Watch Rabid Dogs For Free

Very Cool!!!

Just perfect...

best movie i've ever seen.

Admirable film.

I was pretty surprised to learn that a remake of Mario Bava's Rabid Dogs (1974) had been filmed under everyone's noses, and once it popped up on Netflix streaming I had to check it out. The original Rabid Dogs is one of Bava's most atypical and yet most effective thrillers, in which the director very consciously sought to reinvent himself. Bava was (and still is) most renowned for his Gothic horror films, but his Romantic and stylized approach to the genre seemed hopelessly dated to seventies film-goers, and so he set about producing an extremely gritty and contemporary crime thriller. Unfortunately the film wasn't released in Bava's lifetime due to an untimely bankruptcy on the producer's part, and post-production wasn't completed until the mid-nineties. With all of this in mind, it strikes me as particularly interesting that this is the first Bava film to receive an official remake, and even more so to see how radically different Hannezo's approach is from Bava's.The story concerns three criminals on the run after a violent robbery, and the game of cat and mouse that plays out between them and their three hostages: a woman, a man, and the man's young daughter. As the film begins, a character who we will soon identify as the male hostage tells himself in voice-over, "Ignore the assholes who preach. This is your story. Only your version matters. No other." Here Hannezo seems to be telling the viewer to forget Bava's version, and that this new film should be judged on its own merits, but the words strike me as insincere since the film itself is credited as an adaptation of Bava's film rather than the short story, "Man and Boy," and even uses a techno cover of Stelvio Cipriani's original theme music. Nonetheless, Hannezo does distinguish himself from Bava in a number of ways.Whereas Bava tells his frantic story in a linear fashion, and essentially in real time, Hannezo attempts to flesh out the film and its characters with several stylized flashbacks. Thus we see how such-and-such criminal began their life of crime, what our hostages were up to before their capture, etc. While the scenes are beautifully lensed in vivid Refn-esque primary colors by D.P. Kamal Derkaoui, they don't contribute anything of importance to the narrative. The insights they provide into the characters are superficial at best, and don't significantly inform their decisions throughout the story. More surprising, though, is how much tamer Hannezo's version is in terms of its on screen violence. Though the gunshots are more graphic here than in the original, most likely due to Bava's meager budget ruling out elaborate make-up effects, it significantly dials down the torture and sexual violence that its heroine undergoes. This isn't necessarily a criticism (who leaves a movie complaining there wasn't enough rape, other than sadists and serial killers?), but it does mean that Bava's film is easily the more shocking and transgressive of the two. And since Hannezo films his story in a far more glossy, stylized way than Bava, the violence isn't nearly as hard-hitting when it does occur, though he certainly knows how to craft an exciting chase scene.The biggest issue with the remake, I think, is in the casting, since the players here are largely interchangeable, with the only standouts being Lambert Wilson as the man, and François Arnaud as the most sadistic of the three criminals. Arnaud isn't given as much to do as his counterpart in the original, but he has a young Oliver Reed vibe to him, which made him stand out in a big way. Unfortunately the largely generic actors here make it far more difficult to care about the characters' fates.After the last scene played out in almost exactly the same fashion as in the original film, I found myself questioning why this one even needs to exist. Though it's very well produced and reasonably entertaining, it doesn't really accomplish anything of note that the original film didn't do better. By providing a new point of comparison with Bava's original film (another point being the misguided Kidnapped cut assembled by Alfredo Leone and Lamberto Bava), though, this remake sheds greater light on why Bava's interpretation of the story remains so effective, so for that I appreciate the experience. If you haven't seen either version, though, I'd definitely stick with Bava's, which remains a classic of its genre.

RABID DOGS is the French remake of an old Mario Bava thriller from the 1970s. The two films have the same set-up although the execution is very different. This new version is a dark and low budget thriller that focuses on half a dozen characters and puts them through the emotional ringer as the narrative progresses. I have to say that I was a bit let down by this movie. Not that it's intrinsically bad, because it isn't; it's a perfectly serviceable film and one that passes the time quite well. No, the problem is that I've been spoilt by other French thrillers in recent years: the likes of SLEEPLESS NIGHT, MEA CULPA, and THE PREY have all been exemplary, fast-paced thrillers that burned brightly with intensity. RABID DOGS feels weak by comparison.There are some lively action scenes here for sure, and quite a few good twists. However, in between the strong stuff are some other scenes that feel dragged out and more than a little repetitive. It doesn't help that the characters are rather clichéd despite the efforts of a strong cast looking to bring them to life. The whole film needed to kick up a gear, to be more intense, more dramatic, more edge-of-the-seat, and then it could have been something really special. Instead the viewer is treated to Lambert Wilson (THE MATRIX RELOADED), Virginie Ledoyen, Francois Arnaud (THE BORGIAS) and Guillaume Gouix (THE RETURNED) trying their best but in the end making something rather ordinary.

Three bank robbers and their two hostages, a comely lingerie saleswoman. whom apparently is on her honeymoon, and an anxious father, desperate to get his daughter to the hospital, careen through a surreal car ride that is leading to nowhere.Having not seen the original by Mario Bava, rabid dogs appears just to be another kidnap that will end with protagonists and antagonists going through Helsinki syndrome, and then the crooks turning on each other.....usually in the name of love.But the maguffin here is that the father, played wonderfully by Lambert Wilson, is on a race against time to get his daughter to the hospital because a chance for a kidney transplant has become available and he only has a matter of hours before it will be rejected.And this is what makes the film so fascinating, Not only does the father have to contest with the fact that his daughter may not make it, but also he has to contend with the three crooks, who couldn't give a hoot about him or his goals....not to begin with anyway.Unfortunately though, the rest of the characters are not very well fleshed out. The criminals, who first appear to be as scared as their captives once their 'boss' is killed, end up nothing more than your archetypal criminals who have the same traits as many a criminal depicted in crime movies.You have the quiet one, the wild one who has an eye for the ladies, and then the ultimate in stereotypes, the criminal who appears to be reasoning with the captives, but ends up being just as bad as all the others.Ledoyen also, adds nothing to the film, other than to hold the child in the back of the car. There is a little of her backstory, but she literally gets left in the back seat for the majority of the film. The film wouldn't have changed at all if her character wasn't part of the narrative, but then the wild criminal wouldn't be wild if she wasn't part of the film.It's visually stunning, especially the final third, when it appears that the group have wandered on to the set of a John Carpenter film, it's full of weird and wonderful characters, celebrating some sort of religious myth.But what makes the film stand out from other crime films, other than its psychedelic visuals, is the final three minutes of the film. Just when you think it's ended with a predictable whimper, it gives you a huge slap in the face, and its amazing.Imagine from Dusk til Dawn doing it's genre change with three minutes to go.....it's as surprising as that.It has it's flaws, the second act is a little saggy, and the criminal element of the film is stereotypical on the verge of bland, but for the final three minutes, it's really worth seeing.

Now I haven't seen the "original" (1974, title can be found here on IMDb), but I did quite like the movie they made here. It kind of works , even if of course some characters could've "acted" differently for a different outcome .. but what fun would that have been? Also it does all make sense in a weird ... sense.The acting is more than decent and the suspense is pretty good, and might be able to keep you on the edge of your seat. You do want to know where this is going. The end might be a deal breaker for some (or rather the resolution in general), but it was fitting to the movie and how it developed ... Since I haven't seen the original, which people seem to really like (and where the characters worked better, especially one that is really crucial), I can't comment on that other than to say that it does feel a bit cheap and bland. You can still have fun with it, especially if you're unaware of the other movie I reckon