Dog Eat Dog (I) (2016) User Reviews (95)

Interesting, crazy and entertaining, but not for everyone.

[MonsterVision99 · 5/10 · 18 November 2016]

Dog Eat Dog, its a film about sleazy characters that are trying to get a better life, since the criminal life's they have aren't working out for them, the film never stops being entertaining, its definitely a good film, but many aspects kept it from being really good.

The main three actors in the film are great, Nicolas Cage plays a crook who is a film buff, who imagines himself in a Noir film, narrating his internal thoughts in black and white, Willem Dafoe, plays a crazy and irredeemable criminal, who seeks for a better life, but cant get one. Christopher Matthew Cook plays a smart and strong crook who seems to be the most normal out of the three but sometimes he could let his temper get to him, these three characters are not redeemable, they are not good people, they are awful people, something many viewers may find to be a negative.

The film starts with a great opening scene, but it isn't consistently good, sometimes it gets a bit sloppy, but even at that it is still entertaining, the story isn't anything new, but it makes it decent enough, its ending may leave you with a bad taste but I think its OK.

The films its about thee three characters who are stuck with their lives and cant grow out of them, the film itself doesn't go anywhere because its characters cant go anywhere.

Paul Schrader is a really good director, this definitely isn't his best film, but its a very decent one, despite what critics may be telling you, it may be a bit too sleazy for its own good, but its very compelling.

Fooled by a cool trailer yet again

[Seth_Rogue_One · 4/10 · 30 December 2016]

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.

Strangely interesting in it's mediocre-ness

[subxerogravity · 6/10 · 8 November 2016]

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

Seriously, Nicholas Cage, is your time over?

[johnphilips-be · 1/10 · 13 November 2016]

I am a fan of Nicholas Cage who believes that his movies are just below the top grade, but enjoyable at most times.. I read the story-line in IMDb and was seriously looking forward to have a good time. Boy, i was wrong. There was no story, no thrills but cheap gun shooting action. I went all the way to write a review as i believe that this review could save someone their 90 minutes. By the way, this is only my 3rd review ever in the last 8 years, the other 2 being positives and this one for the sheer disappointment i had with the movie.

Pls avoid this movie unless you are a blood thirsty movie lover.

Hope this helps!

I didn't want to believe the bad reviews...

[richard-102-421271 · 1/10 · 5 October 2017]

I read all the bad reviews and thought "how could a movie with Nicholas Cage and Willem Dafoe be that bad?". So I ignored them... It was truly dreadful, actually I didn't finish watching it. I watched about 40 minutes or so. I think it's supposed to be funny. It wasn't. Can't say anything good about it. I just don't understand how people in the film industry who presumably know what they're doing could ever release this. Cage and Dafoe just seemed to be trying (and failing) to do their best with an abysmal script, abysmal plot, abysmal everything.

Wow

[ikonsneed · 3/10 · 19 November 2016]

I can honestly say this one of Nicolas Cage's worst films and I think his career is tanking. From the opening scene it was appalling. It is extremely dark, weighing heavy on valleys and missing any peaks. Also, being as I am a Clevelander, it does not portray an accurate portrait of the city I love...not even in regards to crime. This is a despicable display of cinema art. I have no known issues with crime films or violence. What I do have an issue with is is poorly written, directed, and produced work like Dog Eat Dog. The actors in this film are legendary but their work is sub par, at best! Save yourself the time that I wasted by not viewing this film.

Dog Eat Dog review

[JoeytheBrit · 7/10 · 20 April 2020]

Three friends, each of whom is facing a third-strike life prison sentence if caught breaking the law, kidnap the daughter of a gangster. A tough character piece from Paul Schrader, the man behind Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, that retains the sensibilities of grim misogynistic crime flicks from the '70s while tipping its hat to more romanticised examples of the '40s. Absorbing and watchable thanks to the three leads, but it's let down by a fanciful finale completely at odds with the low-key realism of the rest of the movie.

