"I was expecting a good and exciting Cujo rip-off but this was anything BUT good and exciting!"
-- Fredrik Nordstrom, SLASHERPOOL

ROTTWEILER (2005)

Is filmmaker Brian Yuzna the new Uwe Boll? If this film is any indication he just might be, except this didn't get a theatrical release like Boll's films do. So I guess he just might end up being the Uwe Boll of straight-to-video movies. But believe it or not, this is actually WORSE than any Uwe Boll film I've seen.

From the plot descriptions I had read online this was supposed to be about a Rottweiler that was severely beaten as a puppy and has surgery where its bones are replaced with metallic bones and the dog is out for revenge against the people that abused him, also killing anyone who gets in the way, which was supposed to be a group of teenagers. Well, this could not be more misleading because none of this happens. Well, the dog did have metallic bones, but that's about it. There is nothing about him being beaten as a puppy, no revenge on his tormentors, and no teenagers. I was hoping it would be a movie where the dog would get his revenge and viciously kill the people who beat him, and where the dog wouldn't be shown as a heartless killing machine that would only get killed in the end. I didn't want the dog to be shown as the villain. I was hoping it would be a killer dog movie with a heart and a nice anti-animal abuse message. But that's what I was hoping from reading the plot, which turns out to not be the plot at all. Instead it's about a prisoner that escapes and is hunted by this extreme killing machine dog from the prison that has metal bones. Now that could have been fine too, it still could have been entertaining, but this movie just got worse and worse as it went along. It was shockingly atrocious! It has annoying editing with tons of flashbacks and ridiculous and pointless hallucinations that make you groan in disgust. You just want to shout, "Enough already!" And some of these hallucinations we see over and over again. They are incredibly lame and laughable. I told my mom what the movie was supposed to be about and she thought it sounded good too, so I watched it with her. But she ended up finding it just as terrible as I did. She found the flashbacks and hallucinations incredibly excruciating to sit through and thought the movie was just stupid.

There is a line in this movie that I couldn't have found more grating. When the Rottweiler is attempting to get in the woman's house she asks, "What is that?!" and the main character laughably says, "It's a Rottweiler!" This was both cheesy and oh so wrong! This isn't a regular Rottweiler, it's one that was enhanced and has metal in its bones. Him saying this makes it sound like all Rottweilers are bad and violent, which is a terrible pre-conceived notion a lot of people have. Any dog can be violent if they are brought up to be. Rottweilers are no more likely to attack than any other dog unless they are raised to. Just like any other dog, they can be the biggest babies under the proper circumstances.

The dog couldn't have looked faker. Which would have been fine if the movie was at least entertaining, but it's not at all. I've seen entertaining movies with horrible special effects before. I even enjoyed the extremely cheesy and horribly acted straight-to-video werewolf flick "Darkwolf." Basically all "Rottweiler" would have had to have given me is a nice, entertaining B-movie but it can't even deliver on that level.

The best thing about this movie is that it has male nudity. We get good glimpses of the main character, Dante (William Miller), in the buff. There are rear and distant full-frontal shots. I personally didn't think he was anything special, but the male nudity was still refreshing. So straight girls and gay guys, here's a treat for you. Too bad it's ruined by the movie.

What's a bad movie without bad acting? We've got that here too! Poor performances are all over this movie, especially by the main players. Still, a movie can still be enjoyable with bad acting if it's at least fun, and "Rottweiler" forgets that important ingredient. Being a fan of killer animal movies and horror movies in general, and also having loved "Man's Best Friend" when I was younger, I was really looking forward to this straight-to-video offering. But it ended up being just awful. I love Lions Gate Films and it's hard to picture them watching this movie and still wanting to release it. If I owned my own film company I'm sure I'd have been interested in releasing this before actually seeing it, but afterwards there would be no way I could live with myself if I did. I wouldn't care if it had the potential to make me a few quick bucks in rentals, I'd be too afraid it would make my company look bad. I'd have too much pride to release a real stinker like this.

The whole thing is just really far-fetched. Like towards the end the main character is fighting with the dog's metal bones after the dog burned in a fire (somehow its metal bones are still alive though) and he's touching this metal yet he doesn't seem to be getting extremely burned (he doesn't show it if he is, and I know if I were touching extremely hot metal I'd be cursing up a storm and screaming out in pain). And then a dead body has been covered up on a beach with sand for like a year or so and yet is still there and was never found. Yeah right! That wouldn't happen! It wasn't even buried deep. It was like when you cover yourself or someone else up on the beach with sand just for fun but you don't put a huge amount of sand on you or them. You can see this big lump with sand over it and you're telling me nobody would find this body? It would have smelled for one. If nothing else a dog would have dug it up.

I am someone who never rates movies a 1/10 (F) because pretty much no movie deserves that horrible of a rating. Almost all movies have SOMETHING good about them or they are at least not incredibly boring and are still watchable. Even "House of The Dead" and "Alone In The Dark" managed to get 4/10 (D+) ratings from me. But "Rottweiler" is truly one of the worst and most grating movies I have seen in a long time, even ever. I guess the horrible cover art isn't a bad thing because it might prevent some from renting it. I know if someone had told me this was horrible I still would have seen it since I wanted to see it and I'm pretty easy to please and can accept something as just popcorn entertainment. But as easy to please as I am I can't recommend staying away from this movie enough. So if I hated it this much it really must be horrible. But I know there will be people that would still rent it after reading this negative review, just like I would have if I had read one before seeing it. But don't say I didn't warn you. Leave this puppy at the pound, or at least on the shelf at your video store. I'd much rather just see a "Man's Best Friend 2." And if you haven't seen "Man's Best Friend" after all of this time, definitely get that instead. Now that is how a killer dog movie should be done!

Grade: 1/10 (F)