Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

adonis98-743-186503 A mercenary is hired to protect an expedition group while they search for a Tangka, a Buddhist artifact worth millions of dollars. Dolph Lundgren directed a cut of this movie that still has been unreleased and if you wanna see him directing definitely check out 'Command Perfomance' (2009) great flick. Now in terms of 'Diamond Dogs'? It's forgettable and perhaps back in the day? It was an alright and watchable movie but right now it's far from even that small part i'm afraid and now even a good film just meh except Lundgren's part in the main lead..

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Dolph Lundgren is an action actor. He plays characters that are always one step above everyone. He always has the best skills, the best lines and the most screen time. But no matter how strong these particular elements are, if everything else is bad, the movie will be bad. And that is exactly where this movie falls down the tubes. Dolph Lundgren plays an ex-military man, Xander Ronson who had a bad history with friendly fire. Now, he lives in Asia to escape his problems by taking part in illegal gambling.After being ambushed by the police, he is told that he owes a huge debt to many people he borrowed money from and if he doesn't get it within 2 weeks, he goes to jail. Luckily for him, a greedy artifact collector named Mr. Chambers (William Shriver) approaches Ronson. If Ronson helps Chambers find the ancient artifact, Ronson will be able to pay off the debts. That's about it for plot and from there, it doesn't go anywhere else. The writer, Léopold St-Pierre, probably didn't review his screenplay enough because the film ends exactly the way it starts out, which could make many viewers feel like watching this movie wasn't even worth the parts that were credible.Here's the good parts. First is Dolph Lundgren, if you're a fan of him. There's not doubt that he puts in the best performance. It is frustrating because most of his films contain a lot of good lines. Here, Mr. Lundgren only spews out a couple. The only other actor I enjoyed was Nan Yu, the actress who is now best known for playing Maggie in Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables 2 (2012). But it's funny too because after watching this picture, it'll be obvious to why Lundgren's character hit on Maggie so much in EXP2. The music provided by Larry Cohen was OK but not fantastic either. The good thing is that it reflected a lot of the culture that was on screen so I'm glad Cohen respected that.And if there's one thing to learn from this movie on a moral standard, it is that greed always makes everyone lose. That's just how the cookie crumbles. That's it for what is considered good, and by good I mean passable for this movie. What really brings this production down are the bad guys, action and camera shots (along with the writing already mentioned). A lot of the time, the camera just can't stay focused, which can make the viewing experience very annoying. Plus, for a Lundgren film, the action was very light. It made Detention (2003) look like an action packed blockbuster. It'll be a half-hour or more before any shooting starts.Lastly, the villains are what will anger people the most. William Shriver as the greedy Mr. Chambers has a squealy little voice and a puny figure compared to Mr. Lundgren, which makes them seem very mismatched in a bad way. And although the Chambers character is suppose to come off as threatening, Shriver doesn't pose himself as one because when he makes threats to Lundgren's character, he just roles it off like it didn't mean much to begin with. Chambers just comes off as a sniveling weasel with no backbone instead of a real villain, making any real threat obsolete. I thought it couldn't get any worse than Detention (2003), but I was wrong. I don't even know what the title has to do with anything in this movie!Dolph Lundgren and Nan Yu act passably but they are far too overshadowed by the weak villains, minimal action sequences, unsteady camera shots and poor writing. This is a time waste of a movie.

daworldismine diamond dogs is not a rubbish movie it isn't, its just a big step down from dolph's other work of late, it seems like it's not as good as it supposed to be and at times the low budget shows, as a direct to DVD movie its OK stuff and dolph lundgren kicks ass at times, but there was just something about diamond dogs that i found cheesy maybe the movie would of been much better with a bigger budget, but as it stands now it just seems like it wasen't the movie it was supposed to be but what they could do with what they had, there are many worse action movies out there and there are many dolph films that are worse than this but there are also much better ones too, now if you want a solid dolph lundgren action pic watch the mechanik, missionary man, joshua tree, blackjack, silent trigger

winner55 They don't make them like these anymore - and I'm really glad they don't. I was truly shocked at how bad this is. I expected at least a mind-numbing time-waster - this wastes time but it doesn't numb the mind; throughout I was reminded how foolish I was for renting this. The composition and editing and design are pure '70s chop-socky, except without any real kung fu. Very amateurish production; plot that promises much and goes nowhere. An attempted Chinese-Canandian production that doesn't really know what it wants to accomplish. Stereotypical performances of stereotypical characters. There are some hints at something finer in the script but the poor direction and impoverished production subvert it. Big disappointment even for Lundgren fans.