User Reviews (41)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really enjoyed this movie.

    And I'm saying that as a huge fan of the original, Scum.

    I don't want to spend too much time comparing the two titles but since it's pretty much a shot for shot remake, I'll touch on that later.

    The plot is simple enough. Three teenagers are committed to a juvenile facility. What follows is a transitional phase within the prison between the three kids who basically run things and the newcomer, Butch, who is provoked into violently assuming the leadership role.

    There are subplots as well featuring some of the other inmates and the guards. Davis, one of the newcomers, is a naive rich kid who can't handle the tough prison life. Max is the weirdo who has successfully freaked out everyone into leaving him alone by telling them he has AIDS. Goodyear is the bitter C.O., whose home life is being complicated by his job.

    This film is supposed to be a commentary on the rehabilitation system, much like the original was. It does a decent job of showing the brutality of the system and how irrevocably flawed it is. Kids like Banks, the thug at the top, and his cronies basically enjoy this life and the control they can exhibit. The weaker kids, meanwhile, are left out to dry. No one gets rehabilitated. No one is "cured."

    One of the problems with this movie is that it doesn't know quite what it wants to be. It starts out with backstories for three of the main characters, except one of them isn't main at all and after arriving at the Elona Vale facility he all but disappears for most of the film. It then follows as pretty much a look inside a juvenile prison but breaks the flow with a flashback to a sex story one of the inmates is recounting. To me, that scene really didn't fit at all. It's like they touch on the lives of the characters but instead of making that the core of the film they try to do both but don't succeed. That was what the original did so well. The movie wasn't about the characters; where they came from, what they did. It was about the system and it's flaws.

    Now, onto the inevitable comparison. Both movies are excellent and both have their strong points. But Dog Pound really is a scene for scene remake. It's tweaked some things and added some additional plot lines but anyone who has seen Scum will know exactly what happens all the way to the ending. Dog Pound benefits greatly from increased production values; it looks great and the hand-held camera work puts you right in the action. Scum on the other hand played out almost like a pseudo documentary and was very washed out and gritty.

    Several scenes from the original have been altered, some for the better and some for the worse. The violence is awesomely brutal and you can literally hear the wet smacks of fists hitting noses and the crack of bones breaking. The riot scene at the end has been extended and is infinitely more bad ass. I actually had a bit of an adrenaline rush watching that scene.

    Unfortunately they've cut down and taken out some parts that were crucial to Scum's plot and overall message. The rape scene, for example, has been pretty watered down and there's no guard witness. The subsequent suicide as well isn't seen, all we get a glimpse of is a body. The two scenes were pivotal in establishing the flaws and corruption of the borstals and giving the viewer a graphic insight at the inability of children to cope with such an experience. The guards are way, way nicer than in Scum. In a shocking way, actually. The riot at the end is supposed to be an expression of rage at the guards and the facility but there's really not much justification for it. The guards are super, super nice. Even Goodyear, with an obvious exception, of course, is pretty nice to the kids given the circumstances.

    But my biggest qualm with this remake was the alteration of the original message. Yes, it does a good job showing the brutality of these prisons. But that's not just what Scum was about. Scum was also a commentary about how the prison system degrades not just the inmates, but the facilitators as well. Max, who is supposed to portray Archer from Scum, is disappointingly under utilized. In the original he provided the voice of reason, the opposition to the juvenile prison system. The scenes where Archer voices his theory on this with the guard over coffee is gone. As is most of his civil disobedience tactics from the original, like refusing to wear shoes and threatening to convert to Islam.

    That was the underlying message of Scum. It wasn't just a prison movie, it was a social commentary as well. Dog Pound is just a prison movie. A good one, but lacking substance.

    All in all though this was a very good film and an admirable homage to the original. The story is solid, the acting is excellent (Adam Butcher as Butch is mesmerizing) and unlike Scum which had a notable lack of music, the score for this film is quite good and used appropriately. I don't know when this is being released in the United States but I would definitely recommend seeing it.
  • kosmasp28 December 2010
    And considering it's a dog pound ... Seriously though: The movie is one of the best ones I have seen in a while, that contains people being locked-up (or in). I have to admit, that I have not seen "Scum" yet, which this movie is based on (or a Remake according to IMDb), but after seeing this, I have to go out and rent that one.

    The characters on display here might feel a bit too distant and not everyone will be able to find a character he can entirely sympathize with, but that's what made it so intriguing to me. It's not showing a rose-tinted world. And it is not afraid to go ways, that other movies might have been. It's raw and sometimes feels like a documentary (though it obviously isn't).

