last summer, i saw this film with the abovementioned wife in montreal. since we live in southern california, and we had never heard of such a film, we went. i highly recommend this feature. it is not the best looking film, the characters are not as drawn out as they could be, and some of the images are very hard to watch, but it seems like it's an honest film. the ending is a little cliche, but up until that point, i was very interested in the happenings. very few movies have stayed with me, but this one still has pieces of it floating around. plus, the wife cried for hours afterwards. it makes you think about humanity, the way we treat other people, and the ability of charity to change people's lives. if you watch this movie and aren't affected in some way, you should probably wonder why.
11 Reviews
Absolutely unforgettable. Thom Fitzgerald is exceptional.
barrywood16 August 2005
This movie is filmed in Romania. The brilliant director/writer, Thom Fitzgerald, takes you on a journey that is shocking, raw, and honest. Emotions are beautiful and raw. I was thinking throughout the movie how little control we really do have over our own lives.
The characters sort of creates themselves. Sometimes I was so angry that I felt like throwing up but then suddenly I would see something that was extremely tender and funny. Fitzgerald controls the viewer as though he has a whip: he knows how to use it, but he also knows when to lie it down.
The camera shoots are exceptional as well. Watch the movie the second time and take in all the background, the shading, the movements, the actors.
I've never seen a movie like The Wild Dogs. I really can't remember seeing a movie that has made me so angry at some characters but then so happy with other characters. I don't know how Fitzgerald did it, but he has created a masterpiece. Watch the movie for what it is: not what you think it should be because I think most people would find the subject matter totally haunting. This movie is not for the faint of heart.
I rate this movie a 10 out of 10.
The characters sort of creates themselves. Sometimes I was so angry that I felt like throwing up but then suddenly I would see something that was extremely tender and funny. Fitzgerald controls the viewer as though he has a whip: he knows how to use it, but he also knows when to lie it down.
The camera shoots are exceptional as well. Watch the movie the second time and take in all the background, the shading, the movements, the actors.
I've never seen a movie like The Wild Dogs. I really can't remember seeing a movie that has made me so angry at some characters but then so happy with other characters. I don't know how Fitzgerald did it, but he has created a masterpiece. Watch the movie for what it is: not what you think it should be because I think most people would find the subject matter totally haunting. This movie is not for the faint of heart.
I rate this movie a 10 out of 10.
Good shock value does not make a good film
sparkmedia25 October 2005
While I give credit to the filmmaker for completing such a film in what must have been difficult circumstances (political, not emotional), I would expect a film like this from adventurous student filmmakers. This is by no means a great film, both technically and dramatically.
While it is always good shock value to show desperate conditions, there must also be good story, good acting and good craft to make a good film (for example, Schindler's List). This film has none of those. The NTSC DVD that I watched was of the poorest production values, with behind the scenes footage that is embarrassing.
What I find more interesting than the film is the dynamics of the comments found here on IMDb. From overwhelming praise to outright denial of the circumstances portrayed in the film. If the film got one thing right, it is portraying the atmosphere of the streets of Bucharest. The thousands (Yes, there are thousands of them) of stray dogs and the Gypsies do exist. However, it is a fact of life in Romania and not considered to be a major problem by locals who grew up and lived in these conditions all their lives. Nor is it anymore difficult to deal with as a tourist than the pick pockets I found in Rome, or the homeless I find in Los Angeles. Whenever I read a comment that is overwhelmingly good or bad, I discredit the whole comment as biased. I hope others do the same as well.
While it is always good shock value to show desperate conditions, there must also be good story, good acting and good craft to make a good film (for example, Schindler's List). This film has none of those. The NTSC DVD that I watched was of the poorest production values, with behind the scenes footage that is embarrassing.
What I find more interesting than the film is the dynamics of the comments found here on IMDb. From overwhelming praise to outright denial of the circumstances portrayed in the film. If the film got one thing right, it is portraying the atmosphere of the streets of Bucharest. The thousands (Yes, there are thousands of them) of stray dogs and the Gypsies do exist. However, it is a fact of life in Romania and not considered to be a major problem by locals who grew up and lived in these conditions all their lives. Nor is it anymore difficult to deal with as a tourist than the pick pockets I found in Rome, or the homeless I find in Los Angeles. Whenever I read a comment that is overwhelmingly good or bad, I discredit the whole comment as biased. I hope others do the same as well.
