User reviews

The "dogs of war" (this phrase takes its literary origins from William Shakespeare) is an exciting as well as interesting action/war film . It concerns a military coup in an African country and stars Christopher Walken and Tom Berenger , though he has said in interviews that around half of his role was omitted from the final release print . It deals with mercenary James Shannon (Christopher Walken) , on a reconnaissance job to the African nation of Zangaro, is tortured and deported . He returns to lead a coup and tangles with an Idi Amin-alike dictator. As various soldiers of fortune (Tom Berenger , Paul Freeman , among others) , used to be the best of friends give a toast : ¨Long live death, long live war, long live the cursed mercenary" (this is an adaptation of the original Foreign legion toast) and all of them battle side by side in hellhole Africa .

This war film packs adventures , large-scale blow-up , thrilling plot , and lots of action for the most part , but also contains too much dialogue . It's a good mix of action-packed , adventure , thriller and warfare genre . Overly somber rendition based on Frederick Forsyth's novel , in fact , while researching the novel in the early 1970s, author pretended he was actually financing a coup d'etat in Equatorial Guinea , the pretense allowed Forsyth access to a number of underworld figures, including mercenaries and arms dealers ; Forsyth has since commented that the arms dealers were the most frightening people he has ever met . Frederick is a famous author best-sellers whose novels have been successfully adapted to cinema and TV such as ¨The day of Jackal¨, ¨Odessa¨ and ¨The fourth protocol¨ . Fine support cast who realize professionally competent interpretations , some of them with no more than a line or two to say such as Colin Blakely , Paul Freeman , and brief interventions from JoBeth Williams , Robert Urquhart , Ed O'Neill , Jim Broadbent , Jean Pierre Kalfon , Victoria Tennant , Pedro Armendariz Jr and first cinema film of David Schofield.

Good cinematography by Jack Cardiff , who also shot a movie about mercenaries in Africa titled ¨The mercenaries¨, it was filmed on location , as African and Central America sequences were filmed in Belize City, Belize in Central America . The motion picture was well directed by John Irvin , though it was originally going to be directed by Norman Jewison. John had previously filmed amidst real life battles when he worked in a television news crew in Vietnam during the 1960s. Irvin once said: "Unlike most young film directors, I've been in battle. Throughout the sixties I went to various war zones and I met numerous mercenaries in Algeria and South East Asia, so I had my own personal strings to draw on. I would say our depiction of mercenaries is pretty accurate. We talked to a lot of mercenaries and were able to get a lot of information from them about how they would have handled the operation". As the movie's major battle sequence was directed by director John Irvin and not the Second Unit Director . Rating : Nice picture , better than average . Worthwhile watching .

Shannon (Christopher Walken) is a mercenary war who accepted for the sum of 15,000 dollars to fly to a fictional country in West Africa on a survey mission to procure military information concerning the stability of a dictator's regime, his position strength, and if there is any chance for a coup?

Posing as an American naturalist—especially in native birds—Shannon landed in Zangaro and gathered all the facts he needed but after suffering a brutal beating from the guards for taking pictures of one of the mistresses of the dictator's in front of his compound…

When he's offered a large amount of money to gather a well-equipped mercenary force and go back to Zangaro and lead a military takeover, he reluctantly assents…

The assault has authority, power and unexpected... consequences. So don't miss it!

An effective and efficient little film detailing the story of a military coup in an African country. This one's based on a novel by Frederick Forsyth, so it has more realism behind it than some I could mention, and as an added bonus the director is John Irvin, who later went on to make the equally authentic HAMBURGER HILL. This one stands out because it has an actual plot to it leading up to the big action scene at the end, and that alone makes it more original than 99% of the guys-on-a-mission type films that came out in the 1980s.

Christopher Walken, twitchy and solemn, stands out in this early role as the hard-ass mercenary who's seen plenty of conflict over the years. Walken is a guy who seems to live and breathe his characters rather than the other way round, and he's one of the best things in this film. His trip to the made-up African nation of Zangora is fraught with peril and tension, and yet seems real throughout in the same way that a film like BLOOD DIAMOND had the ring of authenticity to it.

The violence that follows is expected yet none the less shocking for it, and even the character building exposition scenes back in the West are handled in such a way that you never lose interest in the proceedings. Then things shift up a gear for the pyrotechnic meltdown at the climax, which is more familiar to fans of action and war movies, but the strong storyline proceeding this moment makes it all the more full of impact.

