Bullet Head

Horrible - they need to tell potential viewers that the central plot line is based on DOG FIGHTING and there is a tremendous amount of violence regarding dogs in this movie. I love all these actors but DESPISED the plot. Get outta here with that.

As another reviewer stated "Even Tarantino doesn't do Tarantino anymore", but unfortunately director Paul Solet didn't get that memo, or he was hit on the head and thinks its still 1997. Sadly, had this been played straightforward, with no artsy-fartsy directorial flourishes or each main character delivering their own dog-themed monologue, this could have been decent. As it stands, it plays as a far-too-late "homage" to early Tarantino and all the "next-big-thing" directors that lived and died in his early '90s wake. Also, as much as I respect Adrian Brody as an actor, he was miscast in this role. I never once bought him as a hardened ex-con, and I found the scene where he sported a man-bun to be particularly risible. As for Antonio Banderas...I have no idea what he was supposed to be doing. That part towards the end where he delivers his dog-monologue....I think he was supposed to be intimidating, but it's hard to say.

This was a very good movie and I do not understand the antipathy expressed in some of the reviews. I normally don't like films where the action takes place in a single location, such as a warehouse or a room -- too confining, and usually low budget. Sure, there are points which challenge credulity. For example, abandoned warehouses don't still have electrical service and Thompson machine guns run out of ammo, like any other gun. In addition there is the conundrum of how the police could possibly miss the dead guy in the Cadillac out back when they searched the building. Yet it has a great cast and the flashbacks are entertaining, The production values were relatively high and the performances were above average. I think including the dog's perspective in the story worked well as well. I liked the film. I liked it very much.

Short and Sweet, do ANYTHING else, do not be fooled by the big stars, this is boring, awful and involves too much animal cruelty to be any Fun for anyone accept Sadist. 0.0 Stars out of 10

For those of us who have watched Brody and Malkovich films and not only appreciated their immense talents, but also respected their free will. For those of us who respect and appreciate their acting abilities and presence that draws viewers into whatever roll they are playing, whatever the vehicle, we might appreciate the story might be more believable, better directed or realized, but it is rare you doubt the actors themselves. Even if the vehicle is...a bit strange or problematic. I liked the film well enough, it wasn't a waste of time, as I liked the dialogues between the two, and the style of showing flashbacks visualizing their revelries was smoothly done. For me, it didn't detract or disrupt the flow. That being said, the story didn't have great depth. It was a "slice of life" in a trio of career criminals day who were interrupted by a dog with issues. which viewers are given a glimpse into. As some others have said, I thought the perspective of the dog was very well done, to help viewers better understand their perspective, even if overall the premise was almost comedic, but perhaps that was the mission of the writer carried out by the director. If so, it was fulfilled nicely. I've never seen Cujo. I've never seen Reservoir Dogs either. I think it doesn't matter, as they say, "comparisons are odious." The characters of Malkovich and Brody had good conversations and solid presence thoroughout. Their choice in the roles on a clearly non-Oscar worthy script will, of course, be debated by known critics and armchair criticizers, but the emotional aspects of the characters? I can understand why they took the roles. Besides they maybe liked each other, the director, or whatever else. To me, it was far from a waste of time. Another Kulkin, wasn't terrible either, but predictable, as the inevitable conclusion of the story takes place.