Thom Fitzgerald Switches Gears
Chlotrudis27 September 2002
In a stunning turn from his previous films, the director of the magnificent THE HANGING GARDEN plunges himself into the ethical morass of the sex trade and poverty of Bucharest, Romania. In a remarkably successful bit of casting, Fitzgerald himself plays a pornographer sent to Romania to exploit the young, inexpensive female labor there. Upon his arrival he befriends an equally corrupt Canadian diplomat, as well as several of the poor and outcast of Bucharest society. Fitzgerald skillfully ties this lives of the poor outcasts with the hundreds of wild dogs that roam the city, and a young man with a temperament ill-suited for his job of catching them for disposal. And with his character, Fitzgerald creates a morally ambiguous man who keeps surprising the viewer in this powerful and wonderfully made film.
Powerful piece of work.
mrchaos3322 June 2003
This film's title refers to the dogs that were left homeless in Bucharest, Romania when dictator Ceausescu decided to level the city and rebuild it in his vision. After years of unchecked breeding, these stray dogs number in the thousands. Director Thom Fitzgerald (The Hanging Garden) uses scenes of the dogs snarling and fighting as a metaphor for human behaviour. It's a bit heavy handed perhaps, but given the setting and nature of the story it seems appropriate enough. Fitzgerald weaves several plot lines together - an ineffectual dog-catcher (Mihai Calota) fears he will lose his job; a decadent ambassador (David Hayman) takes advantage of his position of power, while his pampered wife (Alberta Watson) begins to understand the crushing poverty that exists all around her and a pornographer (Fitzgerald) comes to town to search for inexpensive models to photograph. It's a complex narrative, and Fitzgerald almost manages to bring it all together. There is a feeling that shards of the story are left dangling and the themes of redemption that are sprinkled throughout seem a bit too tidy, but by an large it works. My main complaint is the casting of Fitzgerald in the lead role of the pornographer. He simply isn't a strong enough actor to convey the emotional arc that his character goes through. For the movie to work we must believe that this is a man who could make his living taking naked pictures of underage girls, and could then realize the evil of his ways and change into a decent guy. Fitzgerald simply never convinced me that there was a transformation happening internally - his performance is all surface. I found myself wondering what a more accomplished actor might do with this role. Don McKellar or Tom McCamus could have pulled this off, but I would have liked to seen Callum Keith Rennie take on the part. He has the toughness to make us believe he could be involved in something unsavoury and the acting chops show us the character's salvation. The Wild Dogs is still a powerful piece of work, just not as affecting as it could be.
Egotistic reactionary film-making
edouard_monpetit18 June 2005
In making "The Wild Dogs", Thom Fitzgerald made no pretense in his sentiment towards a number of his associates. This is very evident in the portrayal of Victor (the diplomat) and Colin (Geordi's boss). As much as people would like to say or think otherwise, Fitzgerald's intentions of making "Dogs" were purely reactionary. He wanted the whole world (okay, the viewers) to see how frustrated he was, that people at the right places -- the Victors and Colins in real life -- weren't stroking his ego the right way. So, here is something a hair short of slander.
Fitzgerald wants to send a powerful message, but he confused power with shock. Shocking, this film is, but powerful it is not. He wants to show how we, the supposedly civilized people, behave no better than a pack of wild dogs. After he switched back and forth from people to dogs, I couldn't help myself but wonder, "Thommy boy, I get your point, but, you know, so what? Do you think you're going to make your point stronger by rubbing it into my face harder?"
Besides, on the parallel between the dogs and the humans is the weakest link of the whole film (hence the need to rub it in the audience even harder). It almost seemed that the subplot of Bogdan and the strait dogs was some kind of afterthought, hastily put together to make the film "feature length" (for one I am not convinced by Bogdan). Most of the characters are so one-dimensional, that they are better made out of cardboard.