Dog Eat Dog

[geraldohanna · 3/10 · 14 November 2016]

Paul Schrader: 'I've made some important films. 'Dog Eat Dog is not one of them'. Sad but true for Director/Writer Paul Schrader - A man with a career of 20 films, among them Taxi and Raging Bull - His career as a director remains unseen by his work as a screenwriter for Martin Scorsese - A legacy we will always remember him for - With Dog Eat Dog, Schrader tries to remind us that he is still relevant in the world - Ignoring one small fact - Everyone in this day and age can and will judge you harshly, no matter the reputation. Stylized as a low-budget Neo-noir crime caper with the talents of Nicolas Cage, Willem Dafoe and Schrader himself taking on a role, respectfully making comparisons to Quentin Tarantino's earlier films - With heavy-handed dialogue, harsh and senseless barbarity and a convoluted plot not worth following to its third act - Which is based on the novel of the same name by Edward Bunker.

Troy (Nicolas Cage), Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), and Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook) are a couple of goofball criminals, all with clichéd traits - Troy (The Straight-Man), Mad Dog (The Loose Cannon), and Diesel (The Muscle), tired of small end jobs they decide to pull off one last big score - Which involves kidnapping the baby of a rival mobster. But like most crime caper films, this goes awry and they are forced to fend for themselves - From the mob and now police following an anonymous tip.

On first glance, one can say that Schrader relates to the author himself - Edward Bunker. Both men looking for redemption, seeking a story that will ignite the spark they once had - For Schrader Dog Eat Dog should've been that story - After the disastrous events of his previous film, also starring Cage - 'Dying of the Light', unhappy with the film's re-cut, Schrader, and Cage publicly dismissed the film.

A similar theme about loss and redemption - A recurring theme for Schrader as he demonstrates it throughout his career as-a screenwriter.

Screenwriter, Matthew Wilder (Your Name Here) writes from a jarring and lurid place - depicting a dark Americana - Which is fine if used effectively. The idea of Troy, Cage's character - A movie buff with delusions of being a Humphrey Bogart lookalike is a small moment that stands out, adding more layers to a none the less complicated character.

In part, Nicolas Cage as Troy is subdued and less comical as we'd expect from a Nicolas Cage performance - Willem Dafoe as Mad Dog is fine and yet misunderstood - A man yearning for love and friendship, yet afraid to admit it. Christopher Matthew Cook as Diesel is less intriguing, as he stumbles with stoic and apprehensive tendencies.

Cinematographer Alexander Dynan never really shows us anything new to take in or marvel at besides the story itself - Perhaps in part to the editing by Ben Rodriguez Jr., who provides quick and fast paced editing.

Dog Eat Dog may inspire some with its unique flare or visuals - Fast and quick insert cuts - Or its simplistic story, whatever the reason only time will tell if we remember this as Paul Schrader film.

Wilder at heart.........

[FlashCallahan · 7/10 · 29 November 2016]

A trio of ex-cons, deep in the underbelly of Los Angeles, are hired for a kidnapping.

When the botched abduction goes awry and gets completely out of control, the cons find themselves on the run, vowing to stay out of prison at all costs.......

After the wonderful return to form Performance Cage gave us with Army Of One, I had high hopes for this film. After all, it's a reunion for Dafoe and Cage, last seen together in the bonkers but mesmerising Wild At Heart, and of course, Paul Schrader has had his hands in some of the finest cinema released in the last forty years.

But then you have to look at the other side of the coin. Schrader made the woeful The Canyons, and even as a die hard Cage fan, I have to admit he's made a few stinkers in the past few years.

And then there was their last collaboration together, the truly woeful Dying Of The Light.

This is a different beast altogether, and if you can get past the truly twisted first ten minutes, you will find quite a bizarre, but brave crime film that has a slight psychedelic seventies feel to it all.

The trouble is with Schrader and his recent films is that there is a sparseness when it comes to characters to root for, and here is no different whatsoever. Dafoe is the main victim here on that subject. He oozes hate from his every pore, and from the first minute his character appears on screen, you know the narrative isn't going to be kind to him.

