Customer Reviews

4 Dogs Playing Poker [VHS]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I just happoned to stumble upon this movie one day after class, and was immeadiatly captured by it. The storyline was intriguing, the actors were suburb, and the ending surprised me. Now whenever I catch it on TV again, I have to watch it! Definatly a must see on a rainy night!

Great movie...in my personal opinion it was completely under-rated. I hadn't even heard of it until a couple of months ago.
Tim steals the show...despite the fact that he dies considerably early. Why is it that he dies in every damn movie? There's something about his English accent that exudes sensuality, and for an older man he is extremely attractive...but to each his own, I'm sure there are those that would disagree with me. Go rent or buy this movie today...you won't regret it.

You gotta like the "4 Dogs Playing Poker" title but you won't find any of those "dogs sitting around a poker table" pictures in this film. Instead the four dogs are four twenty-something characters recruited by Tim Curry to steal a priceless statuette for a crooked art dealer (Forest Whitaker). Things go wrong and they spend the majority of the movie trying to extricate themselves from their predicament.

They finally settle on a plan to take out back dated life insurance policies and randomly kill one of themselves, using the insurance money to square their account with Whitaker. If all this sounds a bit contrived to you, it might be wise to avoid this film as it requires considerable suspension of logic during the viewing, and even more later when you reflect back on the unexpected twists taken by the story.

The worst part of the whole experience is that aside from the massive plot holes the film is pretty entertaining; making it a frustrating experience since just a little bit of inventiveness by the writer could have successfully closed those holes.

The film wastes little time getting going as the carefully planned theft is already in progress as the titles roll. The team displays just the right mix of amateurism and luck to build some nice suspense and their consignment of the statuette to the purser of a freighter provides some nice ambiguity and foreshadowing.

Things slow down for the remainder of the film and the logic of subsequent events is a bit dodgy. You are unlikely to guess the ending because the director provides insufficient clues. Had there been sufficient information revealed in a form disguised by clever misdirection, "4 Dogs Playing Poker" would have been a real treat.

The most effective tool that the writer/director of suspense films has is the power to show only what they want the viewer to see. This combines with the ability to draw the eye to certain things in the frame and to distract the viewer from more important clues. Manipulating the viewer up to a point but then allowing them free rein to invest each development with their own interpretation (insert "Sixth Sense" and "Kansas City" here). Unfortunately "4 Dogs Playing Poker" simply withholds any important clues. Viewer hindsight does not reveal any reason to feel guilty about not guessing the outcome nor to feel thrilled at being cleverly fooled.

"4 Dogs" has good physical casting with decent performances from the entire ensemble, Curry is excellent and Olivia Williams shows considerable range as there is mega distance between her character here and her extraordinary performance in "Rushmore". Balthazar Getty's close resemblance to Charlie Sheen is distracting but not really a problem.

But to be very good, a small movie like "4 Dogs" must give the viewer complex and realistic characters, particularly when the last half of the movie is more character study than action adventure or psychological thriller. Unfortunately that does not happen and all we end up with are one-dimensional stereotypes that we have no reason to care about. Apparently in their desire to reveal no clues about the resolution, the writer and director excluded anything that might have passed for characterization.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Not since Huston made the Maltese Falcon has a director so sharply captured characters truly capable of both friendship and betrayal. While other films aim to take over the film noir mantle (Shallow Grave or The Usual Suspects) Paul Rachman's debut film is the true heir to this genre. Adding to the mix - an incredible ensemble cast. One of the rare times a director's vision can overcome the weakness of an inferior script. This would be an important addition to anyone's library, and we can only expect better things down the line in Rachman's future.

Four Dogs Playing Poker was a very suspenseful film. Casting as very terrific and it was wonderful that every single one of them can act! Although I am a huge John Taylor fan and was quite disappointed that he didn't get more lines in the film.

No doubt one of the best suspense/thriller movies i've ever seen. there are so many twists. once you think youve figured out the whole scheme the plot takes a sharp turn leaving you back at square one.

John Nigel Taylor as listed in the credits is in the
movie, playing a "hitman" so to speak. The movie is
about 5 people who steal a valuable art piece from
Argentina and ship it back to Los Angeles only to
learn that the art piece is allegedly not on the boat
they put it on.

Enter the person to whom it was to be delivered to,
Mr. Ellington and his two hitmen, Dick (J. Taylor) and Tom ... John doesn't say anything in his first scene, but portrays
a hitman with his snarling face and gun pointed at
Kevin's head. The story furthers, with the main characters having to owe Mr. Ellington one million dollars if he doesn't get the art piece, which is due to arrive in 5 days.

John does finally talk however, and you get a close-up
of him biting a slice of cheese pizza and even
sniffing his jacket. His scenes although short, were
very well acted, I mean the idea of "sweet & innocent"
John Nigel Taylor playing a mean hitman, if you can
believe it, is something that you have to act on, and
he did it well. My disappointment is not in his
acting but in his role. I felt that his character was
underplayed, and underwritten. Although he wasn't a
main character, I think he could have had a few more
scenes and definitely a better script. But if you are
a die-hard JT fan, then by all means get the film.

The real title of this film should be "95 Minutes Wasting Time". First, the meat of the film--who will kill whom--hinges on an incredibly stupid sequence in which two characters temporarily abandon, in a public space, an astoundingly valuable objet d'art in their possession, only to return to it and find it gone. Now THAT'S a surprise.

If that were not enough, there's an entire sequence, later on, when the four remaining characters--one has already met his end--sit around in their respective apartments and wait, and it's really not clear what they're waiting for or why. There's shots of them ingesting drugs, fretting, making phone calls, picking up the phone, ignoring the phone, etc., etc.

Add to that a revelation, at the end, that makes no sense and you have a chaotic disaster posing as an arty, hip, suspense film.

The "four dogs" are four friends who concoct a plan, along with a fifth person, to steal a priceless Degas statue from a rich guy's mansion in Argentina, then deliver it in New York to a classy thug (Forrest Whitaker) and get paid 100 grand each. When the piece disappears, they're faced with either extinction or payment to Ellington, the thug, of a million bucks.

The plan they come up with to make good on the million dollars involves taking out backdated life insurance policies, each worth that much, and then having one of them kill another one to collect the insurance. This itself is pretty preposterous; one of the four, an attractive woman, works at an insurance company and she manages to have her boss sign the policies, EVEN THOUGH BACKDATED, thanks to her seductive charms. Like, excuse me, give me a break, OK?

There never is any poker played. Four cards are drawn to determine who will kill and who will be killed. Therein lies the substance of this ridiculous waste of time.

Don't bother.

This loosely edited film is in no way about poker - even in the metaphor intended. Some of the scenes are visually striking and some are even interesting, but overall the plot, editing, and characterizations just do not hold together. This is in the straight-to-video category.

Picked this up in local video store. Way cool. Love it. Good independent. Sorry to miss it in theaters.