Stellead
Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful
Matrixiole
Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.
Marva
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
trishaade
This movie wasn't worth the time it took to watch it. Originally shot in 3D, I saw a video copy of 2D.The film is about rottweilers that have been trained by the military to be killing machines. They get loose and wreak havoc.First of all, let me say that I have no issue with that fact that this film is about killer rottweilers - there was a similar movie that featured German shepherds (I own one) in the same vein as this one that I thought was as ridiculous for the same reasons. I didn't dislike this movie because I'm loyal to the breed - I disliked it because it was pretty awful all around.For starters, Dogs of Hell suffers from poor acting that was just painful to watch. I don't know if it was the print I saw, but half of the actors sounded like they had been sucking helium. Even so, the way all of the actors delivered their lines was just terrible.Secondly, the script wasn't great - you have a doctor who can't even determine if a neck wound was made by something with sharp teeth or a "knife wielding maniac". I won't be making an appointment with him anytime soon. It was also really, really predictable to the point where I could tell who was going to die when and who, even though the character was taking a chance, wasn't going to be attacked. Too, the film has a fair amount of jump scares that did nothing but annoy me.However, the mud is the scariest stuff I've ever seen. I have no idea what that was that folks were wrestling in but it certainly wasn't mud (there is a mud wrestling scene in a bar towards the beginning of the film).The movie does have a fair amount of blood and gore, but only one scene where you see the dogs actually attacking two people in tandem. You can tell that all of the other killing scenes were filmed separately. Give this one a pass unless you really, really hate rottweilers. Even so, don't say you weren't warned.
Backlash007
Okay, I give up. It really is impossible to make a good killer dog movie. This is a prime example of what not to do. Don't set the movie in Hickville, don't cast a bunch of real hicks, and don't take ten years to get to the dog action. The title was so promising: Dogs of Hell!! I was more than ready for some hell hound horror. You do get a small dose of that, it's just not what you want. Chick screams then gets covered in blood. You hear the dog panting but you never see him. The camera stays in the dogs POV. The Rottweilers and the humans are never onscreen at the same time. Dogs of Hell is a mega-low budget movie and is not worth your time. This dog just has no bite."They were perfectly trained for one task: Manslaughter!"
kita117
This movie is so stupid. I went through a lot to try to find this movie. I only could rent it anyway. Maybe it was just for rental because it was too bad enough to keep on the market for people to buy. You could not even see the dogs killing people as if they would switch the camera every minute. Being a horror movie genre fan, you would think the title had a good significance as to why I would want to see this movie really bad. I wonder are there any other killer dog movies that beat this one.
gridoon
You know, it's really a shame that most people have never heard of this movie. Because viewing it might just alter your perceptions about bad films. You will realize, after this, how often the phrase "this is the worst movie ever made" is inappropriately used; "Rottweiler" IS the worst movie ever made! I guess there have been, and there will be, movies AS bad as this one, but it's highly doubtful whether there has ever been a movie WORSE than this one. It's the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of killer-dog films. It looks as if it was shot with a bad video camera, and the acting is beyond bad. How can anyone give it anything higher than a "0"?
