User Reviews

I was really happy to find this film on one of the streaming services recently, because I still remember the ads in the newspaper when it came out in Japan in 1977. Finally seeing it for the first time, this movie is quite bad as I had expected. There is no nail-biting suspense, all the dogs are cute instead of scary, and people make stupid decisions which is so typical in this type of B-movie. But having said all that, I found this movie to be a bit charming. It has the nostalgia and cheesy taste of low-budget 70's films which I am so familiar with. I might have really loved the movie if I had seen it 43 years ago (when I was a nine-year old).

Dogs (1976)

** (out of 4)

A small community is investigating some bizarre deaths and one man (David McCallum) thinks that it's a pack of dogs. These aren't wild dogs however. No, it is believed that these are a group of pets who have gone crazy for some reason and are now attacking humans.

In case you couldn't tell, this is yet another film in the "when nature attacks" genre, which took off after the success of JAWS. That film had a killer shark and overtime we'd have movies with killer bees, whales, grizzly bears, rats, rabbits and various other animals. DOGS isn't the best of the bunch but it's certainly not the worst of the bunch so you're entertainment level will certainly depend on your feelings towards the genre.

I've always enjoyed the genre so I can overlook some of the flaws that a film like DOGS has. The biggest problem with the film is the fact that it really doesn't rise above a made-for-TV level. Another problem is that the dogs aren't ever scary and there's certainly no tension to be had in any of the scenes. The highlight of the movie happens when four hunters are surrounded by the dogs during the night but this film should have been milked for some suspense.

McCallum is pretty bland in the lead role and no one here jumps off the screen, although fans of Wes Craven's THE HILLS HAVE EYES will enjoy seeing Russ Grieve here in a small part. I will say that the film is rather violent at times and included one really graphic sequence. I'd also argue that the ending isn't exactly what you'd expect. DOGS should have been better but as it is the film manages to be slightly entertaining.

Southern California in the mid 1970's. Domesticated dogs are forming packs and start attacking farm animals, then humans, This may or may not be down to the presence of a nearby top secret Government linear accelerator (I didn't even try to figure what this was but I guess it makes a change to the good old atomic research stations). The plot is similar to that classic "The Birds" (1963), and one of the standout scenes (there aren't many) has Linda Gray take a shower but instead of Psycho's Norman Bates we get a vicious dog. Sadly Gray only appears for about 5 minutes throughout the movie, I would like to have seen more of her. Brit David McCallum gives by far the best performance, to be honest most of the cast are not very good, one or two exceptions. Real dogs are used and in fairness they are made to look fanged and vicious, there is a fair amount of gore (mainly after shots of victims), sadly the movie looks rather cheap and gets bogged down by some poor dialogue and slow scenes. I have seen much better made for TV movies from this period. The ending hints at a sequel, but with cats, this never materialised, maybe for the better.

I was in high school. Most of this film was filmed at Southwestern College in Chula Vista CA.

They allowed dozens of local people to be unpaid extras in scenes where they needed running scared people. Our only pay was one free meal from the catering truck. I got David McCallums autograph.

Dogs ain't a half bad made flick, about a potpourri of dogs, who meet up and go on a killing spree, killing anything animal or human. What is doing it? That's the million dollar question. It leads us to question our our species, as if becoming part of a gang, where we become brainwashed, and commit things we normally wouldn't do, if graduating to murder. But in this open ended, and not too optimistic film, that's pretty gruesome, near it's finale, it's M rating pushing it, we don't find out. Bugger. David McCallum lends a fine performance as the smart hunky professor of Scientology, the real smartie, determined to get to the bottom of the killings, those cattle mutilations early on, aren't for sheep lovers. The violence in Dogs in pretty raw and frank. A younger Linda Gray co-stars before her Dallas days, as Wyner's performance as the new Scientist was strong, and actually likable in a sense. Suspense runs high, some of it electric near the end, and is well executed, the opening music score with our favorite pooches in slo mo, all banding together, my favorite part. They're are some unintentionally funny moments, whether dialogue or acting, but they made 70's movies what they were. This is a well made film, badly dated "Yes", but bad, "No". Warning: Are some scenes are dog murder.

