It's a Dog's Life (1955) User Reviews (20)

Never seen anything quite like it.

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 14 March 2010]

This is an odd one. Films from a dog's point of view with human narration have been done before, but usually from the standpoint of either a dog in a troubled family situation or from the standpoint of a dog trying to get back to a beloved master after they are separated. This one dares to be different. Wildfire is a dog of the Bowery, alone in the world except for his mother, not having or seeking a master. Not only does the dog's voice sound like Frank Sinatra, the dog uses Rat Pack terminology, and plays the cool sensitive loner like Sinatra as well. As one reviewer put it, this film is quite Runyonesque. Another odd device of the film is that you don't hear the other dogs saying anything - Wildfire is the only dog that communicates with the audience in human language. This makes the film less like a cartoon and keeps the focus on Wildfire.

The film starts out with Wildfire sensing that his mother is unhappy. He goes to the elder dog of the wharf and asks him what the problem is. It turns out that Wildfire's father was a Grand Champion who has a love them and leave them attitude with the ladies, that Wildfire's mom was one of those ladies, and the result was Wildfire. Wildfire then sets out on a quest to find and kill his father for what he did to his mother. Pretty odd stuff for a talking dog movie.

Along the way he encounters two groups of people. The first group consists of the fellows who hang out in the local pub and run a dog fighting ring - Wildfire at first thinks his father's name of "Grand Champion" came from being a champion fighting dog. He gets into the business himself for awhile, but never finds his father. In the second half of the film he is taken in by a kindly old long-time servant of the wealthy Wyndham family, Jeremiah Emmett Augustus Nolan (Edmund Gwynn). The Wyndhams have problems of their own, and Wildfire and the Wyndhams manage to help each other with their respective demons.

Although the themes of dog-fighting and violence to women are part of the film, let me assure you there is nothing shown or said that would be inappropriate for a ten year old. No violence is actually shown. Highly recommended as a feel good family film.

A nice way to spend an hour and a half.

[dhoffman · 7/10 · 28 February 2001]

This is a period piece, set in what appears to be the late 1800s. Much of the film is narrated by the main character, Wildfire, a bull terrier, who moves upward from the Bowery in this "rags-to-riches" fantasy. At times Wildfire's narration may be `too cute', but remarkably it doesn't stray too far. This device of personifying the dog truly works, particularly due to the script. Wildfire gets high praise for his performance. Dean Jagger is excellent as is Edmund Gwynne.

The film is well-paced and I found it much more entertaining that I anticipated. This is good escapist fare-the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, but not too terribly so.

I love this film!!

[sb-moto · 8/10 · 9 November 2007]

I first saw It's A Dog's Life a long, long time ago on TV and immediately fell in love with Bull Terriers - I have since owned two and plan to get another. It depicts the breed pretty accurately, some can be scrappers but most are playful and friendly to all, and they have loads of personality. Yes, part of the plot is organized dog-fighting and there is violence towards a woman, both of which are repugnant to any decent person, but that knowledge shouldn't put anyone off watching - those scenes aren't nice, even though they do not show the actual violence, but all-in-all there's lots to love about this story. Wildfire the dog is a charmer and, best of all, the good guys win! I just hope this delightful film will be released on DVD sometime soon, so I can replace my old copied-from-TV VHS tape!!

A minor unheralded classic

[vandino1 · 9 January 2006]

Okay, I saw this first when I was a kid and loved it. It's a rare talking animal film from an era that didn't indulge in these kinds of things. There's really nothing cutesy about it and it's tough around the edges, possibly too much so. This is Charles Dickens territory, not Benji. But it has charms (although the brutal treatment of animals and women can rightfully discredit this film, so I offer a caveat to any sensitive viewer). There is enough things right in this film to make up for the wrong in my book. Honestly, the ugly stuff this dog character goes through without losing his innate decency is very appealing (yeah, I know, it's a talking dog--although he narrates so there is no animated mouth movements making it cartoonish). I was surprised to learn that Vic Morrow did the dog voice-over. Nice job, perhaps better than many of his on-screen performances. And always reliable Edmund Gwenn and Dean Jagger provide solid support. This is a weird one, but I find it memorable.

