Dogman 2: The Wrath of the Litter (2014) User Reviews

Dogman 2 The Wrath of the Litter: On par sequel

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 15 August 2018]

Let's be clear I think the first Dogman movie was bad, not awful but it was a pretty crappy independent horror movie that was far goofier than they likely intended it to be.

Upon learning there was a sequel I happily dived right in but expected the worst. I basically got more of the same which is a pretty bad thing.

It picks up shortly after the events of the first film (Which is always a plus in my eyes) but the Dogman issue seems to have gotten worse as the litter are all grown up.

Once again the creatures look like furrys, if you're underage please don't google that and if you have to make sure adult filter is on!

The original cast have all returned which is fantastic and gives the movie further credibility.

Sadly in quality it's slightly below par compared to the original, but not by much.

I personally don't understand how that is even possible considering this film reportedly had a one million dollar budget. How and why then does it still look like a hyper low budget indie film? Where did the money go? Sure as hell not on creature effects that's for sure.

If you enjoyed the first film then this is essential viewing, otherwise best avoid.

The Good:

Follows on nicely from the first

Same charm as the original

The Bad:

Poor creature sfx

Story isn't great

How did this cost 1 million dollars?

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

If you care about animals but are also a hunter you need to have a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror

I am on the fence on the furry kink, I'm not sure if it turns me on and whether I'd admit it if it did

A good guilty pleasure gets so-so follow-up

[A-Zupreme · 5/10 · 18 July 2016]

I first want to say that I'm easily pleased by movies. While the first isn't one that I would openly recommend to all my friends, I still enjoyed it enough. It was an odd viewing experience, for sure... yet it was memorable in my mind. When I heard a sequel was on the way, I made sure to keep my eyes open for it. Luckily, I saw it on Amazon Prime the other day and quickly watched it.

What the two movies do extremely well is putting emphasis on characters which is HUGE for me. Hank, his wife Dorothy, Francis, and Meg... I can say after seeing the two movies that I love all these characters. They feel like real people, especially Hank and Dorothy who look and act like a real couple in a rural setting.

Though I admire the character and the cute actress who played her, Meg was terribly miscast in the first movie as a deputy but this movie acknowledges that by having her give up her badge to be a bartender instead - even having the character remark that it wasn't a good fit as though it was a clever wink to the audience.

I was most interested to see Francis back. The original's ending was puzzling and left for a lot of possibilities for the sequel, which is why I had my eyes on it. Had Francis joined forces with Dogman and become a more sinister (yet dynamic) character than we were led to believe she was in the original? That was a huge question mark for me.

Storytelling wasn't the greatest. Still, for what the movie lacks in that and special effects (yes, the dog monsters did look cheesy but I can shut my brain off and enjoy a movie, even without booze), these two movies succeeded in creating characters you care about which is rare in under-the-radar efforts such as these. The sequel is a so-so follow-up, if only because it's nice seeing so many original actors back to play the characters I grew to care about in the first.

I can say that I like both movie more than a lot of other people probably would.

5 / 10 for both movies.

In my view

[timm2020 · 3/10 · 31 August 2018]

I have seen films that are much worse in my mind. I feel it was put together very well. However the dog costumes looked like fursuits people but to play animals. I believe the effects could be better. Other than that it was better than other films that put much more money into them. Bauer did pretty good. In today budget levels $1,000,000.00 is not really much of a budget. I would consider that low budget in fact. So all and all three stars for me. - Thanks

What an incredible comedy!

[bernardlcrawford · 1/10 · 24 February 2021]

I had no expectations upon discovering this um, er, uh film? The first 15 minutes my laughter was non-stop. To pull it off all they needed was for the director to engage his friend's 6 year old daughter to design and create the costumes. They are darling! I did find the 17 scenes of the dog men smelling one another's butts gratuitous. I want a DOG MAN!!!!

Throw into garbage.....

[bfp13108 · 1/10 · 22 June 2016]

I really do not think I should be writing a review but neither should the movie production staff who have given a high rating in order to preserve their jobs. Honestly, I only watched the first ten minutes until the really silly humans..UPRIGHT IN POORLY CONSTRUCTED DOG COSTUMES indicated to me that I could better spend my time sweeping up snakes and rats in my cellar. In my opinion, this movie should be utilized in Film-making 101 at any major film school as the absolute WORST way to spend even.....one dollar? ......on a stupid film project. OK, maybe one dollar is an exaggeration. They probably borrowed 50 cents from a bum on the street and said, "HEY...let's make a movie!!!!"

I had high hopes but they were crushed within 5 minutes

[IcemistDragon · 3/10 · 20 July 2020]

Within the first 10 minutes you see the dogman in full. With how poor the costume is less is more definitely works here. I've seen better furry based costumes (those can get intricate with the better costumers believe it or not). The arms and legs are poorly padded and they should have dumped more budget into just doing cuts of the chest and up to have better facial features. It's nice to know that dogman films exist that aren't just werewolves but it's a let down. The acting is as good as you can expect a b rated movie to be but oh well..