I love such kind of movies with killer animals. But if i have to be honest, most are mediocre to bad (acting, cinematography, script and so on). They of course are low budget, so they have their excuse, and they are usually from new (at that time) directors.

Anyway, this movie turned out to be quite nice. Maybe because i had lower expectations, but it exceeded them. The first part of the movie is kinda slow, but it builds up nicely after that. Acting wasn't terrible, camera work wasn't terrible, and they use real dogs which is typical for most of the movies with dogs from that time. My biggest enjoyment was that the science talk was quite accurate, not random stupid BS i hear in many movies, that sometimes is so stupid it must be written by a 1st grader.

There were quite some dogs in this movie, all kinds of breeds. Tho it would have been scarier if there were few angry mad chihuahua dogs because they are vicious for their tiny size. Or a slow pug that is trying to be scary but too chubby and clumsy and slow to do any harm.

Over. Decent chill evening movie. I'd say between 4 and 5, giving some extra because it was better than i expected, and because of the decent science talk ( i took like 2 points out from the giant mantis for the stupidest science dialogues ive ever heard)

I and several friends were students at Southwestern Community College and extras in film Dogs. I was pleased to be an extra and found the filming intriguing. We appeared several times on the campus shots. Some of the scenes were shot on my street. I have been unable to find a copy of the video.

a true story.

at 13 & 10, my younger brother and i, who had a large 2 yr old neighborhood Shepperd (turk), went to see this movie and were unaware of the terror this film evoked until coming home from the theater that night. being a neighborhood dog, turk was roaming in the night alley as we walked by.

recognizing us, of course, with his reflective eyes, the dog advanced toward us. if you can imagine two boys being chased by their own dog down the street screaming murder, in sheer terror. we were banging on the door for help. the dog thought we were playing and joined in and further excited our fears.

over 20 yrs later my brother and i tell that story with fond memories of the era the dog and the movie.

having grown up in the horror hay-day of the 70s and having, arguably, seen the best and worst that Hollywood has to offer. psychologically, this film teems with possibilities for a remake. without all that computer generated junk.

A pack of domestic dogs with collective intelligence (possibly the result of classified experiments involving a linear accelerator and pheromones, although it is never made clear) attack the population of a Californian college town. The Man From U.N.C.L.E. star David McCallum, sporting a mop-top and beard, plays beer-swilling professor Harlan Thompson, the film's unlikely, double-denim hero, who, in a blatant crib from Jaws, tries to convince those in charge of the danger, all to no avail.

I'm a big fan of the 'animal attack' sub-genre, but this entry from TV director Burt Brinckerhoff, is… if you can excuse the pun… a real dog of a film. The first hour is extremely dull, with too much in the way of meaningless scientific conjecture from the college egg-heads and not nearly enough canine action. The dogs are in evidence a lot more for the final half hour, but none of the attack scenes are very convincing, or scary, no matter how much fake blood the film-makers cover the victims in.

Still, even though this one is massively disappointing regarding thrills and chills, it does at least offer up a couple of unintentionally amusing scenes, including Dallas star Linda Gray being attacked by a doberman while taking a shower, the dogs trapping Thompson and his love interest (Sandra McCabe) in a garage, and the slaughter of a whole library full of students. The film ends with a hilarious final shot of an angry cat, threatening a sequel with killer moggies (which thankfully never materialised).

3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for IMDb.

The "nature attacks" subgenre of horror had pretty much reached its apogee in '76 when this minor entry hit the drive-in screens, and for what it is, it's not entirely valueless.

The story, which is actually rather plausible, denotes a sleepy college town where the pet pooches of local denizens have taken to packing in the night. Initially, cattle are the prey of these abruptly aggressive mongrels, but it's not long before people are attacked, at first alone, then in groups. Science teachers from the college provide the usual explanatory double-talk, and do their best to alert the community to the mounting danger against the cliché resistance of city officials.

