A PEEK AT THE DOGS OF WAR (1 Viewer)

Not reading any comments about this release, which deserves them. Matt wrote a review here, but it's in the review section with no responses.

I'd never seen The Dogs of War before watching the new Twilight Time Blu-ray. I was ready to hate it because I thought it would just be another war movie from that time, but it's really terrific. I watched the longer cut - there's definitely some fat in it that isn't in the shorter version (which I also watched), but mostly I just enjoyed it all. It's excellently directed by John Irvin, Christopher Walken is really good, the score by Geoffrey Burgon is also excellent, but, for me, it's DP Jack Cardiff that makes this worth the purchase. The man was simply one of the greatest cameramen who ever lived and even at this late stage, every shot in this picture is gorgeous. The transfer has stunning color and his lighting is so beautiful even in the smallest throwaway shot. There's a bit of negative dirt here and there - didn't bother me at all really. Really glad I took a chance on this one and I recommend it highly.

This has always been my favorite mercenary movie. Walken is an off-kilter actor (in a good way) and is splendid here. The Blu-ray is superb, as described by Bruce above. I would add that Colin Blakely (Watson in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES) as a reporter is frequently hilarious here, and his exchanges with Walken are edgy and funny.

Delighted that TT released this. I look forward even more to their upcoming UNDER FIRE, another under-appreciated gem. (isolated Jerry Goldsmith score, too!)

Confession time: the first time I saw The Dogs of War was in a grade 7 Social Studies class, where our teacher was trying to explain modern-day fascism and puppet dictatorships. Saw it again in the 90s and was still impressed. I have yet to get on the Twilight Time bandwagon, but it's getting harder to resist.

I have been a fan of Dogs of War for some time and have the blu but have not got around to watching it yet as it has been mainly horror films this month so far.

Just by coincidence I watched this for the first time last night. Enjoyed it quite a bit. Definitely has replay value, and I didn't think the build up to the final climax was drawn out at all. Watched the international cut, and the only scene that I didn't really care for was that with his ex (although she is nice looking). Just the usual boring drama that's not my cup of tea and seemed a little hokey and dated. But that was over in 5 minutes.

Really enjoyed the cinematography and the location scenes were very impressive. Also the missionary segment (which starts in the second half) seemed very authentic, they way everything was planned and carried out (except of course the usual exaggeration in the heavy action sequences). At least it did to me.

Reggie W said:

I have been a fan of Dogs of War for some time and have the blu but have not got around to watching it yet as it has been mainly horror films this month so far.

Click to expand...

Ditto Reggie. My queue from last month is still so clogged that I just finished Salvador, and can't face another gut-churning war movie for at least a few days. TT's Sept. slate was heavy on the heaviness...I'm giving them some space.

I may have to bite on this one.

I also liked this, particularly the first half of the film. The rest of it is fine with some rather nice attention to detail in depicting a realistic mercenary force, but the first half was notably superb.

bruceames said:

Also the missionary segment (which starts in the second half) seemed very authentic, they way everything was planned and carried out (except of course the usual exaggeration in the heavy action sequences). At least it did to me.

Click to expand...

Noticed this one heavily advertised its use of the "XM-18", which it turns out was an early design for the MM-1 grenade launcher. Not sure it works just like the movie did, though.

So finally got to watching The Dogs of War blu-ray. This movie played even better than I remembered it and I think is even more relevant today with wars being fought over natural resources and big corporations hiring their own private armies to secure them. I had not seen this film in years but saw it many times with my younger brother who has long been a giant fan of Christopher Walken going all the way back to when we were kids in the 1970s. The Deer Hunter gave my brother nightmares for years and he woke screaming many times yelling out things about Nick, Walken's character in the film. We were probably too young to have watched it at the time but our parents never restricted what we could watch taking the "It's only a movie." approach to all films. While my brother had little interest in revisiting The Deer Hunter we did watch The Dogs of War every chance we got.


On top of being beautifully photographed by Jack Cardiff the film boasts an excellent cast of actors including early roles for people like Tom Berenger, JoBeth Williams (who would team up again for The Big Chill) and Ed O'Neill. The other thing about this film that really struck me is how it is structured. It begins with a bang, a sequence where Waken and his crew are making their departure from a battle, and then goes into a long section that explores Walken's character before finally returning to a large battle for the finale. Basically, it is a method of storytelling that is pretty much a dead issue in today's films. The entire midsection of the film that reveals Walken's character and backstory to us, provides his motivations for the actions he takes later in the film and reveals to us some of the reasons he does what he does would be chopped down to probably 5 minutes at most of run time in one of today's productions. Instead we would get another two or three action sequences that revealed little except that Walken can "blow things up real good" and confirm he is a total badass. It really made me miss this kind of filmmaking because taking the time to tell us about the character provides more meaning to and understanding of the final battle in the film and what is at stake.


Bottom line, I think this is an excellent film that is even more meaningful today than it was when I watched it back in the 1980s. Grab a copy if you have any interest in this kind of film.

Reggie W said:

On top of being beautifully photographed by Jack Cardiff the film boasts an excellent cast of actors including early roles for people like Tom Berenger, JoBeth Williams (who would team up again for The Big Chill) and Ed O'Neill. The other thing about this film that really struck me is how it is structured. It begins with a bang, a sequence where Waken and his crew are making their departure from a battle, and then goes into a long section that explores Walken's character before finally returning to a large battle for the finale. Basically, it is a method of storytelling that is pretty much a dead issue in today's films. The entire midsection of the film that reveals Walken's character and backstory to us, provides his motivations for the actions he takes later in the film and reveals to us some of the reasons he does what he does would be chopped down to probably 5 minutes at most of run time in one of today's productions. Instead we would get another two or three action sequences that revealed little except that Walken can "blow things up real good" and confirm he is a total badass. It really made me miss this kind of filmmaking because taking the time to tell us about the character provides more meaning to and understanding of the final battle in the film and what is at stake.


Bottom line, I think this is an excellent film that is even more meaningful today than it was when I watched it back in the 1980s. Grab a copy if you have any interest in this kind of film.

Click to expand...

Too much there for a t-shirt Gregory, but yeah, that's pretty much it; just not enough meat on the bones anymore...and what's there is steroid-spiked GMO.


Took me a couple of months to get around to this one, but I enjoyed The Dogs of War immensely, especially since I'd missed it theatrically*. Would a movie like this even get made today? Ditto for Under Fire, which I saw only a few days later. Not only a different era of filmmaking, but also a world apart in terms of content and POV**.


* not hard to do since it flopped and vanished from the plexes in a blink. And for my first viewing, I chose the longer International cut, so I have no point of comparison for what played in North America back in '81.