Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.

It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none !
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...

Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the "explanation" offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of "medichlorians in the bloodstream." But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and "Phineas and Ferb's" Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.

There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I gotta be straight-up - I haven't seen a film as solid as DOG BITE DOG in quite a while. I'm a big fan of the "old-school" late 80s to mid 90s era CATIII films, and I had been hearing that that "style" of films is making a bit of a come-back with films such as this, and Herman Yau's GONG TAU (which as of this writing I have not yet seen...), so I was very interested to give some of these newer-wave CATIII films a shot. Did this film live up to my expectations? Absolutely - but not quite in the fashion that I imagined.

The story follows a young, animalistic, resourceful and virtually unstoppable Thai hit-man with a somewhat vague history who comes to Hong Kong to complete a "mission". Due to some bad-luck, he is quickly identified by a roguish copy (who exudes many of the same qualities as our hit-man), and is quickly apprehended and captured. This state of affairs doesn't last long though, as the un-named assassin escapes from his captors and quickly shows the local police that he is not to be taken lightly. The hunt is on, and a cat-and-mouse game between the police and the "mad dog" (as the police refer to him) ensues. Along the way, Mad Dog is inadvertently befriended by a slow-witted young woman, and a bond forms between the two when she helps him out of a sticky situation. The ante keeps getting upped as Mad Dog's only objective is to get out of Hong Kong and back to Thailand by any means necessary, and the cops keep trying to reel him in alive...

I could probably write ten paragraphs about this complex and thoroughly layered film, but I don't want to give too much away. I watched DOG BITE DOG knowing nothing about the premise, and I think it's the type of film that is definitely better appreciated that way. As to comparisons to the older-style CATIII films...there are some similarities. DOG BITE DOG has some hyper-violent moments reminiscent of the "good ol' days", but is never quite as sleazy or grimy as old-school classicks like THE UNTOLD STORY or RED TO KILL. Where many of the older CATIII films' main intention was to "shock" - DOG BITE DOG is a far more thought-out and well-rounded production (though that's not to take ANYTHING away from those CATIII films that I hold so dear...). This film is far more "emotional" than it is exploitative, and as we learn more about the characters and their backgrounds, the audience begins to bond and identify with both sides. There really are no clear-cut "good" and "bad" guys, as Mad Dog shows moments of extreme compassion, and the cops stoop to extremely unorthodox methods to try to flesh out the killer. There's also no nudity/sex in this film, which is a typical characteristic of the older CATIII films. Personally, I would compare DOG BITE DOG more to Park's SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE or perhaps the Pang brother's BANGKOK DANGEROUS, as both of those films mixed extremely emotional overtones with strong and unflinching action and violence. Again - there's pretty much nothing that I didn't like about this film. The acting is dead-on, the cinematography is sharp and well done, and the whole film skillfully blends several different elements successfully in a way that isn't seen very often. Is this film (and others like it...) the "rebirth" of the CATIII film - not exactly - but it IS a very solid film that's absolutely worth checking out...9/10
+++++++++
A:
positive