And this is where the trope of the ex-con gang rears it's ugly head.

Every gang in this type of sub-genre has the atypical gang of the leader (Cage), the loose cannon (Dafoe), and of course, the muscle, whose name escapes me (I'm not perfect).

The film doesn't tread any new ground, the ex-cons on the run has been done to death, but it's just good to see Cage putting in another decent performance, and Dafoe firing on all cylinders in his most lively performance for some time.

It's not going to be for all tastes, but it's entertaining and experimental enough to keep you watching.

Will somebody please feed the dog?...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 11 December 2016]

Initially I had low expectations to "Dog Eat Dog", given the fact that it is another Nicolas Cage movie. And I can't claim to be much fan of him or his one-and-only-expression-in-every-scene. However, having Willem Dafoe on the cast list alongside with Nicolas Cage, well that might actually do salvage the movie.

So I sat down to watch this movie. And I must admit that this movie was not in the least a particularly memorable or entertaining movie. It was every bit as slow-paced and fairly uneventful as it was a confusing mess of jumbled events and stumbling dialogue.

The story is about three ex-cons who get together for a last and final job that will set them up with riches for the rest of their lives. However, things does not turn out as they had planned, in fact things take a turn for the worse quite fast.

Right, well the storyline wasn't original. Nope, not one bit. "Dog Eat Dog" offers nothing to the genre that hasn't already been done, seen or attempted in other similar movies.

And watching Nicolas Cage stumble through this script wasn't particularly helpful to the movie. And however good Willem Dafoe is, then he just didn't manage to lift the movie out of the overwhelming less-than-mediocre shadow that shrouded it.

The dialogue throughout the movie was not impressive, and many a times I found myself with my toes curled up because of the dialogue that was presented by the characters on the screen.

My interest and attention to the movie drifted off a couple of times throughout the course of the movie, because it just seemed like a myriad of multiple chaotic and scrambled scenes shot independently were being put together to form a movie; and that movie became "Dog Eat Dog".

I did manage to stick with the movie to the end. And boy, what an ending. Talk about being cliché and ridiculous. I will not give the ending away, you have to witness that stinker for yourself.

"Dog Eat Dog" came and went without even denting anything. This is the type of movie that you watch if you stumble upon it by sheer random luck; nay, make that random accident. And it is the type of movie that you watch once, then never again.

Surprisingly fresh! Really enthusiastic performances by all of the co-stars

[liamsp5590 · 8/10 · 19 September 2016]

I'll start by saying this movie isn't perfect, but I really, really enjoyed it. In short, the pacing was fantastic (not a dull moment, but at the same time you really got to know the characters), the actors all clearly were really enjoying making the movie and gave their characters their all (Willem Defoe in particular, and Nicholas Cage was completely revitalized for this role). I also really enjoyed the cinematography, some various effects were used tastefully to great effect. Finally one of the best qualities of this film is the subtle details, often humorous, of the sets/extras. This film made great use of the background for both humorous and dark mood setting purposes.

The one complaint I had with this film was the abrupt transition to some sort of symbolic "meta-scene" right around the last 10 minutes of the film. It just felt jarring and didn't really resolve or leave me thinking anything. I would not be surprised if I just missed some symbolism, but it just didn't resonate with me. But luckily I did not feel it ruined the film for me.

So in summary, this film is a fantastic surface level action flick. I would describe it as the inverse of the TV show "Cops". Similar camera-work during the action. It also had some real depth to it's characters, and man was there chemistry. It'll leave you wishing you could see more of the characters yet the point kind of is that you just see a glimpse of their lives. More would take away from the poignancy.

Seedy, sleazy, compulsive, impulsive...

[DBlackthorne · 7/10 · 18 November 2016]

Three criminal escapees conspire several plans to make that big heist, financed by a mob boss, cavorting with prostitutes they meet in various strip clubs, where each and every one of these misadventures begin and end. With nothing to lose except their freedom, the dreaded three-strikes law drives them forward for a chance to live it up on the outside for life, instead of the inside, if only they succeed. No other option available, otherwise go out the improperly termed, so-called "samurai style".* Basically, to do or die trying, in this case.