It's an odd one

[dinky-4 · 6/10 · 4 January 2003]

This is a curious sort of movie, almost one of a kind. It's narrated by its central character, a white bull terrier, and though it would seem to be the sort of "family" movie parents take their kids to, it deals with staged dog fights on which men bet and in which dogs are killed. What's more the dog's first owner slaps his girlfriend around and she seems to enjoy it! Hardly Saturday matinee material. True, these elements are more implied than shown, but more oddities follow.

After setting up the dog as its central character, the movie introduces Jeff Richards and he temporarily takes over the story. Then he disappears and Edmund Gwenn belatedly enters the plot and the story begins to center around him. And then Jeff Richards comes back! Few movies have had such a shifting focus as this one. And why pick a bull terrier since this breed doesn't have the expressive eyes into which audiences can project all sorts of emotions? The bull terrier's blank look often seems at odds with the narration being spoken for him by actor Vic Morrow.

Perhaps most curiously, while this might have been designed as a movie with a special appeal to children, there are no children in it! In fact, two of the main characters are decidedly in the "senior citizen" class: Edmund Gwenn and Dean Jagger.

And yet ... the movie has a certain charm. Its early 1900s setting is pleasantly, though superficially, mounted. The cast is attractive, there are no slow spots in the story, and the whole thing's wrapped up in less than 90 minutes. Those who've seen the movie always seem to remember it, even though some of these memories may now be approaching 50 years in age.

Jeff Richards seems a bit miscast, (he doesn't have a tough-enough edge), but this is still one of his better parts at a time when he appeared to be moving toward stardom. For some reason or other, he never "clicked" and soon faded from view. Here he has a scene without his shirt, showing off the kind of chest hair which other actors shaved, and he looks lip-smackin' good! For even more footage of Jeff's chest, though in black-and-white, check out "Island of Lost Women."

Fascinating

[HellKelpie · 7/10 · 20 July 2006]

I first saw this movie many years ago, one weekend on television back when I was a child. It caused me to be eternally fascinated by bull terriers.

The movie itself, on finally seeing it again as an adult, is not nearly as bad as some reviewers would have you think. From my point of view, it doesn't condone dog-fighting, nor even abuse of women. Sure, it shows some fairly unacceptable behaviour, but I didn't get the impression that this was being shown as an example of the behaviour on which our own should be modelled. When I think how many times in my viewing history I've seen people (not necessarily women) punched, kicked, shot, tortured, and murdered in cold blood, then this movie is pretty darn tame.

Since buying the DVD, and then buying the book on which this movie was based (yes, this movie made a huge impression on the child who saw it years ago), I still think it's a good movie. Clunky, sure. A little strange sometimes - absolutely. Displays outmoded behaviours - no argument. But still, for Wildfire alone, worth a view or two.

nice doggie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 14 November 2021]

A bull terrier recounts his rise from the dirty waterfront bowery of New York City to dog fights to kindly stable hand Jeremiah Edward Emmett Augustus Nolan (Edmund Gwenn)'s dog in a rich man's estate. When the master orders the dog to leave, his daughter makes him a bet that the dog would win the big dog show.

This is as good as many of the 70's doggie movies. Instead of having two contests, it would be nice to make it all about one contest. Then there is the daddy issues. I would rather skip that. It's not laid out well enough for it to be a good story element. There could be more done with the training section and the dog show itself. This is nice even if it drags a little towards the end.

Hollywood feel good dog film

[jameselliot-1 · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

Wildfire is the Rocky Balboa of bull terriers. This fantasy film does not promote dog fighting, dog abuse or violence again women. Those elements are part of the challenges that the dog experiences in his rags to riches life. The narrator doesn't sound like Vic Morrow and the narration is flat and monotone. This is not a film for very young children as they may find some (non-graphic) scenes disturbing.

delightful.....