The great thing about reading a Fredirick Forsyth novel is that you're educated while being entertained . He gives you facts and details on everything from modern jet fighters to Ukrainian history . The problem with this though is that the info tend to hold up the narrative which makes a Forsyth novel difficult to successfully translate to screen and to be honest the original THE DOGS OF WAR novel isn't really a book that will appeal to a cinema goer who's into no brain action shoot them ups . I can forgive this since I know what to expect from a Forsyth story but would Mr action fan ? I can just imagine a disappointed Arnie/Bruce/Sly fan slagging the movie off for having only two battle scenes , one at the start of the movie and one at the end , so let me point out that if you're expecting to see DIE HARD IN AFRICA it's maybe not you're kind of movie

If there's a problem with the movie it's mainly down to the structure of the novel with much of the running time taken up with planning the coup , getting the equipment , hiring the boat etc . I also noticed the dialogue was a bit iffy " Which one of your men do I kill to make way for mine ? " . Things like structure and dialogue don't matter too much on the written page but tend to leap out at you on the silver screen , but as many of the commentators on this page have pointed out it's an action film/political thriller with a brain . It's perhaps not as enjoyable as say THE DARK OF THE SUN or THE WILD GEESE but there's certainly entertainment to be had trying to spot the actor before they were a well known face

The best of the "hired killers takes out a bassackwards third world African nation in ten minutes or less" genre. Christopher Walken fans will love this one as he occupies the camera for about 98% of the film and does an admirable job playing ringleader to a small band of mercenaries hired by London's Enron branch to take down some dude with a Gucci sword named Kimba, the benevolent ruler of Okka Bokka Boo. The pace is a little slow for my tastes but they threw in my favorite girl next door, JoBeth Williams, as Walkens ex-wife just to keep me occupied while the guns were being shipped in from Switzerland or somewhere. All I can tell you is the climax is worth waiting for. It's outstanding actually. The DVD is a little disappointing. 2ch sound and no widescreen. See if you can spot Ed O'Neill from Married With Children fame. 7 hand grenades/10

This movie is the most realistic treatment I've seen of what real mercenary operations and business travels are like. Any who have traveled to third world hell holes like "Zangaro" feel as though they must have had a camera following them around to get the background for this movie, the airport arrival, the hotel holding passports, the "tour guide" and the bar toast are as realistic as you can get. If you like movies that show the real nitty gritty, the backdoor politics, the backstabbing and intrigue that is international diplomacy catch this one the next time it's on cable.

There's an old saying that goes: The b*stard you know is better than the b*stard you don't know.* "Dogs of War" dives into the muddy waters of forcibly changing rulers. How good of an idea is that anyway? What are you really getting?

*I had to asterisk the word because imdb flagged it.

The tumultuous and fictitious African country of Zangoro has a ruthless dictator named Kimba as her ruler. He acquired the seat of power through elections then immediately dispatched his opponents. He proceeded to suppress any and everyone who challenged or questioned his authority.

Shannon (Christopher Walken) was tapped on the shoulder to lead a coup to uproot Kimba. That is Shannon's specialty, but he is not unscrupulous.

This was a movie that had me teetering the whole time. They established that Kimba was a wicked despot, but he's the guy they elected. Furthermore, the options for a suitable ruler were limited. It's always a sensitive topic when you're talking about foreigners openly or furtively infiltrating a country to take out its ruler.

But the dogs of war are just that--they're the dogs. They don't make the assignments they just execute them. Shannon and his men were the right dogs for the job.

"Not a nice book" is how Frederick Forsyth once described his third published novel, "The Dogs Of War", a stinging depiction of the captains of industry who mistreat the Third World, and the soldiers of fortune who do their bidding. Credit director John Irvin for getting the tone right in this adaptation of the Forsyth story. It's not a nice movie.

Christopher Walken stars as Jamie Shannon, whose otherwise empty life sitting in a Manhattan apartment watching John Roland and the Channel 5 newsteam on a snowy television screen is relieved only by the occasional assignment to gather up some equally dissolute comrades and blast their way through some far-away trouble spot for a few thousand bucks. The latest job: Overthrow the vicious leader of the African nation of Zangaro. With nothing much to live for, Shannon agrees.

Walken is the central reason to watch "Dogs Of War". His intensity in this early period of his career could be off-putting, but it fits Shannon like a glove, his glazed stare and choppy line readings suggesting a person who knows life is cheap and words cheaper still.

"Just so we understand each other, you're dead," is his way of starting one conversation. "Give me straight answers and I'll keep it painless."

As a war movie, "Dogs Of War" doesn't exactly play things straight, though. Like the novel, it spends much of its time dealing with the preparations for the Zangaro raid, long sequences of soldering metal barrels and running cargo that drag. There's also a visit Shannon pays to his ex-wife, which features some nice acting from Walken and JoBeth Williams but establishes nothing other than the emptiness of Shannon's life, about which we already know.