The neurotic, psychotic three stooges: There's Troy {Moe}, a nervous, almost Elvis meets Scarface character with a Humphrey Bogart fixation, who is the 'mastermind' of the operation, for what it's worth; "Mad Dog" {Larry} who resembles Metalokalypse's Murderface, a scrawny, former fish-gutting cannery worker turned murderer of a voluptuous girlfriend and daughter, who talks way too much for his own good, as well as being too inappropriately needy; & "Diesel" {Curly}, an absent minded, big bald lug who ultimately proves to be the broken link in the handcuff chain.

After receiving some veritable, and literal street justice by two rampaging officers, the series of calamity capers concludes with a convoluted dream-like sequence attended by the three, whose entire escapade seems more a twisted experiment by an amused kingpin, rather than a benefactor. From mostly stints in Kidnapping while masquerading as cops, to abduct some inner city hood for drug money, to snatch a rival gangster's infant, they plod forth by trial and error, fueled by narcotics and liquor, and an amorphous notion of some proposed lifestyle above the law.

Overall, the film's plot is not so much the title phrase "dog eat dog" as predictable keystone criminals, who are ultimately second- rate thugs brutalizing their way to the grave. ∞

An unpleasant and aimless piece of trash

[tomgillespie2002 · 2/10 · 14 October 2017]

Despite his recent track record, Paul Schrader's overall contribution to cinema should not be scoffed at. He was, after all, responsible for penning three great Martin Scorsese movies (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ) and one okay one (Bringing Out the Dead), as well as directing the likes of Blue Collar, American Gigolo and Light Sleeper, all interesting movies in their own right. Of recent years, he's been stuck in the straight- to-DVD game, churning out schlock to help raise funds for his own underwhelming personal projects. Teaming up with cinema-dodging king Nicolas Cage for the second time (after 2014's Dying of the Light), Schrader's latest - an incredibly violent and misanthropic crime thriller called Dog Eat Dog - may just be worst thing the once- respectable writer-director has ever put out.

Back in 1976, Schrader's script for Taxi Driver immersed us in the seedy and scum-laden underbelly of New York, a part of the world unseen by the majority of us, and demanded that we contemplate this world of our making. With Dog Eat Dog, Schrader seems happy to relax into a cliché-ridden world of motor-mouthed ex-cons, prostitutes in hotel rooms, and the "one last job" that will allow these anti- heroes to escape their life of crime. Cage plays Troy, the brains of the gang fresh out of prison. His friend Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), has recently committed a double murder and certainly lives up to his nickname. Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook) is the muscle of the group who, we are told, possesses great intelligence despite his ogreish appearance. They are rounded up by crime boss 'The Greek' (Schrader himself) to pull off a baby kidnapping, a job that could land them a handsome payday.

Based on the novel by Eddie Bunker, which I haven't read, Dog Eat Dog feels like it has been thawed out from the 1990s, back when Quentin Tarantino's output was still influencing every low-budget, independent feature. With Cage and Dafoe turning their bonkers shtick up to eleven, it's clear that Schrader intended for this to be a comedy. Are we meant to laugh at a knife murder because the woman is overweight, or at Troy as he threatens to blow a woman's backbone through her belly? Apparently we are, although I can't imagine anybody actually raising a chuckle. Dog Eat Dog is an unpleasant and utterly aimless piece of trash, with scenes connected by a plot so thin that it feels like Schrader's finger is on the random button. There's a brief moment of tension when the gang find themselves in an increasingly hostile neighbourhood, but True Detective already did it with more pizazz 3 years ago. Above all, Dog Eat Dog is painfully boring, and even at just 90 minutes, I found my eyes constantly checking the running time.