I just couldn't do it!!

[jestingapple · 1/10 · 24 July 2020]

I liked the first film, okay it was cheesy but it had its charm. I watched 5 minutes of the sequel and when you seen the dogman (person in a suit jumping around the forest) it was all over for me.

I mean, how can any director look back at this footage and think with a rational mind that 'yeah that's excellent, exactly what we are aiming to achieve' . It beggars belief. I was reading that this film cost 1 million dollars, how is that possible?..

Let's just compare another low budget film.. Dog soldiers.. Okay let's not, but the director of this film should have took note and then seriously upped his game by 1 million percent.. If you have the budget then it just comes down to poor production and a lack of skill at making films

I am really disappointed, I thought after the first one this was gonna be great, better production, better cinatography etc but I'm assuming the director used the money for a new condo in Spain and put 50 bucks towards this film

I love B horror films, this was like Z

Avoid at all cost

Dogman # 2... and I mean # 2 as in bowel movement...

[tmccull52 · 2/10 · 9 October 2020]

A tow truck driver happens upon a dead, bloody body in the middle of the road. Nearby, there are four abandoned vehicles; an ambulance, two sheriff's department patrol cars, and a Jeep Grand Cherokee. There is a shotgun laying on the road, a short distance away from the bloody body.

What does the tow truck driver do? He has come upon what is ostensibly a bloody crime scene. No one else is around, and the tow truck driver himself may very well be in danger. Does he pick the shotgun up? Nope. He wanders around the various abandoned vehicles, shouting, "Hello? Hello?"

Let's go back to that dead body, shall we? The dead body belongs to an EMS worker, who had been sitting in one of the abandoned patrol car, with the aforementioned shotgun. When one of the creatures in the movie approaches the squad car, what does the EMS worker do?

He throws open the door to the squad car, drops the shotgun to the ground, and tries to run. Of course, he is killed by one of the creatures.

Now, as to these creatures. They look like refugees from a "Scooby Doo on Ice" revue. For a movie with a $1,000,000.00 budget, these are THE worst creature effects that I've ever seen. The "monsters" look like overly large, plush stuffed animals.

Another vehicle comes along and finds the four previously abandoned vehicles, and the now abandoned tow truck. That shotgun is still laying on the side of the road. Does anyone pick it up? Nope. The driver wanders about calling out, "Glenn! Glenn! Glenn!"

Glenn is the tow truck driver, who shows up and scares the crap out of the guy who had been calling for him. Glenn tells the driver that he saw something that looked like a bear... but it never occurred to him to pick up the shotgun laying in the road.

There are definitely aspects of this movie that are tongue-in-cheek, but there's a fine line between tongue-in-cheek and flat-out stupid. This movie tramples all over that fine line.

Do yourself a favor. Unless you enjoy a pack of idiots running around like a clueless pack of idiots, pass on this one. It's beyond stupid, so bad that you'll struggle to figure out what that million dollar budget was spent on.

Dreadful, even for an indie

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 9 July 2017]

DOGMAN 2: THE WRATH OF THE LITTER is an indie werewolf flick and a sequel to a film I've had the good fortune to have missed. I say good fortune because this is the lamest indie effort ever, a film which is 90% yakking between uninteresting characters while the rest consists of actors donning tatty dog costumes and roaming the woods while pretending to be werewolves. It's pitiful stuff indeed, feeling like a soap with tacked-on mild horror elements at the climax, and very uneventful.

Fun creature feature comedy!

[aetherialuna · 8/10 · 17 August 2021]

I didn't see the original so I had no idea what to expect, but this was a decent little creature spoof. Acting is great, good camera work, and hilariously awful dogman costume! No, this isn't scary, gory, or full of gratuitous boob shots. It is a good laugh and well put together.

I loved both Dogman & Dogman 2: The Wrath of the Litter

[sheliawells825 · 10/10 · 3 April 2021]

I loved the characters Hanklin Purvis played by actor, Larry Joe Campbell and Dorothy Purvis played by actor, Mariann Mayberry. (She died August 1, 2017 from complications from Ovarian Cancer). They really did the show justice. The other actors were also great, but the two main characters I just mentioned were fantastic. I especially loved the ending. I would love to see actor, Larry Joe Campbell in future movies. He's great.

It's just a fun low budget horror movie

[joedemons · 8/10 · 22 August 2023]

Personally I enjoyed this and the first movie, yeah the effects aren't anything to write home about and yeah the acting is mediocre at best, but it's a fun movie for what it is. There are way worse low budget movies out there. This is just a fun 90 mins that you don't have to take too seriously.

I personally like the dogman costumes and personally any movie that isn't loaded with politics and political correctness earns at the very least 4 stars right there and I gave it another 4 because it's a fun movie. I will say if these movies where done right with a bigger budget and special effects these could have been some really good movies.