RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Tayb Elfenstein I guess the Wild Geese (1978) is the best comparison because it is a movie of the same era with a somewhat similar story - "good" mercenaries fighting a cruel dictator in some poor African country. However, when the Wild Geese is filled with stars, here we have only one - but he happens to be Christopher Walken.Not only Christopher's but most of the actors' performance is good, the plot is rather realistic, the movie does not feel like a cheap copy made during the mercenary/vigilante movie boom, and the length is optimal, less than two hours. Those who enjoy good action movies with less tongue-in-cheek (Wild Geese, Expendables) have to see this.

SnoopyStyle It' 1980. Jamie Shannon (Christopher Walken) and his men including Drew Blakeley (Tom Berenger) and Terry (Ed O'Neill) are soldiers of fortune. They force their way onto a plane barely escaping a chaotic battle in central America. Their friend Richard is killed and his widow tells him not to see her family anymore. Shannon is contacted by Brit businessman Roy Endean who is interested in the west African nation of Zangaro. He goes to recon but the brutal dictator General Kimba captures him. After being torture, he is released. He tries to go straight with his ex Jessie (JoBeth Williams) but then Endean hires him to lead a mercenary army to overthrow Kimba.The movie opens with a terrific sequence. It lays out the manners of Shannon and his men. There is a great effective sequence. However the movie is a bit too long trying to do too much. The reconnaissance inside the country could have been handled better. Shannon is so condescending that he is simply a bad spy. As for the battle itself, director John Irvin may have seen real fighting but he's not cinematic enough yet. There are lots of shooting and explosions but they're not really that exciting. Overall, the movie is just too long and trying to do too much.

davideisaura ...this movie no doubt severely disappointed most Forsyth fans. It had very little to do with the book. It seems that (as usual) some Hollywood wonk, noting that the novel was a best-seller, gave some hack the basic premise from the back-cover blurb and got him to make something up that would appeal to Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. The result? A cliché-ridden B-movie. Forsyth must have been livid.It's competently handled (for such an old film it holds up amazingly well), but what presumption! The original story was just fine. What made them think that their version would be better?Pity they didn't have the sense to hire Kenneth Ross to do the screenplay. He'd already done two of Forsyth's other books (Day of the Jackal and Odessa File), and at least made the effort to be faithful to the originals.

ColonelFaulkner The Dogs of War is a great, unheralded and very much underrated film and I've seen it more than a few times, one of few films that succeeds as a multi-genre; thriller/suspense/action/drama and war film well balanced without really dominating in any category. It has a simple yet interesting plot with something of a twist to the ending that isn't contrived or relied upon to validate or prop up the rest of the film like some other movies.The plot revolves around a group of mercenaries recruited, organising, preparing and carrying out the overthrow of an African despot dictator. The real strength of this film is in the attention to detail with regards to the preparation and logistics involved in such a task, the motivations of those involved, back room deals and wheeling and dealing and indeed a great part of the film is devoted to the little things. This is something undoubtedly attributable to the writer of the book Frederick Forysth and in keeping with the earlier film adaptation of another of his works 'Day of the Jackal'.Rambo this isn't and as stated by no shortage of people it isn't wall to wall action and may move a bit more slowly than many might expect, an acquired taste perhaps and possibly something of a letdown for some given the very title of the film.Walken isn't outstanding in the film but he is very adequate all the same and the film certainly doesn't hinge on the dramatics.When I can't decide what I want to watch, this is one of the films I fall back on and one of the reasons I've seen it quite a few times. I've never been disappointed to date, though if you can't sit still for five minutes and want a body count meter spiraling upwards in the corner of the screen it might not be for you."Don't forget your passport.....AR$%#*LE"!