Dead in the water

[nyrn · 3/10 · 21 November 2016]

Fast cuts, split scenes, violence, profanity and drugs have been the go-to recipe for below average Guy Ritchie-esque films since 1998. While that particular film had a fantastic story, Dog Eat Dog clearly lacks in that department. Here we, again, get the overdue Cage in his stereotypical suit and tie, handing out wisecracks, being the smart guy (hint: boring) coupled with a few half naked tattooed chicks and plenty of rough looking ex-cons. Add drugs and what could go wrong, right? Another reviewer stated the film was 'unfunny and stupid' and I couldn't agree more. The whole thing feels like some old movie executives googled 'cool' and tried to make a movie from the words that came up. Thirty minutes into the film the actors have made references to Facebook, eBay and Elliot Smith. You know, to connect with the kids, yo. Possibly because nothing in this film will appeal to anyone above fifteen years of age. Also, the voice-over is always a dead giveaway for a plot that's too thin or convoluted you simply have to get it spelled out for you – or it doesn't make any sense. An utter waste of time. And by the way, how did Willem Dafoe get tangled up in this mess? Hardly worth downloading.

Potential but fizzled halfway through.

[flintridge0503 · 5/10 · 13 November 2016]

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!

Stopped 1/3 through

[blinder-88174 · 1/10 · 11 March 2017]

I kept looking for a story line but found none. Possibly the worst movie I started to watch in years. I love Nicolas Cage but was seriously disappointed that he took a role in this move. Best thing they could do is burn all copies of it to save people from nonsensical violence and sex.

Good chemistry

[Lovekrafft · 12 November 2016]

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 dark comedy with shocking scenes thrown in that don't really seem to fit the overall feel of the movie.

[cosmo_tiger · 6/10 · 5 December 2016]

"I didn't want justice. I just wanted what I wanted, like everyone." Troy (Cage) and Mad Dog (Dafoe) have just been released from prison and are trying to live straight. When they discover that makes life boring they decide to do one last job that they can retire off of and leave the running behind. They are asked to do a simple kidnapping job and accept. Things immediately go wrong and now they are left wondering how to cover up their mistake, and who will pay them. This is a movie that seemed to have a lot of potential and a great idea, but ended up being a little to generic with scenes simply put in for shock factor. Cage is at his normal self in this role, playing either very toned down or comically over the top. Dafoe steals this, as he usually does, and he is really the main reason to watch this. This is not a bad movie at all and is a decent watch, but just too generic for me to say its good. Overall, a dark comedy with shocking scenes thrown in that don't really seem to fit the overall feel of the movie. I give this a B-.

A real OINKER

[panorama92240 · 1/10 · 4 January 2017]

Nicholas Cage has really gone down hill on the movie roles he accepts. He must make 5 or 6 movies a year, all bad! His acting is awful and I'll bet NONE of his latest movies have made enough to even pay him! The story line was weird and made no sense. Willam DeFoe is another actor on his way down. There's a scene where he kills a 300 pound woman named Sheila and her also fat daughter. HOW did he drag those 2 out of the house, into a car and up a flight of stairs in an abandoned warehouse ALL BY HIMSELF?????? Makes no sense. Avoid this turkey at all costs! Nicolas Cage sounds like his mouth is stuffed with cotton balls and his lips never move. The ending was confusing to say the least.

Incredible potential, not met

[pckq · 6/10 · 18 December 2016]

Dog eat dog is a weird little film. At times it makes you think you are watching a paul verhoeven film, which is a great thing in my book. Other times the scenes just feel rushed and bland. I didn't mind the film to be edgy. In my book it could have been a whole more edgy actually. That's the whole problem here. Dog eat dog does a lot of things but really impresses at none. For example the Bogart'esque scene would have been so much cooler if it would have been shot in black and white.

On the positive side, Dafoe totally steals the show. He portraits his character so natural that you could swear he is playing himself. No wonder all the cage fans are bitching.

Let's be fair, dog eat dog is better than expected but misses the target by miles being a genre classic since this film is nowhere near polished enough.

