Diamond Dogs (2007) User Reviews

Nothing special, but neither dull nor awful

[BeneCumb · 5/10 · 1 October 2012]

Just another Seagal-Van Damme-Dudikoff type movie where martial arts, beautiful Asian women vs ugly Asian men, picturesque Oriental landscape and treasure hunt have been somewhat clumsily mixed into an action movie. Like in many movies with Lundgren, Russians are bad and greedy again... And of course, there are lots of fight and chase scenes so playfully resolved by Lundgren's character himself. In spite of his age (he was almost 50 during the filming) he still looks strong and fit.

The plot, directing and camera work have their shortcomings, but the movie is not "yawning", logic of the course is still there, the ending is not 100% anticipated and the length (1,5 hours) is just appropriate for killing time.

May Buddha bless you.

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 25 September 2009]

Nothing really special here. Dolph Lundgren plays a disgraced Army Officer who hides in Mongolia. he has managed to get himself $20,000 in debt to various people.

A saviour arrives in the form of a fortune hunter looking for an ancient tapestry. A group of Russians are also looking for it.

Now, you add all this together and it spells lots of gunfire, and a bit of hand to hand combat, and the usual terrible dialog in a cheapo version of Indiana Jones.

But, if you like Dolph Lundgren, you won't be disappointed, and isn't that why you are watching?

Not much appeal even for Mr. Lundgren

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 3/10 · 17 August 2013]

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.

Just about one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

[pmewar · 2/10 · 21 July 2007]

I started watching this movie with some hope it might be somewhat decent. I am no expert reviewer at all, but I could tell from the very first scene that this was a spectacularly low budget film. Somehow, I slogged my way through the film. Our hero, Ronson, is a big ex-Green Beret O-3, who is down on his luck in Mongolia. THe film certainly looks shot on location, with Ronson competing in a UFC style fighting situation.

With the cheesy voice-overs at the beginning and end of the film explaining what was going on and the search for an ancient buried relic, I can say this movie is uninspiring at best. Some random fighting scenes, driving around in the Mongolian outback with some of the worst acting ever. Even some of the camera shots were awful, I could tell the cameraman was just walking backward as the camera jiggled with each step. I felt I could have done a better film in that respect (as well as the script and acting by most of the characters) back in high school.

I wouldn't bother watching this movie, its not even a watchable flick, IMO. I don't know how I sat through it.

Watch Paint dry..... its more entertaining

[mike_gp · 1/10 · 19 March 2008]

A low budget, badly acted film............ everything about this film is poorly staged, wooden acting by C list actors and unbelievable settings, I'm still watching this as I write........... OMG so awful.

What more can I say, the scenes do not fit together....

The 'escape' scenes well, simply not believable.

Best line ... He's dead (immediately pull sheet over head LOL)

I'm still cringing as I write this, if second graders presented this as a home movie I would expect better acting (and sets :) )

Please, let me write this comment without having to make up ten lines about a film that doesn't even deserve one!!!!!

Even if you are desperate to watch a film, don't bother with this - paint a wall and watch it dry or sit in the garden and watch grass grow, so much more entertaining :))

Awful Production Value, Awful Acting, Awful Script, Awful Movie

[billmcvay1 · 1/10 · 25 April 2008]

Sure the plot in general is kind of like an Indiana Jones film but that is where the similarities end. Dolph does a good enough job acting, but the other actors are just plain awful. William Shriver who plays Mr. Chambers may be one of the worst actors I have ever seen, just plain awkward. The story is very simple and there is lots of down time between any semblance of action which is pretty obviously there just to waste time.

The action sequences were very poorly done and quite unoriginal. Luckily I did not pay for it or I would be very disappointed so this is not even worth your time for a rental. I really don't think anybody who isn't a die-hard Dolph fan would even have any chance of enjoying this movie. If this is the best movie parts Dolph can get, then even his straight to video career is going to be over very soon. The production value is much worse than any other straight to video movies starring himself or Wesley Snipes or Seagal or Van Damme and so is the entertainment value. Just stay away and watch one of the 50,000 movies that are better than this drivel.

if you have a second choice - rent that

[winner55 · 1/10 · 15 September 2009]

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.

Awful at every level

[Maziun · 1/10 · 28 December 2014]

On paper it seems like a not bad idea for a movie. Dolph Lundgren searching for a forgotten artifact ? Lundgren in an adventure movie ? Sure it wouldn't be as great as Indiana Jones movies , but it could be a fun little movie.