    Very good acting and a story that flows from start to finish, with no (visible) flaw in the storytelling. Highly recommended
  • doyler7924 September 2010
    Alan Clarke made the violent and barbaric movie Scum 31 years ago and there have been various attempts with smiler movies since, all trying to become the daddy of juvenile delinquent dramas, from Sean Penn in Bad Boys to Larry Clarke's Kids. This avaricious animal is the most successful attempt thus far. This attempt, albeit billed as 'inspired' by scum, is inherently a remake with three miscreants sent to a juvenile facility in Montana, with no chance of any hope of reform, forced into a system of sheer brutality forcing Butch (Adam Butcher) to go on the rampage. And though Alan Clarke's original film still has the edge, this perhaps has more relevance for a new generation of cinema goers which cleverly used real ex prisoner instead of conventionally well know actors, helping in part to set a more real and gritty tone. Having said all that I did enjoy it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Visceral, brutal, nihilistic film-making that feels authentic, and is (half the cast was culled from juvie centers around the U.S., and their slang found its way into the script). Examines how the American system of early incarceration cements the amorality of young monsters who can never be rehabilitated. Standout performance by Adam Butcher as the anti-hero "Butch," a coiled spring of a rage machine. Butcher has the chops to be the next DiCaprio. Some interesting parallels are drawn between the objectification of females and the proclivity for violence. Feels tailor-made for an HBO series, if they hadn't already done Oz. The most effective scenes are the numerous fights, full of menace and dread, the blows falling with cathartic impact. It's not hard to imagine a teen getting off on watching the graphic action instead of learning a lesson. The cast members certainly look like they are enjoying themselves in a sick way.
  • mathumorris31 August 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    While the acting isn't dreadful, and the film is entertaining, I don't think I've ever seen a movie so directly copied from another film. Did the writer/director really think no one has seen the 1979 British film "Scum". The entire story line is stolen from this film, the feel of the film, the grittiness, the bullies, the new boy taking control of the prison from the bullies, the rape, the deaths, and to the final scene in the canteen which was so obviously stolen from the original film it beggars belief.

    Do yourself a favour and watch the British film with Ray Winstone, "Scum" is the title...a far superior film, and at the very least original...shame on the writer/director of this film! I hope he gets sued!
  • Straight to the point: one of these movies where the plot is very basic, the characters easily identifiable; interestingly, two strong points; yet despite all the conventionality, this style of realistic movies never suffers from a lack of imagination. It is rather the crude, raw scenes that are sought out, actors with faces that tell a story, a fluid motion from scene to scene without all the pretentious cinematic effects (symbols, metaphors, angles, music etc...).

    Like I said, straight to the point.

    And where this movie might lack in depth, it solidifies the viewers' expectations all through the one channel of ADRENALINE. It's violent, raw, vivid...such a sober experience through the scope of tale-telling art.

    Some flaws will appear clearly by the end of the movie. Perhaps a rushed scene or two - a little more footage or info in the end, that culminating to the point of the viewer looking back and asking himself how this movie stormed past his eyes so fast, in the method of a one-dimensional scene-after-scene procedure.

    This film is genuinely "lived". The power-trip it represents and authenticity factors give this about a 7.
  • Dog Pound is directed by Kim Chapiron who also co-writes the screenplay with Jeremie Delon. It stars Adam Butcher, Shane Kippel, Mateo Morales, Taylor Poulin, Dewshane Williams, Lawrence Bayne and Trent McMullen.

    Young offenders Butch (Butcher), Angel (Morales) & Davis (Kippel) are sent to the Enola Vale correctional facility and find that bullying, drugs and abuse are the order of the day.

    To clear things up, since there seems to be a lot of confusion on internet forums, Dog Pound is to all intents and purposes a remake of Alan Clarke's seminal British Borstal shocker, Scum (1977/79). It's the same plotting, much of the same characters are recycled and all of the big scenes from Scum are recreated as well. Only difference is is that Chapiron has shifted the story to North America, to a fictional correctional facility in Montana. It's basically done what the Farrelly Brothers did with Fever Pitch. What should be noted is that Chapiron hasn't hid from this fact, he didn't make the movie thinking nobody would notice, he actively acknowledged his worship of Clarke's film, making Dog Pound very much the ultimate American homage. Claims of it being a rip-off etc are way off the mark, it's a remake and nobody has denied this.

