Ben Larson Do I have a favorite Christopher Walken movie? Not really. He seems to be a couple of cans short of a six pack in most films. It is not to say that he isn't an interesting character, but he is not a favorite. I'll probably catch hell for not being in love with him, but que sera sera.This movie was made soon after The Deer Hunter, and it is a serious Christopher Walken we see. His acting ability is in full review, and it is a pleasure to watch.Not and action film, it is a bit more complicated with only a very big bang at the end. Walken is supported by some surprising actors in minor roles like Jim Broadbent, Victoria Tennant, and Ed O'Neill.

Guy Plot: A team of mercenaries are hired to overthrow an African dictator.Adapted from the Frederick Forsyth novel (or 'how to' guide depending on your tastes in fiction), this is a superior thriller from that wonderful moment in the 1970s (well, 1980 in this case) when low-key realism and humanity were so important. After a bravura escape scene in South America the plot shifts to the US where the protagonist (an excellent Christopher Walken) is hired to reconnaissance a fictional African country for a coup. Captured, tortured and released he then ends up leading aforementioned coup. It's tough, realistic and with a good eye for detail and the mechanics of launching a coup. Unfortunately it all falls apart in the climax as it turns into an overblown action movie full of our heroes shooting from the hip and giant orange gasoline explosions. This appears to be the fault of the grenade launcher carried by the main character -- a desire to use it in-film leading to silly sequences. The inevitable moral ending, with the bad African dictator replaced by a good African president, also feels deeply naive.

lost-in-limbo Unspectacular, but tough and lean slow pot-boiler anti-war feature sees a stoic Christopher Walken on reconnaissance, before leading a group of mercenaries to push out the tyrant dictator of the African nation Zangora. Walken was the lone reason I decided to stick around to watch "The Dogs of War" when it appeared on TV. It's a real mixed bag, as somewhere there is so much potential, but what eventuates is something quite ho-hum. After an excellent build-up (the recon mission) formulating intrigue, tension and harbouring conflict, then midway (the planning) it still remains interesting (because of the intensity Walken and Tom Berenger) despite stodgy pacing and the last quarter (the final assault) is uninspiring and rashly staged, but the closing frames has a neat touch of irony. There's no knocking that it's more thoughtful and conniving in its narrative drive, but the context never truly pushes the boundaries, but gladly it never tries to manipulate the situation either. It's interesting seeing Walken's character really have a change of heart after his returns from his recon mission, well more so booted out with the bruises to prove it. Director John Irvin really does make you feel uncomfortable during those scenes, when it focuses on a badly beat up Walken. It was like fear had engulf his character and then he questions; is there's something better in life than what he does, but after realising he can't go back (the sub-plot midway with his girlfriend) he turns back to what he knows best and the torture he suffered would be a driving force. It almost becomes personal and what he also learns about the devious nature of the American government official he was hired by makes for a powerful climax --- the value of human life, where he would turn a blind eye but not now. Irvin's direction is competently workmanlike and straight-face with a gritty surge, stalwart pacing and some striking international locations. Not your typical war film, but a decent study.

davideisaura ...this movie no doubt severely disappointed most Forsyth fans. It had very little to do with the book. It seems that (as usual) some Hollywood wonk, noting that the novel was a best-seller, gave some hack the basic premise from the back-cover blurb and got him to make something up that would appeal to Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. The result? A cliché-ridden B-movie. Forsyth must have been livid.It's competently handled (for such an old film it holds up amazingly well), but what presumption! The original story was just fine. What made them think that their version would be better?Pity they didn't have the sense to hire Kenneth Ross to do the screenplay. He'd already done two of Forsyth's other books (Day of the Jackal and Odessa File), and at least made the effort to be faithful to the originals.