The only redeeming factors are (1) the relationship between Brenda (Victor's wife) and Dorutu (the human torso), (2) Radu (the midget) -- man Radu rules, and (3) the final meeting between Victor and Geordi in an undisclosed location. If Geordi were truly a representation of the real Thom Fitzgerald, I somehow lost any sympathy towards him. "Dogs" was reduced to an excuse for Fitzgerald to vent his anger. Too bad, he didn't keep his ego on a short leash. We, the viewers, had to take his bite.
Fitzgerald wants to send a powerful message, but he confused power with shock. Shocking, this film is, but powerful it is not. He wants to show how we, the supposedly civilized people, behave no better than a pack of wild dogs. After he switched back and forth from people to dogs, I couldn't help myself but wonder, "Thommy boy, I get your point, but, you know, so what? Do you think you're going to make your point stronger by rubbing it into my face harder?"
Besides, on the parallel between the dogs and the humans is the weakest link of the whole film (hence the need to rub it in the audience even harder). It almost seemed that the subplot of Bogdan and the strait dogs was some kind of afterthought, hastily put together to make the film "feature length" (for one I am not convinced by Bogdan). Most of the characters are so one-dimensional, that they are better made out of cardboard.
The only redeeming factors are (1) the relationship between Brenda (Victor's wife) and Dorutu (the human torso), (2) Radu (the midget) -- man Radu rules, and (3) the final meeting between Victor and Geordi in an undisclosed location. If Geordi were truly a representation of the real Thom Fitzgerald, I somehow lost any sympathy towards him. "Dogs" was reduced to an excuse for Fitzgerald to vent his anger. Too bad, he didn't keep his ego on a short leash. We, the viewers, had to take his bite.
Between Canada and Romania
claudita_9938 October 2005
It is not easy to watch a movie about Bucharest, after living for 5 years in Canada as an emigrant.Honestly, I have cried a lot. Why? I love my born country and I respect and appreciate my adopt country. I experienced,in my own way,all the suffer and changes happened with my country,with my people in communism time and after the communism fell.
In this movie,Thom Fitgerald exposed a cruel reality not fictional at all as some of us could consider it.Therefore, I believe that many Romanians share a common trauma about the events which are happening now in our society.However,in the past,Bucharest was known as " little Paris ", nowadays even we could still discover beautiful things there, the ambiance is more and less as we can see in "Wild Dogs".For this reason,it is very hard for somebody from outside to discover and why not to show the discrepancy between horrible and unbelievable facts and the amazing spirituality, the deep philosophy of life, the great values which still exist in Bucharest-Romania, East Europe or other places around the world.
On the other hand, I was so shocked to see again in this movie the phenomenal paradox regarding Bucharest' dogs during the end of 20th century and at the beginning of 21 century.I remember that I could not rest because of their barking in the middle of night,I was attacked by many of them during pregnancy,I was tired and desperate avoiding the shits,I was afraid to walk in a lot of spots where they behave like the animals in the wildness,I fed them and I played with their puppies, my daughter also had her canine friends or her canine enemies which bite her twice,it broke our heart when we saw them poisoned, etc.The conclusion is:I felt sorry for them and I despited them in the same time.
In Bucharest case,both for human beings and animals has been created a desperate situation which is still waiting for a kind of miracle to solve it.It seems like slices from Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novels embodied into Bucharest world.
Finally,this movie is a precious gift for me,I am very thankful to Thom Fitzgerald and his crew and I will recommend it to all of us who still have hope in humanity, who still have compassion, sensibility and the belief that all the living things are the children of only one mother, the Earth ;also I will recommend to all my compatriots who are living in diaspora and who could see again our capital tortured in an absurd an chaotic way even in a new century.
In this movie,Thom Fitgerald exposed a cruel reality not fictional at all as some of us could consider it.Therefore, I believe that many Romanians share a common trauma about the events which are happening now in our society.However,in the past,Bucharest was known as " little Paris ", nowadays even we could still discover beautiful things there, the ambiance is more and less as we can see in "Wild Dogs".For this reason,it is very hard for somebody from outside to discover and why not to show the discrepancy between horrible and unbelievable facts and the amazing spirituality, the deep philosophy of life, the great values which still exist in Bucharest-Romania, East Europe or other places around the world.