    Much like the original British version, Dog Pound is brutal, upsetting and has a loud booming voice. The director follows Clarke's template by keeping it grimy and raw, and by shooting it in semi-documentary style and using rookie actors and real life ex-offenders in the cast, Chapiron has gone, and gotten, gritty realism. He's also added a couple of his own neat touches to the narrative. The pressure the guards are under is scrutinised, how it affects home life, and there's a deft line about AIDS in the story, how people react to sufferers of the disease. The recreation of a young offenders facility is well researched, with laid bare dormitories and depressing corridors, while the cast, particularly a terrific coiled spring Butcher, can't be faulted for excellent serving up of the material to hand.

    Minor problems do exist, familiarity of genre is always an issue, and here for anyone who has seen either of the Scum movies, there is no surprise factor, it does feel a little old hat. This even though Chapiron appears to be making the comment that problems inside juvenile facilities haven't ceased since the 70s. The Angel character is badly under written in the context of him being one of the central characters, a big misstep since he forms a crucial plot development, whilst the use of music is also a very bad idea. These irritants stop the film from being up with the best of the genre, but it's still a potent firecracker of a picture. Very well made and still it has something to say, in that the cycle of violence continues inside, that juvenile institutions are still questionable tools for rehab, problems are there and Dog Pound ferociously makes its point. 7.5/10
  • Dog Pound had a huge effect on me unlike most films that have come out in the past couple months. You start to really feel for the characters and their issues also everything during the movie goes along smoothly. Every actor worked their role correctly and, in my opinion, perfectly. If people just truly gave a couple seconds to be down to earth with these juniors, just for once put yourself in their own positions, many of the problems in this film could of had a much better outcome. Great story, great action, and just overall a good watch. This is a must see for everyone who has the stomach and the mind set. These actions are actually happening today and needs to be solved.. but sadly I may not see it in my years.
  • A movie like "Dog Pound" has a lot of peers. Year after year of prison films (a dozen or two I've seen for myself) have honed a pretty basic cinematic structure. This film is about half-successful in avoiding the clichés. It does have one thing going for it - being the most recent to give a pretty much realistic account of the juvenile detention system. The pace of the story provides somewhat of the needed adrenaline charge for the thriller format, but it doesn't go nearly as far as it should. The soundtrack, for one, is a good example of this. It's virtually never needed, always intrusive. The acting is pretty much as expected. Given intense situations, the actors offer better performances than if asked to emote in a normal environment. And, if not necessarily better, at least more intense.

    Kim Chapiron provides some interesting direction. Clean photography, 70s style use of zooms. It doesn't always work, but it keeps things interesting. The end result is a film that gives you enough to stay involved, if not quite enough to push it over into something you'd want to see again. Good enough.
  • FunchoExpress7 January 2011
    8/10
    Raw
    Although i did not yet see "Scum" - but will see as soon as i can - i think it's perfectly acceptable a remake (still not sure that it's a remake) after several decades.

    The thematic of life in a prison or juvenile delinquency is not new. What's new is the extraordinary realism with which this film is made of. Extraordinary violence is processed between the actors and the audience. Awesome performances in all the situations. The less likable aspect about this movie is the sudden and somehow incoherent death of two youths.

    But the soul of the project is always there.
  • In various aspects, Dog Pound fulfills with its purpose: bringing us a raw and intense look to a "juvenile detention center", supposedly dedicated to the juvenile delinquent's rehabilitation, when it is in fact a sadistic and brutal environment which stimulates the cruelty, the intolerance and the violence as the solution to every problem. I have to say that Dog Pound kept me interested; however, its story is almost non-existent, and it's reduced to a series of vignettes which follows the experience of three young interns of a recent entry.

    The main problem from Dog Pound is that it doesn't provide too much to the "prison cinema". On the positive side, the performances are very good, and I also appreciated the fact that none of the performers are models/actors, something which helps to the realism of the story. The only problem with the cast is that the actors are too old for the characters they interpret. If director Kim Chapiron had selected 15 or 16-year-old actors, Dog Pound would have been more shocking and subversive. Unfortunateley, he let that chance go.

