Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: ... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: 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

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!

This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away!

I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!