[mike2626 · 10/10 · 26 September 2005]

For me, this delightful film is reminiscent of the great classic Warner Bros. cartoons of the 50's. Especially the "dog themed" cartoons. Like the one where the mutt is trying to get Porky Pig to adopt him, remember? But the dog in this movie has a lot more "on the ball" and is not such a con-dog. If you like good Warner Bros. "dog" cartoons, you'll love this. Also, for you literati, I may add the term "Runyonesque" to this review. It's really quite unique in my experience, which is a neat trick in itself. What makes this film different from something from Disney? It's not overly cute. And not overly sentimental. And thus should be on the menu for adults as well as children.

Very disturbing...so much so that the second half doesn't save the overall picture.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 5 December 2019]

"It's a Dog's Life" is a very hard film to watch...and I am sure it wasn't particularly easy back in 1955 as well. The film is about a Bull Terrier...and much of the film consists of the poor animal being abused and forced to dog fight. While they don't actually show the dogs fighting, seeing the dog covered in blood and looking awful was tough to watch...which makes me wonder WHO would really want to see the movie...whether or not it's any good. Sure, things work out eventually for the animal...but the first portion is just a giant downer. It's also a film I'd never want to show children...especially younger ones.

Despite the dog fighting, is it any good? Well, for me, not particularly. I did not enjoy listening to the voiceovers coming supposedly from the dog--not just because I didn't like the gimmick but because the writing was so bad. It was supposed to be funny and clever...mostly I found it grating. I did enjoy seeing Edmund Gwenn and his interactions with the dog...they were sweet...but not enough to really recommend the movie.

This a great movie.

[kmd8452 · 10/10 · 10 August 2007]

This movie is not offensive nor does it promote violence towards dogs and women. It touches on a subject that is not pretty or nice and paints it as it is. It is also a portrait of good overcoming evil as well as getting out of life what you put into it. It is not a movie that I would show to small children, but it is a movie that I would have no problem showing to older children with an adult to explain things. I love this movie and watch it every chance I get. I think this movie shows exactly what I have been saying about pit bulls and other breeds of dogs. It is not the dog that is inherently, vicious it is the owner that makes them that way and that can happen with any breed of dog.

Warning! Animal cruelty!

[AuntieShawna · 2/10 · 10 November 2021]

Even though the fights aren't shown on camera there is still animal cruelty.

First of all, I have to tell you that the only reason I watched this film is because of Jeff Richards. I wish I hadn't. His character is the worst of the worst without a single redeeming quality. Also, he holds Wildfire in the air by the tail for an extended period of time. Back then, many people didn't know how damaging that could be to a dog, but we know now, so it's horrible to see. I'm terribly disappointed in Jeff Richards for his involvement in this movie. I hope the only reason he did it was because he didn't have a choice for some reason.

The only reason I gave this movie two stars instead of one is because it had a nice sappy ending. However, it isn't nearly good enough to watch this movie. Do yourself a favour and watch something else. I wish I had.

Oddball little delight

[KS-8 · 24 November 2003]

I TiVo'd this movie because I have an absurd sentimentality for animals. A friend actually snickered when she saw this on my TiVo "to do" list. No matter. I watched it on a night when I needed to just veg out - no challenging foreign films that night, thank you.

Boy, was I glad I did! As other posters have stated, this is a weird movie. No children star in this movie, but it has a talking dog narrator! And he's actually trained as a fighting dog -- something you probably wouldn't see in a "talking dog" movie made today.

Vic Morrow's voiceover was a bit distant -- joking a bit too much when you knew the dog was in sheer terror, for instance. But I liked the New York accent. It worked for the little street tough that the dog (his name was Wildfire) was supposed to be.

Human cast was terrific, especially Edmund Gwenn. Dean Jagger also good.