    In conclusion, Dog Pound entertained me; it brings an interesting message; the performances are solid; and Chapiron's direction is agile and efficient, with the emphasis on the clarity and free of stylish distractions. However, it didn't leave me completely satisfied, mainly because it doesn't bring anything new to the "prison cinema". I consider it worthy of a moderate recommendation by itself, but there are much better "prison films" out there, such as Bad Boys (1983), Celda 211 and Un Prophéte.
  • This movie hit home for me because I was once locked up in a juvenile detention facility. The only thing I disagree with in this movie is the guards were not violent enough but the setting is the same if not worse on how you get treated by the people around you. For all the people who said this was a "Bad movie" "had no plot" you have never lived it so you would not have the first clue what this movie was attempting to convey with its ending and storyline. The psychology is nearly the same and it does not matter how you go in, your environment changes and with it you must change yourself. You may have heard the term "debt dog" but I doubt it. This movie hits as close as your going to probably get without someones story like mine.
  • *Note I did not see the original 1979 french Film "Scum" by Alan Clarke

    Dog Pound follows three teenagers as they are incarcerated into the Enola Vale correctional facility. One is a easy going drug dealer, the other a Chicano youth stealing cars, and the last is a simply soul filled with rage. From day one they find that fitting into the prison social structure is just as brutal as at adult prison. Contained In the grey walls are cold and robotic security officers, a tiered ranking system between inmates and even an underground drug commerce.

    Dog pound is not the simple a-b-c plot line but a series of encounters that build up to some remarkable moments of violence. In between the violence are openings into the vulnerable sides of some of the characters but those are small carrots in a mostly dreary cage of concrete and metal.

    Violence like the kind found in Dog Pound comes from a extremely raw place. This film has a fantastic sense of realism but without the overdose of handle held camera that many directors use as a crutch. Also the music adds a great touch to the sort of depressing and monotonous atmosphere. After each terrifying disaster occurs the ghostly music comes in and you're reminded that these moments of horror are simply the norm of prison life.

    If you looking for good performances you'll find them here. Each kid does a great job of portraying both helplessness and the heart of a defier. This film is extremely well done in all aspects and I hope it finds its way to audiences. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for Kim Chapiron's next project.

    Who this film is not for: -Children -Viewers who don't like dark films
  • bonibras3 February 2013
    This is the first time I see a movie so directly copied from another. I had similar feeling when I saw "Black Swan", by Darren Aronofsky, because I thought it was heavily copied from "La Pianiste", by Michael Haneke. However, "Dog Pound" is really shocking when it comes to the extent of the similarities to "Scum (1979)", directed by Alan Clarke.

    I think the director Kim Chapiron should have credited the script to Roy Minton (Scum's writer), not to himself. That was his biggest mistake while making this movie, since the overall quality of this work is not the worst. It is a good movie, but quite embarrassing that it is so similar to "Scum (1979)", directed by Alan Clarke. I wonder if the company who produced "Scum" knows about the existence of this plagiarism, because that is how it seems for many viewers.

    I wish luck to this young French director Kim Chapiron, but he needs to think twice before trying to hide that it was not him who wrote the script of a film he is directing.

    It comes quite difficult to rate a plagiarism, but my vote is 5.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having just finished watching this film "Dog Pound", it was clear to me right from the start the similarities to the UK film, "Scum", and were confirmed when the rape scene was shown, and the aftermath shortly after with the raped guy killing himself after repeatedly trying to call for help via the internal alarm messaging system.

    All in all though, even though this is clearly copying "Scum", its not too bad of a copy, although it doesn't pack the dirty punch in which Scum brought to the table.

    Differences from Scum in Dog Pound..

    Scum

    Pool Balls in sock Rape scene in greenhouse Suicide in isolated cell

    Dog pound

    Large steel drinking mug Rape scene in laundry room Suicide in Dorm

    There were many other similarities, but I think I have revealed more than enough spoilers for now, but one thing I would say, is even if you have read my review, still watch this film, and the characters/actors do a very good job with their roles.
  • Some of the adult characters are more sympathetic and less two dimensional than the original film but the main plot lines are remarkable similar, depressing that the writers could not have more creative though that is hardly unique in films being produced in last ten years. The main theme revolving around adolescent males' alienation and general response of society to simply shut problem kids away should be of concern to us all, we keep repeating the same mistake over and over again however this film is soulless as its just comes across as a documentary without attempting to put forward a vision for a way forward. The original film was ground breaking as its exposed a particular problem with the Borstal (UK) system maybe this American version was meant to throw light on a similar problem in the US however its lack of originality raises a suspicion that its simply an exploitation piece instead of social commentary. Funding and making independent films is hard enough so it's almost criminal writers plagiarise other peoples work.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Right from the start of the film, or "yaaaah, movie" as the yanks say, you know the whole film is going to be $hit, what with the over acted yelling involving that miserable looking idiot and the screw.