Joining action and character is the hallmark of any good war movie, and this "Dogs Of War" fails to do. Shannon takes a trip to Zangaro to investigate the country, a sequence that proves nothing other than that he's a lousy spy and the Zangarians play rough. Colin Blakely overacts badly as a reporter who makes Shannon's acquaintance and then decides to see what he's up to, for reasons that seem to have more to do with the character's drinking than any logical journalistic reason. The big finale features a good deal of sloppy exposition, particularly a revolving grenade gun Shannon wields that hit pillboxes with pinpoint precision.

It's smaller moments that connect in "Dogs Of War", like Shannon talking to his doctor (the always reliable Shane Rimmer). "You've taken a lot of years off the back end of your life," the doctor says, to which Shannon can only shrug. Or Shannon in a customs office with an unnamed agent (Olu Jacobs) who seems to think himself fair for stealing only half of Shannon's valuables.

Ultimately, it's Walken you take away from "Dogs Of War", his hooded 1,000-yard stare, occasional bits of surprising pre-cowbell humor, and his naked way of projecting both toughness and insecurity. If only he had been given a better script, "Dogs Of War" might have been an early milestone in his celebrated career.

That is, not for those with child like tastes. If you require non-stop action ... move along. The characters are set up nicely and Walken is just too cool, I think it's his best performance. Most of his fans don't know about this movie but it's a gem. There are a few scenes I would have left on the cutting floor but they can be overlooked. There's a scene with his doctor that is worth watching the whole movie over. But there's plenty more. There's good dialog, nice scenery, some action and some characters you actually care about. This is not an assault on your senses; you will have to pay attention to enjoy it. But it will be worth your time. If you are a fan of Christopher Walken, then it will be well worth your time.

John Irvin directed this film, starring Christopher Walken as war veteran mercenary who gets a job by government to travel to Africa and inform the situation that is pretty hot in there. He does it, and sees the violence that takes place there, and when he returns to US and tells about the evil dictator that dominates there, the new job for him is to travel there again and wipe out the incarnation of evil..

This film isn't any action film as many seem to have expected - me included - but this is pretty sophisticated, but still also little slow moving (dir. cut. 15mins longer than the US version) portrait about the state of some countries in the world, and what these dictators can do to people and country. I'm mostly fascinated by the film's atmosphere and calmness as there isn't stupid gunplay or other usual flaws often found in these films. Walken acts greatly in his role of retired war veteran who takes the job only because of money offered to him. At the end, a twist in plot is coming and all the greediness and betrayal in the film gets a new face.

The end is little stupid as it tries to imitate Apocalypse Now a little, by depicting Walken's face and "the horror" as Francis Ford Coppola did, and the gun fights at the end are also little unnecessary, especially when the film managed to be without them for so long. Still the result is satisfying, yet little too long and occasionally may make the viewer feel little tired, but this film isn't meant to be watched when tired. The US distributor cut the original version by over ten minutes, and I saw the original director's cut which includes many important bits of dialogue and things that add to the film. So I recommend the director's cut of the film as it is the directors original version.

Dogs of War is pretty intelligent and interesting depiction of power and dictatorship, and also very nostalgic in its atmosphere and scenery. The gun battle at the end of the film is great looking and also gripping, but as mentioned, also little unnecessary and too traditional finale. 7/10

The plot of The Dogs Of War in its simplest description,is about a team of mercenaries hired to lead a coup d'etat against a generic African leader in a generic African country. On the surface the film is very similar to The Wild Geese,among other films,but what separates it is the grounded feel. A common trait in Fredrick Forsyth is that while not entirely factual there is an element of reality throughout that leaves the impression that this is a closer portrayal than most others.

Christopher Walken may be the lead of this film but that jumping mouse is the star(if you've watched the film you'll know what I mean). All jokes aside Walken fits the part well and is entertaining to watch;I can imagine most can concur to that last statement. Tom Berenger is the other most notable name in the film though his role is pretty brief.

While perhaps bordering drifting The Dogs Of War is still an intelligent addition in a jejune genre.

This movie is one of my personal favorites. First of all seeing Christopher Walken when he was a lot younger. It has everything an old War Dog (if you don't know what the term means, ask someone who was in the military and actually participated in something) would like. The best part of the film was the step by step process of what they did to actually set up the Coup.

All in all it is a cool movie.

Oddly enough I have never heard about "The Dogs of War" before now in mid-2019 when I found the movie. I saw that Christopher Walken was in it, and that was all I needed to sit down and watch it.

Turns out that "The Dogs of War" was actually a nice and enjoyable movie. Now, mind you, this movie definitely has its ups and down, some thrilling parts and some less thrilling parts. But the overall result of director John Irvin's movie from 1980 was actually good.

The storyline is good and you easily and quickly immerse yourself into the plot and storyline. And the pacing of the movie was, for the most parts, quite good.

The characters in the movie were fair and well enough detailed to make you have an interest in them. And they had a good ensemble of actors and actresses to portray the various roles. Needless to say that Christopher Walken was of course carrying the movie quite nicely. And he had some good assistance from the likes of Tom Berenger and Paul Freeman. It was a nice surprise to see the likes of Ed O'Neil and JoBeth Williams in a movie such as this, despite having small roles.