If you have a tolerance for G-rated talking animal movies, this one is different and worth checking out. It's not exactly a kids' movie -- children may be bored, in fact, since the action, though fast, isn't exactly at the breakneck cartoony pace that kids today are accustomed to. And there is some implied violence and "adult situations." But it's a brisk story that moves along nicely, and with some genuinely funny moments. And a sweet ending.

A classic!

[cheiranthus · 9/10 · 17 December 2010]

I fell in love with this movie when I first saw it on late night TV back in the 70s. It's a charmer, with a wry sense of humor and a little tough around the edges. There's plenty of sentiment but it's definitely Runyonesque, as some here have so accurately described it, and NOT the cheap, mawkishly manipulative sentimentality of Disney. Anyone who thinks this movie condones violence - toward animals OR women - wasn't paying attention. The dogs are NOT violent but like the horses in Black Beauty, they're victims of cruel, greedy, selfish human beings.

My children grew up on this film, via a grainy, over-the-air VHS cassette. We all love it and someday, when it finally comes out on DVD, we'll throw a family party and watch it all together again.

Stray Dog To Show Dog

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 11 March 2010]

It's A Dog's Life graced the bottom of many double bills during the Fifties for MGM stars. A film like this one even five years later would have been a made for television product.

The original story was based on something that famed nineteenth century newspaper correspondent Richard Harding Davis wrote. When he was not covering things like the Spanish American War, Davis took his hand at fiction. He wrote the Gallegher stories that Walt Disney filmed during the Sixties with Roger Mobley.

This is the rags to riches story of a stray dog who managed to get from fighting dog of the Bowery to pampered show dog on Long Island. As Vic Morrow who supplies the dog's voice and does the narration, Horatio Alger would have loved this story. He certainly would have because Horatio was writing his stuff during this same time.

Of the human actors we have to single out Edmund Gwenn and Dean Jagger, two of the most accomplished character actors around. Gwenn as the groom and stableman on Jagger's estate and Jagger as the wealthy dog breeder who has a lot of issues in a lot of areas both are just fine in the roles. And they don't let the appealing little canine steal the scenes either.

I wish I could rate this film better, but sad to say I know all too well that dogs who are bred as killers are not likely to change their ways and become show dogs. Maybe Davis could sell that as fiction in his time and maybe MGM could see it in 1955, but it doesn't go over today.

Still some may find this a cute film.

Its a dogs life

[rpapalia-46722 · 8/10 · 30 September 2019]

Great movie. Shows why dogs are precious. I would definitely recommend this movie to people with children. Movies like this do not come along that often and so they should be treasured.

Animal violence + beating women = funny??

[sillyblackcat · 1/10 · 19 June 2005]

I happened to stumble upon this movie late at night, airing on TMC. I started watching, thinking it would be an entertaining, old movie that would be amusing if not a little silly. What I found was greatly offensive material that promotes violence towards dogs and women. Sure, this may be an old movie with dated opinions of the treatment (or more accurately, mistreatment) of animals and women. However, movies like this should not be shown on basic cable, guised under the title of "entertainment". Not only does it show dogfighting in a glamorous light, it shows extreme violence against women, in a "comedic" setting. This movie perpetuates the stereotypes of pit bull terriers as being violent, nasty animals that should be discriminated against, banned for ownership, or put to death. Animal abuse is not funny, nor should it be the basis for a comedy movie.

Very enjoyable film

[dpace-2 · 8/10 · 6 December 2019]

I loved this movie. I thought it was very well done and handled sensitive material like dog fighting well considering it was 1955 and was not really very graphic. That was only a small part of the film as well. The cast was excellent and the dog voice -over for Wildfire had just the right touch. Overall it was a very appealing story with nice pieces of emotion. I recommend it highly.

Don't waste your time.

[kdcb · 1/10 · 6 December 2019]

I like animal movies but this is one of the worst movies in the history of cinema. Don't waste your time.

One of my favorites

[caninekiss · 10/10 · 24 April 2020]

I love this film! I watch it all the time. The story is presented from the dogs point of view. It has some witty jokes. I love it for the wonderful acting out the animals in the film.