    I couldn't quite pinpoint it, but the whole flow and style of the film was cheesy, two dimensional and unrealistic.

    The dialog is laughable, the main screw walks round with a cup of tea/coffee most of the time.

    Every main scene from Scum is ripped of in Dogpound. The snooker room scene is replaced with a table tennis scene, instead of one of the antagonists getting walloped with a snooker ball filled sock, hes smacked in the face with a table tennis bat. Even the bathroom scene is somewhat copied. And the rape scene was utterly pathetic. THe guy being raped easily could of/should of defended off his attackers.

    THe film goes and ends nowhere. I absolutely hated it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    One wit suggested that the tagline of the classic British Borstal drama should have been " Just when you thought it was safe to go in to the greenhouse ... " Well just when you thought it was safe to go back to the DVD store where you rented American remakes of GET CARTER , etc along comes yet another remake of a classic British movie based on Alan Clark's brutal and bleak borstal British realist drama SCUM

    One thing that strikes you about the differences between the two films is the ironic differences in culture between Britain and America . In Britain jails are seen as holiday camps where prisoners are surrounded by TVs , DVD players and computer games . I should point I'm using the modern day 21st Century view of British penal establishment with borstal ( Juvenile detention centres ) being a long forgotten memory . This contrasts with the perceived view both sides of the pond that any type of penal institution in America is a violent and brutal hell hole with physical and sexual violence depressingly routine . SCUM seems rather dated in that it's just too bleak where as DOG POUND fails because it's a little bit too nice

    !!!!!! SPOILERS TO SCUM ( 1979 )!!!!!

    Indeed the major difference between the two films is how the inmates are treated by the warders/correctional officers . SCUM gets off to a brutal start with Carling being assaulted by two of the screws who are portrayed in a cruel manner with perhaps the worst type of cruelty being an officer who witnesses the gang rape of Davis which he turns a blind eye to . In DOG POUND there's no such cruelty of indifference with officers being some sort of surrogate social workers . I don't doubt for a moment that COs in American juvenile detention centres would view themselves as rehabilitaters but it makes for a far less compelling film One wonders if director Kim Chapirion and screenwriter Jeremie Delon are trying to make a much more human film by portraying authority in this light . However they fail on a couple of major points . One is that they insert their own scenes or embellish scenes from the original without thinking it through . Effectively Carling - or Butch as he's called here - is told he'll be let out in two weeks if he behaves himself . Of course something happens that ends this but the inciting incident is so weak it loses credibility . . Likewise Davis is allowed to commit suicide in a crowded dorm by bleeding to death which isn't impossible but unlikely compared to the scene in the original Chapirion also misses the point that Clark's original was the archtypal realist film with no incidental music and subplots that disappear . This is a much more cohesive non realist film with a soundtrack

    Perhaps there should be a third criticism and that is the casting . The cast of SCUM was fantastic . All of them were unknown at the time but several like Ray Winstone and Phil Daniels went on to appear in countless British films and TV shows up[ till today . Adam Butcher as Butch is no rough diamond geezer . He's probably a really nice guy in real life and never really convinces as someone who can take over a wing of a prison system . Likewise Shane Kippel as Davis never has victim stamped on his forehead unlike Julian Firth in SCUM