When I finally saw the movie I discovered that watching the lame Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser would be more fun. At least they had PRODUCTION VALUES. It's something that you won't find here. The whole movie looks so bad , so cheap that it's a wonder that someone bothered to make it in the first place. The way it is photographed makes it look like a bad amateur movie. The camera just can't stay focused, which can make the viewing experience very annoying.

The script is terrible. The title of the movie doesn't have anything to do with the story. At the end of the movie Lundgren's character is in the same place as in the beginning of the movie – a true sign of bad writing. There are cheesy voice overs explaining what is going on. The plot itself is very thin and almost non existent.

The whole movie is just a one big time waster. There are MANY scenes that are a filler , just to kill some screen time – people walking longer than necessary , talking longer than necessary… It's like the movie makers didn't believed in their own movie. There is very little action and the action itself is very poor , even for a B-class movie.

The acting is horrible , especially William Shriver as the main villain. He's got a squeaky little voice and a puny figure. How he can be a good villain ?! Dolph Lundgren and Nan Yu are trying to act , but they can't win with the horrible screenplay. It's interesting that they later made "Expendables 2" together.

Greed always makes everyone lose. It's a good moral , but it's not enough to justify the existence of this crap. Better watch „The treasure of Sierra Madre". I give it 1/10.

Not Dolph's best, but worth watching

[udar55 · 6/10 · 1 May 2008]

Former Green Beret and now professional fighter/gambler Xander Ronson (Dolph Lundgren) is hired by millionaire Chambers (William Shriver) to lead his group on a search in Mongolia for the Tangka, a Buddhist text missing since the Russian crackdown on religion in the region in the 1930s. Naturally, there is a sinister group after them looking to steal the Tangka once it is discovered. This Dolph vehicle was finished 2 years ago, but is finally seeing release in the US via Sony DVD. While not up to the level of his recent directorial efforts (THE DEFENDER, THE MECHANIK, MISSIONARY MAN), it is worth seeing for the gritty tone and tons of violence. It also features some great location photography in mainland China and the unknown supporting cast also helps out with the realism. Now if anyone can explain why it is called DIAMOND DOGS, please let me know. :)

Pitiful attempt at an action movie

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 8 October 2013]

DIAMOND DOGS, a Canadian production shot in China with a Chinese crew and supporting cast, is Dolph Lundgren's worst movie yet - and that's saying something, given that he's starred in a fair few trashy movies. It's an almost plot less, badly written and atrociously-directed story about a group of treasure seekers searching for an ancient artifact in a forgotten tomb.

What this ends up as is a mind-numbing series of three or four jeeps driving around some barren location interspersed with scenes of Lundgren killing some derivative bad guy soldiers. The direction is notably appalling, with so many scenes shot into the sun so that the whole frame is filled with glare and you can't see the actors, and the action is bad even by B-movie standards; there's not one moment of excitement here.

Lundgren proves a strong physical presence as always but his character is underwritten as are the rest. Nan Yu as the female lead/love interest comes off the best and it's interesting to note her appearance here after she later teamed up with the star in THE EXPENDABLES 2. Bad guy duties are filled by IN HELL's Raicho Vasilev who has equally little to work with.

Not your typical action movie

[harold_harcourt · 8/10 · 8 July 2008]

Judging by the comments here on IMDb, public opinion on this movie is divided into 2 distinct camps.

Firstly you have the salivating fans for whom the mere presence of Lundgren is enough to make any film a work of cinematic genius. If that's all it takes to please you, then no comment on here will change your mind. That's fine, enjoy your Dolf - try not to drool on him.

Then you have those who expect, nay DEMAND that any movie which features plot elements such as relics, temples and gunfights follow the big budget Hollywood formula of intricate death traps, load bearing treasure and near superhuman heroics which made the Indiana Jones movies, Mummy series and Tomb raider so successful.

This is where I begin to have a problem. The aforementioned films derive most of their entertainment value from witty one liners, flashy special effects and slick choreography. Diamond Dogs on the other hand goes in the opposite direction, moving the focus of the film away from elaborate action and adventure, on to the characters and their survival.

The majority of the film appears to have been shot on location and most of the characters (played well by a less than famous cast) lack the exaggerated personalities and convoluted motivations you'd find in a Hollywood blockbuster. The result of this shift is that the whole film feels more 'National Geographic' than 'National Treasure'. The sporadic action is fast and lethal, no fancy footwork and no coming back with multiple wounds for one last shot. The 'bad guys' are bad as opposed to villainous and the 'good guys' are played straight, behaving in a practical and decidedly un-heroic manner. I for one found the lack of comedy quipping a refreshing change. In fact the only thing that bothered me in the whole movie was William Shriver's portrayal of 'Chambers' which WAS admittedly slightly over the top toward the beginning of the film.

