Dog Eat Dog

Outside the comedy realm, a 'dumb criminal' plot a tough sell. Despite a standout performance by W.D. as a vulnerable sociopath this was tough film to like. In the past, a nihilistic heist story with an 8-Ball's worth of random Hollywood visuals paid the bills. (e.g. Natural Born Killers) Schrader remains unable to parlay his fading nostalgia into something resembling a legacy. Cinematography has advanced to the point that most reverential (self or other) shots are staid. On the story note, Nick Cage's wanton H. Bogart impressions negate character development and story. He needs to: A) Get a new agent (B) Stop phoning it (C) Just retire. But, if there is any takeaway from this pseudo art-house turd, W. Defoe is amazing. In the end it was enjoyable and completely forgettable.

I can honestly say this one of Nicolas Cage's worst films and I think his career is tanking. From the opening scene it was appalling. It is extremely dark, weighing heavy on valleys and missing any peaks. Also, being as I am a Clevelander, it does not portray an accurate portrait of the city I love...not even in regards to crime. This is a despicable display of cinema art. I have no known issues with crime films or violence. What I do have an issue with is is poorly written, directed, and produced work like Dog Eat Dog. The actors in this film are legendary but their work is sub par, at best! Save yourself the time that I wasted by not viewing this film.

Initially I had low expectations to "Dog Eat Dog", given the fact that it is another Nicolas Cage movie. And I can't claim to be much fan of him or his one-and-only-expression-in-every-scene. However, having Willem Dafoe on the cast list alongside with Nicolas Cage, well that might actually do salvage the movie.

So I sat down to watch this movie. And I must admit that this movie was not in the least a particularly memorable or entertaining movie. It was every bit as slow-paced and fairly uneventful as it was a confusing mess of jumbled events and stumbling dialogue.

The story is about three ex-cons who get together for a last and final job that will set them up with riches for the rest of their lives. However, things does not turn out as they had planned, in fact things take a turn for the worse quite fast.

Right, well the storyline wasn't original. Nope, not one bit. "Dog Eat Dog" offers nothing to the genre that hasn't already been done, seen or attempted in other similar movies.

And watching Nicolas Cage stumble through this script wasn't particularly helpful to the movie. And however good Willem Dafoe is, then he just didn't manage to lift the movie out of the overwhelming less-than-mediocre shadow that shrouded it.

The dialogue throughout the movie was not impressive, and many a times I found myself with my toes curled up because of the dialogue that was presented by the characters on the screen.

My interest and attention to the movie drifted off a couple of times throughout the course of the movie, because it just seemed like a myriad of multiple chaotic and scrambled scenes shot independently were being put together to form a movie; and that movie became "Dog Eat Dog".

I did manage to stick with the movie to the end. And boy, what an ending. Talk about being cliché and ridiculous. I will not give the ending away, you have to witness that stinker for yourself.

"Dog Eat Dog" came and went without even denting anything. This is the type of movie that you watch if you stumble upon it by sheer random luck; nay, make that random accident. And it is the type of movie that you watch once, then never again.

Starts out entertaining enough, the first 10 minutes or so offers some absolutely insane dark comedy from Willem Defoe.

But eventually (fairly early tbh) the script runs out of steam and it takes a more serious (not so comedic at least) turn but more so goes all over the place with little to no coherency at times.

I can't help but to think that this movie must have been at least 30 minutes longer but edited down to the point where one minute for instance a person is caught by the police and the next he's free with no explanation as to how this happened.

Not that I think that the movie being 2 hours instead of 90 would have helped it much though tbh because the editing is far from the only problem this movie has.

Nicholas Cage's character appears to change from one scene to the next after a while, starting off as the more sensible criminal of the trio but eventually lashing off and appears to try to outcrazy Willem Defoe (who is the crazy guy in the group).

Why did I say trio you ask, well there's actually a third guy with the same importance as Cage and Defoe and that is the unknown Christopher Matthew Cook, I'm guessing he is good friends with the director or something because he just becomes 'the other guy' when put in to the same position as 2 stars like Cage and Defoe and doesn't have the acting-chops to rise above it.

Cook's character is said by Cage's character to be incredibly intelligent talking about how if he lived in another universe he would have been a Harvard student, but there's nothing that Cook's character says or does in the film that suggest that he is particularly smart.

There's a lot of random stuff like that that doesn't go anywhere and a lot of random stuff that doesn't come from anywhere, like the last 5 minutes, very random.

Anyways all in all it just becomes a pointless and confusing Tarantino wanna be of a film.

First, I read the Eddy Bunker's novel and this was the best experience in my reader's life. An authentic, realistic, fierce crime story, written by an authentic ex con who spent more than ten or fifteen years of his life in jail. This movie is adapted from the novel. The book, I repeat, is really a high grade crime drama, describing true portrait of mobsters. But when I heard that Nick Cage was in the run, and also read the first critics, I was damned afraid of what I was going to see. I thought about a sort of dark comedy, light written, supported by superficial performances. OK, let's be clear and fair, the film is far from the book, speaking of the character's real nature, it doesn't describe them the same than the novel does. Not entirely. Maybe David Ayer or another director really in love with Bunker's book would have given a better job. But after seeing it, I am overall satisfied with the result. After all, all Cage's films since two decades now are nearly all craps.

Do not be too hard with this film, please.