    All in all this is a weaker more mainstream remake of a much revered film made in Britain in the late 1970s , a film that was highly quotable and oft mentioned by British teenagers in the 1980s . DOG POUND will appeal to anyone with an interest in films set in prisons but if you've seen the original source material it is lacking whilst ironically throws a spanner in the works when it goes its own way
  • majesticappeal9 May 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    The film is raw and relevant. The actors are great. Adam Butcher gave a superb performance as Butch. His trigger explosiveness kept me on the edge of my seat. Along with Shane Kippel and Mateo Morales, as the main delinquents, the film displayed the violence and brutality of the system. Even the youngest of the detainees, Sal, played by young Alexander Conti, was affected by the end of the film. Showing his disdain for the death of his bunk mate. In the beginning of the film his eyes innocent and scared, but by the end he too is filled with the rage of the realities of the corrupt system. Excellent job by Kim Chapiron (writer/director) and Jeremie Delon (writer.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    From what I have read Dog Pound is a film influenced by the British film Scum and is not a remake but if the truth be told it is almost exactly the same. Even some re-makes of other film's are not as close as these two film's are and because I seen Scum first and thought it was brilliant, Dog Pound has a lot to live up to. So does it then? The answer is no it doesn't, it's not even close. I suppose if I hadn't off seen Scum first I would of though this was a slightly above average film. The main character Butch is no where near Ray Winstone's character Carling and as I watched him, I just felt like I was watching a man trying to act tough. Maybe it is just me but I think he made the film worse. No spoilers here though and if you watch or have seen Scum then there is no need to tell you anyway. Not a lot more I want to say about this film really, it is no where near the level of Scum and having said that I would recommend that film but not Dog Pound. I warn you in advance mind, it's not for the faint hearted. Dog Pound 6.5 out of 10, Scum 9.5 out of 10.
  • Denislaw726 May 2017
    Definitely this movie is not a waste of time. Good actors and interesting scenarios. Congratulations . With largely improvised dialogue and a cast including genuine ex-offenders, Chapiron captures a powerful stench of authenticity. Covers predictable ground with admirable sincerity and is notable for some eye-catching performances, not least that of Adam Butcher as an angry young man.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Dog Pound (2010): Dir: Kim Chapiron / Cast: Adam Butcher, Shane Kippel, Mateo Morales, Lawrence Bayne, Slim Twig: Disturbing drama about human imprisonment, or in this case, juvenile prison. Adam Butcher plays a seventeen year old sentenced after brutally retaliating against an abusive corrections officer. Shane Kippel is sentenced due to drugs and substance abuse. Mateo Morales plays Angel who is sentenced after car theft and assault. All three join many others in hostile confinement where they become victims of violence. Butcher soon retaliates when he decides not to discuss his abuse. Kippel still gets hooked on drugs while also undergoing severe hostility including sexual. He ignores his mother's visitation pleas to help him. Morales is smaller but blunt in his views. All three have opportunities to reform but due too prison politics and overall nature, violence and death seem to be the only solution. Lawrence Bayne plays Officer Goodyear who runs strict orders but unable to sustain cooperation when demanding answers to evidence of abuse. We are also given a small glimpse of his fragile home life as especially when he is unable to attend his daughter's birthday. Slim Twig also makes an appearance as Max rounding out a largely unknown yet very effective cast. The guards are thankfully not the typical abusive guards often portrayed in these films. While some images are disturbing to observe, director Kim Chapiron delivers a realistic and observant glimpse at the rough reality of juvenile prisons and the animalistic nature it gives to lives on the wrong path. Score: 8 / 10
  • Davis is a 16 year old caught with narcotics. Angel is a 15 year old sentenced for assault and car theft. Butch is 17 year old who assaulted a corrections officer. All three are sent to Enola Vale Youth Correctional Center. Davis and Butch are targeted by bully Banks and his guys. Butch has anger issues and fights back.

    The actors are a little older than the characters. It's a noticeable difference and an important difference for this particular movie. As a prison movie, it rehashes all the standard characters. The leads Adam Butcher and Shane Kippel are pretty good. This is a fine prison movie but there's nothing new.
  • Kenard_joy19 November 2014
    I was introduced to this movie by my cousin, and after watching this movie it left me speechless. "Dog Pound" is a great movie it keeps you entertained and into the movie.

    During the movie you'll see some sad and upsetting parts as you grow interest in the movie. "Dog Pound" does a good job at giving the viewers connection with the characters and grow feeling for the three boys.

    "Dog Pound" offers a lot of emotion, entertainment, and even courage from the viewers. This movie gets a ten from me, because of it's production, cast, and the ability to deliver. A movie that delivers will also turn out to be a great movie, because most movies don't deliver anymore... "Dog Pound" a MUST WATCH movie.
  • A mean prison thriller that goes for the jugular throughout, the Canadian film DOG POUND is in actual fact a remake of the British borstal classic SCUM from 1979. While it's not as powerful or harrowing as that film, nevertheless it packs a punch in its harsh depiction of bullying and brutality within prison confines.

    The prison in this film is a juvenile one and the movie is populated by new and unfamiliar faces, but don't let that put you off, because DOG POUND turns out to be a highly effective movie in its own right. The acting is up and down and probably the weakest part of the production, but that matters not when the direction is strong and the writing compelling.

    DOG POUND is a slow paced film for the most part and yet it's alive with simmering tension as character relationships develop and things move towards some scenes of violence which are devastating in their depiction. Some of the sub-plots are distinctly underwhelming (with the fate of one particular character not a patch on his counterpart in SCUM) but others hit home with precision force, making this a film I really got into.
An error has occured. Please try again.