All the above waffle basically boils down to this; You want an action adventure romp, packed with booby traps, wisecracks and villains? Go watch something else. If however you think you could appreciate something a bit different, with beautiful scenery, an unusual soundtrack and a sizable (but rarely flashy) body count, then you could do an awful lot worse than Diamond Dogs.

a big step down from the mechanik and missionary man

[daworldismine · 6/10 · 9 March 2010]

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

Pray for Dolph!

[xnicofingerx · 3/10 · 31 July 2023]

Every action film fan is a bit attached to the good Dolph, but somehow he never really got his act together, the big waves were already missed in the 90s. Here we are, in the middle of the 2000s, so the glory days are years ago, although he still cuts a good figure visually. Couldn't a producer take pity on the fans and throw them a real hit with a good story and an acceptable budget? Yes, there were some small, and I emphasise small, highs to be found in the linear depth, see "The Mechanik" shortly before, but the film unfortunately catapults everything back to the bottom.

The story is cack-handed and spat out. The rest of the actors, what actors. One low-level action scene follows the next. Ok, chasing is the wrong expression, because the film has many long, boring landscape sequences as filler scenes. There really must have been only a mini-mini-mini budget available.

Pointless action movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 27 December 2015]

While you basically know what you will get with a Dolph Lundgren movie, this particular 2007 movie was as pointless as it was boring. And it wasn't particularly action-filled either.

The story is about Ronson (played by Dolph Lundgren) who is ridden with a growing debt in remote Mongolia. Facing imprisonment, Ronson comes into lucrative chance to earn money by helping an art collector from New York to collect an ancient Mongolian artifact. But the path to riches is filled with peril.

Althrough the entire movie there was an overshadowing sensation of no one involved with the movie were really buying into the storyline or the movie itself. And that dragged the movie down badly. Even Dolph Lundgren seemed to be running on autopilot.

I didn't really understand the title of the movie as it made no sense to anything that was taking place throughout the course of the movie.

The few action sequences that were in the movie, though, were well enough executed. And that, at least, does count for something.

"Diamond Dogs" is a less than mediocre action movie that offers absolutely nothing interesting to the viewers.

Complete Krap - But I Liked It And I Don't Know Why?

[omendata · 4/10 · 18 December 2021]

This is worth watching just to see how a 50+ year old man can still look like a 21 year old - Wow what a build the guy has got and still looks young too - Seriously jealous am I, it was actually worth watching just to see how some stars do not age and Dolph is definitely in the ageless Tom Cruise club!

Ok, on with the serious stuff - The acting is terribly terrible; so what's new but I did actually like the Kevin Spacey lookalike bad guy! Some of the dialogue made me mess my pontaloons! The story is boggo standard and many scenes are clearly influenced by the daddy of all adventure movies Indiana Jones but on a shoestring budget...nay even a sandal-string budget. The action fight scenes were woefully choreographed as though they were having a bit of a fun day out in the fields playing Japs and Commandos boys with guns but the photography, although it is wobbly and totally incoherent at times it is actually a bit refreshing and for some utterly inexplicable reason I did find some of the movie quite fun!

Yes it is dreadfully unoriginal and made on the budget of 10p and a bag of monkey nuts but it is different and I like different, I also like Dolph even though he cannot act worth a dime but he looks so good for a guy of 51 so I give it a fair 4 x AK47's out of 10 on my action-o-mometer!

Not Dolph's best work. Almost a 3 star.

[ccunning-73587 · 4/10 · 3 March 2021]

Not Dolph's best work. Almost a 3 star. Poor photography, seems like it was thrown together to 'Just make a movie'. Not a terrible plot, decent in fact. A down and out 'Security Firm' Dolph needs money badly to avoid debtor's prison in the third world, takes a job reluctantly because he needs the money, as security, guide, and procurer for a fortune hunter. Of course the 'bad guys' want to steal the prize and the fight is on. As is normal, Dolph has the infinite ammo cheat on all his weapons. His sniper rifle is NOT a sniper rifle, it is a garbage Soviet carbine SKS. In short we should remember the line from Nietzsche That "Man shall be famed for War and Women for the entertainment of the Warrior, all else is folly". With all these alpha males and high octane testosterone, there should be dozens of young hotties showing T&A to make the movie & genre more accurate. The 'feel good' ending was weak and left me wanting. I will let you decide for yourselves...

