The Wild Dogs

In making "The Wild Dogs", Thom Fitzgerald made no pretense in his sentiment towards a number of his associates. This is very evident in the portrayal of Victor (the diplomat) and Colin (Geordi's boss). As much as people would like to say or think otherwise, Fitzgerald's intentions of making "Dogs" were purely reactionary. He wanted the whole world (okay, the viewers) to see how frustrated he was, that people at the right places -- the Victors and Colins in real life -- weren't stroking his ego the right way. So, here is something a hair short of slander.

Fitzgerald wants to send a powerful message, but he confused power with shock. Shocking, this film is, but powerful it is not. He wants to show how we, the supposedly civilized people, behave no better than a pack of wild dogs. After he switched back and forth from people to dogs, I couldn't help myself but wonder, "Thommy boy, I get your point, but, you know, so what? Do you think you're going to make your point stronger by rubbing it into my face harder?"

Besides, on the parallel between the dogs and the humans is the weakest link of the whole film (hence the need to rub it in the audience even harder). It almost seemed that the subplot of Bogdan and the strait dogs was some kind of afterthought, hastily put together to make the film "feature length" (for one I am not convinced by Bogdan). Most of the characters are so one-dimensional, that they are better made out of cardboard.

The only redeeming factors are (1) the relationship between Brenda (Victor's wife) and Dorutu (the human torso), (2) Radu (the midget) -- man Radu rules, and (3) the final meeting between Victor and Geordi in an undisclosed location. If Geordi were truly a representation of the real Thom Fitzgerald, I somehow lost any sympathy towards him. "Dogs" was reduced to an excuse for Fitzgerald to vent his anger. Too bad, he didn't keep his ego on a short leash. We, the viewers, had to take his bite.

This movie is filmed in Romania. The brilliant director/writer, Thom Fitzgerald, takes you on a journey that is shocking, raw, and honest. Emotions are beautiful and raw. I was thinking throughout the movie how little control we really do have over our own lives.

The characters sort of creates themselves. Sometimes I was so angry that I felt like throwing up but then suddenly I would see something that was extremely tender and funny. Fitzgerald controls the viewer as though he has a whip: he knows how to use it, but he also knows when to lie it down.

The camera shoots are exceptional as well. Watch the movie the second time and take in all the background, the shading, the movements, the actors.

I've never seen a movie like The Wild Dogs. I really can't remember seeing a movie that has made me so angry at some characters but then so happy with other characters. I don't know how Fitzgerald did it, but he has created a masterpiece. Watch the movie for what it is: not what you think it should be because I think most people would find the subject matter totally haunting. This movie is not for the faint of heart.

I rate this movie a 10 out of 10.

In a stunning turn from his previous films, the director of the magnificent THE HANGING GARDEN plunges himself into the ethical morass of the sex trade and poverty of Bucharest, Romania. In a remarkably successful bit of casting, Fitzgerald himself plays a pornographer sent to Romania to exploit the young, inexpensive female labor there. Upon his arrival he befriends an equally corrupt Canadian diplomat, as well as several of the poor and outcast of Bucharest society. Fitzgerald skillfully ties this lives of the poor outcasts with the hundreds of wild dogs that roam the city, and a young man with a temperament ill-suited for his job of catching them for disposal. And with his character, Fitzgerald creates a morally ambiguous man who keeps surprising the viewer in this powerful and wonderfully made film.

I was disgusted then I saw this movie . As a romanian I can assure Romania is not only that ! Get the plane and check it out for yourself ! How can anyone portray just slums , beggars , low-income families and such and declare : this is real . This is the only reality . Every country they got their poors . Maybe it is an incompatibility between West and East , maybe it is all stereotypes . It is a lot easier to avoid reality . This movie is a waste of time , made by a untalented director. The plot , the story is quite absent ... Poor cinematography ! Watching this I think everybody can make movies ! The only reason I rented this movie is because ethnicity . Bad choice ! I highly do not recommend this !

While I give credit to the filmmaker for completing such a film in what must have been difficult circumstances (political, not emotional), I would expect a film like this from adventurous student filmmakers. This is by no means a great film, both technically and dramatically.

While it is always good shock value to show desperate conditions, there must also be good story, good acting and good craft to make a good film (for example, Schindler's List). This film has none of those. The NTSC DVD that I watched was of the poorest production values, with behind the scenes footage that is embarrassing.

What I find more interesting than the film is the dynamics of the comments found here on IMDb. From overwhelming praise to outright denial of the circumstances portrayed in the film. If the film got one thing right, it is portraying the atmosphere of the streets of Bucharest. The thousands (Yes, there are thousands of them) of stray dogs and the Gypsies do exist. However, it is a fact of life in Romania and not considered to be a major problem by locals who grew up and lived in these conditions all their lives. Nor is it anymore difficult to deal with as a tourist than the pick pockets I found in Rome, or the homeless I find in Los Angeles. Whenever I read a comment that is overwhelmingly good or bad, I discredit the whole comment as biased. I hope others do the same as well.