On the other hand, I was so shocked to see again in this movie the phenomenal paradox regarding Bucharest' dogs during the end of 20th century and at the beginning of 21 century.I remember that I could not rest because of their barking in the middle of night,I was attacked by many of them during pregnancy,I was tired and desperate avoiding the shits,I was afraid to walk in a lot of spots where they behave like the animals in the wildness,I fed them and I played with their puppies, my daughter also had her canine friends or her canine enemies which bite her twice,it broke our heart when we saw them poisoned, etc.The conclusion is:I felt sorry for them and I despited them in the same time.
In Bucharest case,both for human beings and animals has been created a desperate situation which is still waiting for a kind of miracle to solve it.It seems like slices from Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novels embodied into Bucharest world.
Finally,this movie is a precious gift for me,I am very thankful to Thom Fitzgerald and his crew and I will recommend it to all of us who still have hope in humanity, who still have compassion, sensibility and the belief that all the living things are the children of only one mother, the Earth ;also I will recommend to all my compatriots who are living in diaspora and who could see again our capital tortured in an absurd an chaotic way even in a new century.
100% fiction pretending to be real
mfrimu4 January 2005
Don't be fooled, Bucharest is far from what is being portrayed in this movie. There are less beggars than here, in Montreal, there are some stray dogs, but not 1000's of them. Picking the most dramatic beggars and with continuous exaggeration, the movie convinces the audience that Bucharest is a city full of poor mutilated beggars and 1000's of stray dogs. How far from truth, but director and actor Thom Fitzgerald can only rely on this sensation to create any positive interest in his movie. Putting down Bucharest also looks like a hidden denial, here at home in Canada, where one wonders how this country is now so behind even when compared to an ex-communist Eastern block country such as Romania. Bucharest is far more civilized than any Canadian city. (look up civilized in the dictionary) One should wonder what is a Canadian child-pornographer doing in Romania? Hmmmm....
Powerful
Orski12 August 2003
The Wild Dogs gives us a glimpse of poverty and cruelty that very few North Americans have ever been exposed to. I left the theater shaken by what I had seen. All the same, there is evidence of the compassionate side of the human spirit evident as well, which makes the film as a whole more stirring. It is at the limits of what cinema is capable of conveying emotionally, and well worth seeing.
Waste of time ...
simonasidorin11 November 2007
I was disgusted then I saw this movie . As a romanian I can assure Romania is not only that ! Get the plane and check it out for yourself ! How can anyone portray just slums , beggars , low-income families and such and declare : this is real . This is the only reality . Every country they got their poors . Maybe it is an incompatibility between West and East , maybe it is all stereotypes . It is a lot easier to avoid reality . This movie is a waste of time , made by a untalented director. The plot , the story is quite absent ... Poor cinematography ! Watching this I think everybody can make movies ! The only reason I rented this movie is because ethnicity . Bad choice ! I highly do not recommend this !
Cruel, exploitive and sensationalistic
aerovian16 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As I watched this film I was reminded constantly of the sideshows that used to accompany touring amusement midways back in my early childhood in the 1960s. Back then, people with unfortunate deformities and medical conditions were recruited by unscrupulous shysters and exploited -- at pitiful wages -- for the public's amusement. I found the storyline of this movie to be thin and weak, and have a very difficult time seeing it as anything other than a feeble rationale for a cinematic freak-show -- the evidence of which, I think, can be derived by simply tallying the amount of screen time devoted to exhibiting those unfortunate human beings pulled from the streets of Bucharest, albeit in quasi-fictitious scenarios. (I would dearly love to know, BTW, how well these people were compensated for placing themselves on display for the benefit of well-heeled western audiences, and just how much their involvement has enriched their lives compared with the pampered North American actors.) Some have stated that the merit of this film is its gut-wrenching appeal to the emotions and call to the viewer to assess one's own morals, however, sapient adults do not need to graphically examine through a cinematic microscope the harsh circumstances of the despondent and destitute to accept the existence, or understand the variances, of man's inhumanity to man. Claims of promoting social conscience are equally spurious, as the viewing of such rude exhibitions from the comfort of one's easy-chair or in an air-conditioned theater does absolutely nothing to remedy such gross inequities of human existence in a very unfair and unjust world -- no matter how much we might like to pretend otherwise.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