While "The Dogs of War" certainly was entertaining for what it turned out to be, I wouldn't really say that this the type of movie that you will watch more than once. It just didn't really have enough contents to warrant more than a single viewing.

There is a wonderful sense of good old days to "The Dogs of War" in terms of the way the story was told and how the movie was constructed and executed. So there could be some nostalgic value to the movie for some viewers as well.

Having just returned from a mission in the Far East, a mercenary by the name of "James Shannon" (Christopher Walken) is contacted by a man named "Roy Endean" (Hugh Millais) who asks him to go to the West African country of Zangaro to assess the overall stability of the country. As it so happens, Zangaro is controlled by a ruthless dictator named "General Kimba" (Ilario Bisi-Pedro) who has essentially closed his country off from all foreign business. As a result Roy Endean wants to know if it is possible to overthrow General Kimba and put in his place another person who will be more amendable to his business interests. Although Shannon doesn't particularly like Roy Endean he accepts the assignment and travels to Zangaro posing as a bird watcher. The problem is that General Kimba has spies and informants everywhere and getting the information that Roy Endean wants may prove to be more difficult than either of them imagined. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I enjoyed this film due in large part to the acting of Christopher Walken and the gritty depiction of life in a third-world country ruled by a psychotic despot. Admittedly, there are some scenes toward the end that seemed a bit over the top but all things considered I thought that this was a pretty good film for the most part and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

A fine war movie. It tells more about gaining oneself dignity. I've never read the novel, but I guess it would emphasize more in Christopher Walken character, struggle between the code of honour. As appeared in the movie but not deep enough.

The road to invasion itself is very interesting and worth watching. Fine and detailed.

A classic war movie & political intrigues.

Lean, pared down to action, efficiently told story of a mercenary band with a code of honor worthy of Hemingway's life maxim "grace under pressure." Walken's performance is truly riveting, simply acting the truth without embellishment, this is professional soldier whose purpose --- loyalty to his fellow soldiers and dedication to his task --- is clean and spare: get in, win, get out, come home has been rarely topped in movies. A modern day samurai with fatalistic existential details all pass with utter credibility and uncluttered and unremarked on. Chillingly well told. Once it grips you, you will not be released until the end credits. Cuts to the bone. Jack Cardiff's cinematography is a textbook of low budget, maximum effect visuals. Walken seems skinned by combat; you never doubt this is a peak experience for him, there are no alternatives.

Not sure I was really aware of this before flipping it on. I was pretty surprised with some of the directions this one took. It definitely doesn't follow the super generic formulas that most movies would have. The inverse of that is, it's not super memorable in any particular way. So I give it credit for not fitting into a perfect mold of cookie cutter storytelling, but it needed something, a spark to make it stand out more.

Decent watch if it happens to be on, no real reason to go out of your way for it though.

...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.

Dogs of War is often lobbed into the often pulpy "mercenaries on a mission" sub-genre, and therein lies one of the main obstacles to its recognition. Looking at the marketing and poster, you'd be forgiven for equating this to your standard Chuck Norris actioner or, more charitably, to Wild Geese. But this minor masterpiece belongs in much more esteemed company.

Dogs of War is perhaps one of the best and most honest cinematic studies of the mercenary trade, and the cold cruelty with which the great powers toy with weak nations. After a nightmarish first half where Walken reckons an all-too-realistic dictatorship in Central Africa, he meticulously puts a team and plan together for a client-mandated assault. For the most part, this plays out like one of the great 70s procedurals, like 3 Days of the Condor or All The President's Men, where sporadic bursts of disturbing violence punctuate the building tension.

Plot-wise, the rug gets pulled out from under the audience's feet in many instances, not least of which is the silent horror and disappointment with which Walken's mere discovers the man he is meant to turn into a head of state following his engineered coup.

It all leads to a phenomenally tense and precise action climax, that is both powerful and cathartic, making this little-known cinematic curiosity the crown jewel of its star's career.

What a disappointment! Forsyth's book is one of his more varied, in terms of characters as well as in visual terms. Unhappily, the scriptwriters pretended that they knew better than Forsyth how to tell a story, and they got rid of the mining guy's story, of old Manson's greed and of young Manson's lust, and of the tribal question story, in exchange for a meaningless story about Shannon's wife, and the one of the pain-in-the-ass journalist who gets killed, which distracts the spectator's attention. As a result, the special effects/explosion specialist is given a free hand in a pitiful attempt to fill the holes in the story with smoke and fire... Walken is great, as always,locations are good, but they are no reason to avoid films scripted by Gary DeVore and/or George Malko in the future.Yiiiik! Don't see the film, read the book.