Dog Eat Dog

Paul Schrader: 'I've made some important films. 'Dog Eat Dog is not one of them'. Sad but true for Director/Writer Paul Schrader - A man with a career of 20 films, among them Taxi and Raging Bull - His career as a director remains unseen by his work as a screenwriter for Martin Scorsese - A legacy we will always remember him for - With Dog Eat Dog, Schrader tries to remind us that he is still relevant in the world - Ignoring one small fact - Everyone in this day and age can and will judge you harshly, no matter the reputation. Stylized as a low-budget Neo-noir crime caper with the talents of Nicolas Cage, Willem Dafoe and Schrader himself taking on a role, respectfully making comparisons to Quentin Tarantino's earlier films - With heavy-handed dialogue, harsh and senseless barbarity and a convoluted plot not worth following to its third act - Which is based on the novel of the same name by Edward Bunker.

Troy (Nicolas Cage), Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), and Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook) are a couple of goofball criminals, all with clichéd traits - Troy (The Straight-Man), Mad Dog (The Loose Cannon), and Diesel (The Muscle), tired of small end jobs they decide to pull off one last big score - Which involves kidnapping the baby of a rival mobster. But like most crime caper films, this goes awry and they are forced to fend for themselves - From the mob and now police following an anonymous tip.

On first glance, one can say that Schrader relates to the author himself - Edward Bunker. Both men looking for redemption, seeking a story that will ignite the spark they once had - For Schrader Dog Eat Dog should've been that story - After the disastrous events of his previous film, also starring Cage - 'Dying of the Light', unhappy with the film's re-cut, Schrader, and Cage publicly dismissed the film.

A similar theme about loss and redemption - A recurring theme for Schrader as he demonstrates it throughout his career as-a screenwriter.

Screenwriter, Matthew Wilder (Your Name Here) writes from a jarring and lurid place - depicting a dark Americana - Which is fine if used effectively. The idea of Troy, Cage's character - A movie buff with delusions of being a Humphrey Bogart lookalike is a small moment that stands out, adding more layers to a none the less complicated character.

In part, Nicolas Cage as Troy is subdued and less comical as we'd expect from a Nicolas Cage performance - Willem Dafoe as Mad Dog is fine and yet misunderstood - A man yearning for love and friendship, yet afraid to admit it. Christopher Matthew Cook as Diesel is less intriguing, as he stumbles with stoic and apprehensive tendencies.

Cinematographer Alexander Dynan never really shows us anything new to take in or marvel at besides the story itself - Perhaps in part to the editing by Ben Rodriguez Jr., who provides quick and fast paced editing.

Dog Eat Dog may inspire some with its unique flare or visuals - Fast and quick insert cuts - Or its simplistic story, whatever the reason only time will tell if we remember this as Paul Schrader film.

I wasn't expecting much but was happy to see Nick Cage and Willam Dafoe together. A collaboration with these two makes it interesting in itself.

A standard crime movie with down on their luck thugs trying to get free of the lifestyle. Looking for subtext, I think the director is trying to display the amoral, nihilistic despair of people born into a life of crime. We see glimpses of their lighter, humane side in order to remind us that even though these are hardened criminals, you have to look deeper to see a man who wants to find peace.

Outside forces, and those of their own making, demonstrate that life has a way of choosing your options, an example of which is when Cook accidentally shows his gun reaching for grocery meat, leading to the final confrontation. An unthinking impulse, hunger, led to his demise.

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.

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.

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.