Utterly pointless

[makka-00955 · 3/10 · 15 December 2016]

This is so pointless a movie that I may struggle to achieve the requisite 10 line minimum for reviews - well, that's two taken care of. This is a mess of a movie, which meanders aimlessly towards no real conclusion. The last five minutes or so is absurd. Nicholas Cage has never had great judgment as to which scripts should be consigned to the bin throughout his career and this is one that should be burned to a crisp instead! The dialogue is poor, the story is weak, confused and ridiculous. Willem Dafoe tries hard to rescue this, but even he comes across as annoying and the producers must have blown the budget on these two and hired a complete nonentity to play the third of this hapless trio. It's a crime movie, with no direction, or purpose. There is no thought as to logistics, I mean, three guys, all on three strikes, commit a crime, wearing no gloves and considering they are all ex-cons, it would take police less than the time it took to write this review, to know who'd done it. I'd say that at 4.8 stars, this movie is currently punching above it's weight. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone!

dark, weird and funny

[lowrises · 8/10 · 26 February 2017]

Great little movie with impressive acting by Cook and Defoe and a solid Nicolas Cage. The mix of dark, weird and funny might not be everyone's cup of tea and the whole thing was more character than plot driven, but if you're into quirky sometimes over the top stuff with great cinematography, this might just be a good 95 minutes for you to spend. I enjoyed Dog eat Dog all the way through, the chemistry between the characters, the decisions they made, even the stereotyping worked for me, as the movie did not seem take itself too serious. Kudos to Mr. Schrader, to film and deliver a Bunker novel is no small thing

Nicolas Cage- the actor of 2015 and 2016?

[myradiator · 7/10 · 17 November 2016]

Surprisingly, this was a good, entertaining movie with some ups and downs. Basically the story is nothing new-three men with their prison background want to pull a 750 000 dollar deal and live happily ever after. As it is kidnapping, they may be sceptical about this but their honest leader played by Nicolas Cage says: "I think these deals happen sometimes. You just never ever hear about it 'cause they run off to Hawaii, and you never hear from them again." What will happen to them you will see yourself.

So the good thing about this movie is the style, which is more likely made to attract younger audience. It is violent, colourful (neon lights seem to be very trendy in movies right now), fast paced and the soundtrack is just nailed.

When I looked at the cover, I thought-Cage, again? Maybe it is just a coincidence but he appears in every second film I watch lately, so 2015 and 2016 is Cages resurrection in cinema. He is not the best or worst actor, he seems to be doing movie business, that is it. Hope to see him in a more outstanding and challenging role in the future. Willem Dafoe, on the other hand, pushed himself and perfectly performed a semi- crazy, violent and confused character.

Maybe Dog Eat Dog is not deep enough and the story it too simple but it has a message and I think this movie will find its audience.

Truly Terrible Writing

[insomniac-84355 · 1/10 · 10 September 2017]

This is legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever seen. There was no plot structure, nothing made sense, and one of the main characters Mad Dog is killed by his "friend" / work associate Diesel because Mad Dog rambles too long. I found myself saying verbally saying, "Shut Up" at my screen because of how annoying his conjecture was. It was as if the writers finally managed to squeeze in a good piece of dialogue, and then BAM, all that payoff was instantly destroyed as they have one of the thugs kill the other one. It was pointless. The writing is so bad, I spent the time updating my account just to write this out.

Does anyone see the irony?

[lee_eisenberg · 2/10 · 31 December 2016]

A common theme in Paul Schrader's movies is a person on a self-destructive path. Well, with "Dog Eat Dog", Nicolas Cage's career continues to self-destruct. He had a few good movies in the late '90s, but then starred in a series of paycheck movies (the outlier is "Snowden"). "Dog Eat Dog" is very unlike the rest of Schrader's movies. This story of some gangsters hired to kidnap the daughter of a rival gangster is not like Quentin Tarantino's movies, which are homages to exploitation flicks. This one comes across as more of an excuse for violence. It's not the worst movie ever made, but probably Willem Dafoe's worst movie ever. As for Cage, he probably should've quit while he was ahead.