VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,8/10
10.182
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un gruppo di ex detenuti viene assunto da un mafioso di Cleveland per rapire il bambino di un mafioso rivale.Un gruppo di ex detenuti viene assunto da un mafioso di Cleveland per rapire il bambino di un mafioso rivale.Un gruppo di ex detenuti viene assunto da un mafioso di Cleveland per rapire il bambino di un mafioso rivale.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
Chelcie Lynn
- Sheila
- (as Chelcie Melton)
Recensioni in evidenza
This movie just fell off the cliff halfway through. Willem Dafoe is one of my all time favorite actors, to see him going through this was painful to watch. The set up was great, but the movie lost itself halfway through. Think of having sex with a Victoria Secret model and great foreplay then she abruptly walks out on you, leaving you hanging. This film does that to you! Cage has been doing such odd work of late, I almost think he is purposely picking mediocre scripts because he owes everyone favors since his bankruptcy or maybe this is all he can get these days. Whatever the case, he needs a good movie soon or he'll soon fade away into obscurity. What a horrible flick!
It might be a good thing that I don't know what to think of this movie. I liked it, it's not the best thing Nicolas Cage has been in, but you can't put it under the category of bad Cage movie, Especially when running lines with William Defoe who was worth watching in this flick and brought great essence to it.
I saw someone else review the movie. They stated the the film has Bite but No Bark. It made me curious enough to want to watch it, and after seeing Dog Eat Dog I think I understand what they mean. The film was shot amazingly with some powerful performances. Like I said before, Defoe fills the room and Cage is lucky to have him, but at the same time Cage is no slouch in this either. Plus the chemistry of all the actors together is well received, and once again to look at the movie...it really packs a punch.
But the plot of the movie is almost non-existent. The film is suppose to be about three crooks kidnapping a baby, yet this plot seems subliminal in relation to watching three crooks, one of them just recently released from jail have a good time, and see how they became acquaintances in the first place.
It's like the director is trying to tell us that we don't need a plot for a movie to be interesting, but I have to admit that this point my come across better if I knew it was going to be a convict version of Seinfeld, while waiting for these guys to do something. Still, very good film to watch
I saw someone else review the movie. They stated the the film has Bite but No Bark. It made me curious enough to want to watch it, and after seeing Dog Eat Dog I think I understand what they mean. The film was shot amazingly with some powerful performances. Like I said before, Defoe fills the room and Cage is lucky to have him, but at the same time Cage is no slouch in this either. Plus the chemistry of all the actors together is well received, and once again to look at the movie...it really packs a punch.
But the plot of the movie is almost non-existent. The film is suppose to be about three crooks kidnapping a baby, yet this plot seems subliminal in relation to watching three crooks, one of them just recently released from jail have a good time, and see how they became acquaintances in the first place.
It's like the director is trying to tell us that we don't need a plot for a movie to be interesting, but I have to admit that this point my come across better if I knew it was going to be a convict version of Seinfeld, while waiting for these guys to do something. Still, very good film to watch
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizPaul Schrader said he approached Michael Wincott, Michael Douglas, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Nick Nolte, Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Rupert Everett for the role of Greco the Greek, but it didn't work out with any of them. In the end, to avoid going over budget, he played the role himself in what will be his acting debut.
- BlooperIt's unlikely the grocery store manager would call police if he sees a gun in Diesel's back pocket, as open carry of a weapon is legal in Ohio.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Film '72: Episodio #45.10 (2016)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Dog Eat Dog?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Dog Eat Dog
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 184.404 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 33min(93 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti