User reviews

Sorry, but this Dogville short gets a negative review from me.

The humor is on the weak side--and I'm talking about the dialog these dogs are supposedly speaking. It's all supposed to be a spoof of the popular Philo Vance detective series, but someone forgot to come up with a good ending or a good script.

For a few moments, the sight of costumed dogs standing upright as they move about provides a point of interest. But it soon becomes obvious that everything is staged in such a confining manner and that the humor is never going to get beyond the grade school variety.

Some dog lovers may actually like the film--but count me out. It's an attempt at humor that doesn't really pay off.

If you're worried that this review might contain spoilers, the answer is no. Nothing could be more spoiled or rancid than these wastes of celluloid. I know that humor is relative, and things found funny today would outrage the people of 1930. However, there is humor from 1930 that is timeless, and will live forever. These "Dogville Comedies" cannot be considered among that timeless humor. Beyond the cruel methods use to gain responses from the dogs involved in these travesties, the voice acting is so over the top and the attempts at humor so forced, they are actually painful to watch. Our British friends had it right when they were banned from being shown in the UK for animal cruelty. Perhaps all of them should be run in a loop and shown to gain confessions from suspected criminals. When I think of the thousands of hours of important cinema that is permanently lost due to degraded negatives, it is sad to see that these wretched "comedies" survived.

Okay, here's the scenario: You just lost a finger to a thresher, or if you live in the suburbs, a power saw. You've just been doped up real good and your family has deposited you on the couch in front of the television.

Is it real? Yes, a crime drama, with dogs as the actors. Forget the fact that these dogs seem more to be choking than chewing and the fact that, walking on their hind legs appears to be crippling them. To address either fact would be to acknowledge that the camera man and the director would have been exposed to the sounds of doggy hell.

Jules White, of Three Stoogies fame, was involved with this sadistic feature. Probably the dogs weren't crippled any more than was Larry Fine or Moe Howard. In a doped-up state, it all seems to make sense. In the end, the viewer simply asks, as in Raising Arizona: "Was it a dream? It seemed real..."

There seems to be a substantial portion of the population who thinks that comedy is someone else in pain. Yes, it's funny, but it also argues that one has little empathy with dumb animals like Moe, Larry and Curly, as well as their intellectual superiors, the dogs whom Jules White stuffed into costumes, and wired into poses. This is some peoples' idea of funny. It is not mine.

That said, we are confronted with this episode of the Dogville series that White and his cousin, Zion Myers, did for MGM after his brother, Jack White got rid of him. Would these shorts have been funny, and would this short in particular, have been funny if instead of mistreated dogs, they had mistreated some human being, say Buster Keaton, as they would soon after? I think if your answer is "ye" then you can gain some enjoyment from this. If not, then no.

I am a film student at Michigan State University and therefore, I've seen quite a few abstract, foreign, aged, and completely strange films. But I was very impressed and surprised with how much I enjoyed this quirky short. This was one of the most unique and intriguing films I've seen in a while.

For its time, 1930, and the lack of technology the filmmakers had to work with, it was amazing! The dogs walked upright.. I'm assuming they used wires.. and there were a few very witty quips as well. Very cute, very funny... although I was disappointed with the end.. but I won't give anything away.. A must-see for aspiring filmmakers!

An MGM DOGVILLE Short Subject.

Criminologist Phido Vance is called upon to stop a murder - but instead he finds it a case of WHO KILLED ROVER?

Here is another entry in MGM's delightfully bizarre Dogville series, in which all the roles are enacted by trained - and sometimes constrained - canines. This little film is a spoof of the Philo Vance mysteries of the period which starred human actors William Powell at Paramount & Basil Rathbone at MGM. The dogs are lovable and the attention to detail is terrific - note in particular the hilarious wedding scene - with hilarity & suspense dolloped out in equal measure.

***************************

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.

Who Killed Rover? (1930)

** (out of 4)

Another in MGM's "Dogville" series, a wealthy man leaves all his money to a nephew who is eventually kidnapped. Detective Phido Vance (get it) is called in to try and find out what's going on. Naturally it's the Philo Vance series being spoofed here but the title really doesn't make any sense because of how the events unfold in the movie. I won't spoil anything but a different title or a different set up were needed. The mystery to the film is pretty weak but I guess there's a reason for that but the main draw here is seeing the dogs move and talk like humans. This gimmick is neat to watch but once again I didn't really find it funny. There are certainly some cute moments but not enough to really keep the film moving like it should. The best part is during the title sequence when the card reads "An All Barkie Murder Mystery".