It won't blow your socks away, but for a later Dolph it's a good one-time watch.

[tarbosh22000 · 6/10 · 18 November 2011]

Xander Ronson (Dolph)is an American ex-Green Beret laying low in Inner Mongolia, of all places. He's deeply in debt, and fights in...wait for it...illegal underground Punchfighting matches to make ends meet. Brought before a judge, it is determined he must finally pay all his debts or go to prison. Luckily - or perhaps not - this is just when snobbish jerkbag Chambers (Shriver) offers Ronson a lucrative job. He hires him to act as security as he travels with his team to go deep into uncharted territory to find something called the Tangka - a Buddhist tapestry said to be cursed. With few options at hand, Ronson reluctantly accepts. The beautiful Anika (Yu) is the stepdaughter to chambers, and following her is likely what truly entices Ronson. In addition to trying to get the Tangka and all the pitfalls they encounter along the way, another team of baddies is chasing them, and these guys will stop at nothing to get it. Who will end up with this sacred artifact? (Meaning the Tangka, not a DVD of Diamond Dogs).

At the outset when we see Dolph somewhat down on his luck, and Punchfighting in another land, it immediately brings to mind Sweepers (1998), where similar things go on. Dolph, with his shaved head, looks especially grizzled here, and that's to his credit - he does a nice acting job, and with little flash. There's plenty of violence on show, leading the viewer to conclude this is a worthy Dolph adventure story, more or less.

While this "Saturday afternoon adventure" falls somewhere between big-budget opuses like the Indiana Jones series and Direct-To-Video items like Skeleton Coast (1988) or Laser Mission (1989), it's reasonably well-made and has some impressive locations. It should also be noted that there's a reference to the Stallone classic Over the Top hidden in the movie somewhere. See if you can find it.

Shriver, in his first credited movie role, plays the obnoxious, hate-able baddie whose hairstyle isn't just a ponytail - that wouldn't be irritating enough - it's actually some sort of ponytail bun, also does a noteworthy acting job, assuming his personality isn't really like that in real life. Ronson shows amazing patience with him - this movie would get five stars if after the thousandth snide, catty remark Chambers makes, Dolph just punches through his face, but alas, it's not to be. In a big budget version, we felt Kevin Spacey could have played Chambers.

Although the film is called Diamond Dogs, neither diamonds, dogs, nor David Bowie are anywhere in sight. Interestingly, it can be surmised that the writers of the film are glam rock fans, judging by the title and the choice to name Dolph's character Ronson, presumably after Mick Ronson, who among other career achievements played with David Bowie. And seeing as there were supposedly production problems on this film, and a presumed sequel got axed, Bowie can never make a cameo in the future.

Despite pockets of dullness that spring up throughout the film, Diamond Dogs is a decent Dolph outing. It won't blow your socks away, but for a later Dolph it's a good one-time watch.

For more insanity, please drop by to: comeuppancereviews.com

I like it

[thomashowell · 8/10 · 5 October 2007]

Well if your on this page your either a fan of Dolph Lundgren movies or Action/Adventure films. This is a good one, either way. The story is about an ex-military expert guiding an expedition to retrieve an ancient artifact. The details aren't necessary The feel is that the filmmakers were going for an 'Indiana Jones' or 'National Treasure' vibe, what they got was more reminiscent of Van Damme's 'The Order', though this film's tone is more serious.Whats important is that Lundgren is good in an 'Indiana Jones' type role. He brings a nice touch of humor and world-weariness to the proceeding's, especially in the open scenes. He doesn't display the kicks or athleticism that defined his best work, but the shoot-out and fights are staged well enough to catch and hold your attention. Which is about the best compliment you can give a B-movie straight-to-video action adventure film. This role suits Lundgren and he seems to be enjoying himself, which in turn engages the viewer more. I recommend it, cool flick.

If you like: 'The Order', 'Sahara', 'Men of War'- This film is as good in some aspects as those.

top notch movie

[smayer-5 · 9/10 · 30 November 2007]

i thought this is a really good movie im a big dolph fan if u like men of war or Indiana jones your love it!!!!!! dolph seems really relaxed in this role and his acting is pretty good loved the location it was filmed in and the moviesoundtrack is surperb cant wait for mm and the inquiry dolph is making a big comback in his movies and his far better than van damme or segal there not in the same league as dolph lundgren if you like action and shoot em up this is the movie for you go get on DVD you will love it this is one of dolphs best movies so far and the front cover of the movie shows that dolph lundgren is still in great shape thanks for your time and go and get this movie thanks