
1/10
Author: gridoon

You know, it's really a shame that most people have never heard of this movie. Because viewing it might just alter your perceptions about bad films. You will realize, after this, how often the phrase "this is the worst movie ever made" is inappropriately used; "Rottweiler" IS the worst movie ever made! I guess there have been, and there will be, movies AS bad as this one, but it's highly doubtful whether there has ever been a movie WORSE than this one. It's the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of killer-dog films. It looks as if it was shot with a bad video camera, and the acting is beyond bad. How can anyone give it anything higher than a "0"?

Was the above comment useful to you?

See it in 3-D!, 19 November 2006
6/10
Author: brettdavidsmith from United States

I first saw this in 2-D VHS and didn't really like it. A few years later i got my hands on a 3-D (field sequential)VHS copy and was quite surprised by the photography. The film was originally titled 'Rottweiler'. The story concerns a pack of genetically engineered attack dogs (for the military) that escape and cause havoc among citizens of a sleepy mountain town. Think 'Jaws' with dogs instead of sharks. You get the idea. Many scenes were well composed to take full advantage of the 3-D medium. Of course the acting is horrible, plot and script nearly missing but hey, it's a 3-D movie. What did you expect? Just sit back, put your 3-D glasses on, turn your brain off and enjoy it for what it is. A z-grade 3-D guilty pleasure. Otherwise, skip it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Shot and originally released in 3-D, 23 January 2006
5/10
Author: Stereo3dguy from Las Vegas

This film must be seen in the original widescreen 3-D process; as the excellent use of stereoscopic space is its only virtue. If you like cheesy horror flicks, you'll likely appreciate it a bit more. Earl is no actor, but he's fun in this silly little movie.

After seeing COMIN' AT YA! rake in the cash in 1981, Earl got the idea (as did many a producer at the time) that 3-D would bring attention to his low budget southern flicks and decided to shoot everything that way! This was the first of SIX 3-D movies made by Earl Owensby in the 1980's. The others were TALES OF THE THIRD DIMENSION, CHAIN GANG, HIT THE ROAD RUNNING, HYPERSPACE, and HOT HEIR (aka GREAT BALLOON CHASE).

Was the above comment useful to you?

It's kind of a fun movie..., 9 June 2003
Author: lost1-1

yup... it's kind of fun to watch "Dogs of Hell" if you like to watch movies that were originally intended to be in 3D and pretend to be wow-ed by the scenes where they intend to shoot, throw, or point things out at you. Originally released as "Rottweiler" in 1982, you can see how the entire movie is relying on the fact that at some point they're gonna throw something towards the camera. As I watched it I thought after the first hour that I'd rented a movie called "Mystery Dog" because you never actually saw what was attacking these 80's act-bots (so amazing how they could manage to have such 2-dimensional actors in a 3D movie). And the dogs you eventually see look like your neighbor's dogs do when the kids tease it...hardly a fright. But it wasn't as though the film were a real disappointment as I hadn't expected much. The highlight of the movie for me was when the sherriff would shoot the dogs with his big ol' 44. You'd see the picture cut away from a snarling rottweiler to a cheap, paper machete casting of a rottweiler's head that would then explode throwing bologna, chocolate milk, stale beer and whatever else they decided would look like dog brains all over the place. Yup. "Dogs of Hell" was a moderately humorous way to neglect quality time and a gem if you're into watching obscure movies that don't diserve to be remembered just because you know they wont be.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
"Rottweilers...and they were trained to kill.", 8 January 2004
Author: Backlash007 from Kentucky

Okay, I give up. It really is impossible to make a good killer dog movie. This is a prime example of what not to do. Don't set the movie in Hickville, don't cast a bunch of real hicks, and don't take ten years to get to the dog action. The title was so promising: Dogs of Hell!! I was more than ready for some hell hound horror. You do get a small dose of that, it's just not what you want. Chick screams then gets covered in blood. You hear the dog panting but you never see him. The camera stays in the dogs POV. The Rottweilers and the humans are never onscreen at the same time. Dogs of Hell is a mega-low budget movie and is not worth your time. This dog just has no bite.

"They were perfectly trained for one task: Manslaughter!"

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Ugly!, 12 November 2002
Author: kita117 (kita117@hotmail.com) from Maryland

This movie is so stupid. I went through a lot to try to find this movie. I only could rent it anyway. Maybe it was just for rental because it was too bad enough to keep on the market for people to buy. You could not even see the dogs killing people as if they would switch the camera every minute. Being a horror movie genre fan, you would think the title had a good significance as to why I would want to see this movie really bad. I wonder are there any other killer dog movies that beat this one.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A watchable movie., 29 June 2000
5/10
Author: Sergei Scurfield from Calgary, Canada

This 3-D horror film, from Earl Owensby Studios, pits the local sheriff (played by Earl Owensby) against a pack of specially bred man-killing Rottweilers.

The U.S. Military has developed a new experimental weapon; Rottweilers who have been specially bred and trained to replace soldiers in gorilla warfare situations. Unfortunately for the residents of Lake Lure (America's Mountain Playground) the dogs have escaped and are killing anyone they come across.

Although dead bodies are turning up left and right Sheriff Hank Willis inexplicably decides not to warn the community, but instead puts together a posse to hunt down the dogs. The dogs are quite easy to kill, as their heads explode whenever they are shot, but finding the dogs before the dogs find their next victim is no easy task. Eventually the truth of the bloody-deaths reveals itself to the population, but common sense in this small resort town is in short supply. Soon only the sheriff is left alive to protect his town and family from the savage killers. Complicating matters further is the presence of Adam Fletcher, the scientist responsible for the creation of the military super-dogs. Fletcher wants to protect his experimental canine subjects, and is willing to fight Willis to save his dogs.

Rottweiler: Dogs of Hell is not the worst film of its kind (Skeeter immediately comes to mind). It is a watchable movie, but I would recommend it to only the most serious of Rottweiler lovers. I rate it a 5 out of 10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
My first Earl Owensby flick - and probably my last!, 30 June 2002
Author: Wizard-8 from Victoria, BC

An unbelievably bad effort by independent producer Earl Owensby, not just for the fact it rips off "The Pack" and "Dogs". It's unbelievable in its ineptness, starting with photography so poor (especially during the night sequences) that the movie looks like it was shot in 8 MM. The attack sequences are very lazy - mostly we just HEAR the attacks instead of seeing them, and when we DO see them, it's only for a split second. We do see the aftermath of the attacks, though the poor makeup jobs aren't any compensation. The main problem with the movie is that it's simply BORING for the most part, devoting most of the running time to showing these country folk talking to each other and going around the area. I can't see ANY reason why this could be of interest to anyone, even if someone happened to star or work on the movie. If you want to see a killer dog movie, see "The Pack". Heck, even see "Dogs" over this; though it's not very good, it's a masterpiece next to "Dogs Of Hell"!

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
nice doggy, good doggy..., 23 April 1999
1/10
Author: .gif

Oh my, how scary. Nice doggies wagging their tails. What are they going to do? Lick my face 'til death?

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history