a_chinn I went into "Dog Eat Dog" expecting a completely different film from what I got. I'd read the gritty crime novel this film was based on, written by Edward Bunker, a real-life career criminal turned author and script doctor, and was expecting a grim unsettling movie along the line's of director Paul Schrader's "Hardcore." The novel was a realistic story of street level criminals who'd rather get killed than go back to prison. Troy, a con recently released from prison, hooks up with his old gang, Mad Dog and Diesel, and sets out on a crime spree that culminates in a botched kidnapping. The film adaptation has the same basic plot with Nicolas Cage as Troy and the great Willem Dafoe as the unpredictable and unhinged Mad Dog, as well as Christopher Matthew Cook as Diesel. However, the film makes a number of changes, including changing the setting from Los Angels to Cleveland (not a biggie), but it's the film's wildly inconsistent tone that makes it something of a mess. At times a social commentary, while at others is an ultraviolet satire ALA "Natural Born Killers," and still at other times dips into the surreal and bizarre. "Dog Eat Dog" is a complete mess, but it's a brilliant mess. Director Paul Schrader ("Taxi Driver" as writer, "Cat People" "American Gigolo," "Auto Focus") is a true master of cinema and always makes interesting films. With "Dog Eat Dog," Schrader found financing outside of Hollywood and was given complete creative freedom. He utilized that freedom to create some absolutely brilliant moments (the screen melting during one of Dafoe's drug trips, a grotesque body disposal scene, or the film's pink hued ultra-violent opening), but the film as a whole felt very disconnected and was essentially a series of crime genre vignettes. Still, genre vignettes by a master filmmaker like Schrader is going to be interesting and never boring. Overall, "Dog Eat Dog" did not strike me as heady or as intellectual as Schrader's best films, but more seemed to be an exercise in pure "cinema."

Wuchak RELEASED IN 2016 and directed by Paul Schrader, "Dog Eat Dog" chronicles events in the greater Cleveland area when a trio of loser ex-cons (Nicolas Cage, Willem Dafoe & Christopher Matthew Cook) is employed by a Mafioso to abduct the infant of a rival gangster.Schrader's films are often preoccupied with Christian religion and sexual obsession (porn, strip joints, prostitution, nudity, etc.), as verified by "Hardcore" (1979), "Cat People" (1982) and "Auto Focus" (2002). You can expect the same with "Dog Eat Dog" except that it mixes black amusement with its urban drama, sleaze and crime thrills. The movie's brutal, funny, ugly and quirky, but with a spiritual thread underneath it all. Think 90's crime drama/thrillers like "Pulp Fiction" (1994), "Mojave Moon" (1996) and "The Way of the Gun" (2000). It's not on the level of "Pulp," but it's more entertaining than the other two. Knowing Schrader, I suspect there's more in the movie than meets the eye and I may up my rating with repeat viewings. Then again, it may be wannabe hip/edgy tripe. You make the call. THE FILM RUNS 1 hour & 33 minutes and was shot in Northeast Ohio (Cleveland & Sheffield Lake) and Tampa, Florida (Restaurant & street scenes and night skyline). WRITERS: Edward Bunker wrote the script based on the novel by Matthew Wilder. GRADE: B-

insomniac-84355 This is legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever seen. There was no plot structure, nothing made sense, and one of the main characters Mad Dog is killed by his "friend" / work associate Diesel because Mad Dog rambles too long. I found myself saying verbally saying, "Shut Up" at my screen because of how annoying his conjecture was. It was as if the writers finally managed to squeeze in a good piece of dialogue, and then BAM, all that payoff was instantly destroyed as they have one of the thugs kill the other one. It was pointless. The writing is so bad, I spent the time updating my account just to write this out.

videorama-759-859391 I couldn't believe how this film started. I mean Paul Schrader, for Christ's sake? I had a "What the f..k is this?" moment. If the film had been like this for the rest of the duration, or never really would of improved, I would label it, an eat dogs..t of a movie. But luckily it does. This film, it's story, based on a novel by late ex con/RD actor, Bunker, a true Mr Blue, to me, was a crazy inane film, that's an intriguing mess, about three ex con losers, we don't necessarily like, or give a s..t about, especially's Dafoe's Mad dog, his murderous activities, where in their way, by their lifestyle of high drug taking and murder, their on their path to self destruction. The plot of the film comes halfway in, where before this, we have to endue all of our three's problems, bonding, boozing, sex play and in flashback, how our two mains met, where Cage's character, is some one, we'd expect him to play, Dafoe, the out of control one, here, a necessarily repellent character. When Dafoe, who desperately needs the money, is thrown an offer by the mob, to kidnap the baby, of a rival party, who hasn't paid up, our ill fated three take it, but it's doomed from the start, soon bringing the attention of the cops and the mob, where our ill fated three, have signed their own death warrant. Did I expect better from this film, yes? But it's trippy, indulging entertainment, Cage's demise, remembered the best, and the scenes prefore, after that fade in, diner shot. Dafoe is such a f..k up, and these great actors, give it enough clout, esp, Dafoe, but I have seen better from these two, where their black guy mate, the more quietly levelled, grounded, in control sort, was the most likable out of the three and it's not saying much. This movie is a wild ride, yeah, but it won't go in the Schrader archives. Sorry.