For a quickie this low on the totem, DOGS/SLAUGHTER has a few effective moments, and stands as a par example of its type. I'd say they could have opted for more imposing breeds(and omitted the collie and sheepdog), and a bit more fang-bearing and growling might have added greater threat to the situation at hand...generally, these dogs just scamper about playfully as folks run screamingm and only a single oft-shown Doberman is truly menacing. Still, I found myself taking an unexpected liking to this piddly little flick... despite its poverty-row provisions and customary B-movie shortcomings, it's a passable 70 minute diversion.

4.5/10.

When they say, gone to the dogs, they really mean it. In "Dogs",man's best friend maybe man's worst enemy. In a California valley, there are some sightings of attack. The cattle and livestock are being killed off. By what? Wolf? Coyote? Mountain lion? Well, the mountain lion was not it, so it has to be canine. Well it was neither wolf, nor coyote but the the domestic cousin, the dog. In the daytime, they are docile. But when the nighttime comes, they become instant killing machines. Each night, when the moon is full, the dogs gather in packs. And breed of it is no big deal. These canine menaces kill without mercy. They slaughter the livestock, but one time in the day, they barked and attacked the people at the dog show they set up. What is going on? Well, two college professors have studied the pheromones earlier, and they are suggesting that it's a factor. But one night, they get the shock of their lives for the first time. Whatever it is, the answer is inconclusive. Why would man's best friend would ever turn on you? I would not advise finding a new pet, or banning dogs out of your life because of this movie? Instead of popcorn, I advise dog biscuits, bones, and plenty of dog food. You'll need it! 2 out of 5 stars.

What if one day, your cute puppy dog starts taking a run at you and biting your hand or feet? You'd probably think "it's time I get it to its veterinary". But what if a pack of dogs starts assaulting people with wild abandon in a little town in California? DOGS tries to teach us how it could be. After having repeatedly witnessed to all kind of animals attacking humanity between '60s and '70s flicks, here it comes this movie. I pretty like it and it was given to me by chance while I was purchasing a video recorder, about twenty years ago. Very hard to catch I'm afraid, not even on DVD 'till now. From the beginning, I was intrigued by David McCallum and Linda Gray, this one starring as Mrs. Engle before jumping into the Sue Ellen's odyssey on the TV drama DALLAS. And I found interesting the movie was mostly shot closing to the floor at the characters' foot, while they're stroking the pets. Just there, I spotted a reference to a fortunate dog movie series in the '70s: BENJI. But Hitchcock's devices, you know, insinuate all over this era. So what if THE BIRDS over cross the set, taking a little trip from Bodega Bay to Chula Vista, San Diego? Therefore a dogs' parade could become a children and ladies' flight with dogs acting in the way Hitchcock would have directed them and angrily barking and running after innocent, unarmed children and populace. Therefore a man could try to protect his refuge and loves from attacks by covering doors with boards and planks. And differently from the other ones, a dog could resemble the pacific couple of Melania Daniels' caged lovebirds. But what about PSYCHO and its unforgettable scene under the shower? Guess! Anyway, I really appreciate the way the director devised his inspirer sources: he surely set up an original tale with a good location in Southwestern University. Not to mention other influences on it - as SQUIRM on the same year or BUG one year before - this movie really charms due to its scientific and biological explanation: an high energy accelerator near campus maybe drives the dogs crazy. It makes all more realistic than ever, even if political reasons and hidden researches spoil the plot as those in Joe Dante's PIRANHA do.

***Possible SPOILER ahead***

Considering also THE STRAWBERRY STATEMENT movie (1970), You could compare its ending to the one in DOGS. Centering the attention on campus, both of the films turn fatefully to a final massacre between young students living there. The canine mass acts as the police does in the other movie, making us believe society must pay an heavy price because of its political and scientific strategies. This last and the scene about the pets' exposition are my favorite ones. 6/10

I was lucky enough to find a bootleg copy of this gem. To see some of Robert Schneiders legendary rare cinematography (uncredited) was truly an a life-changing experience. It's sad that he died from aids (he was one of the first Americans to contract this disease) shortly after the production wrapped. However, he obviously went out with a bang and he will be immortalized through this film. Dogs is so hard to find because it is such a rare film that if you find you just have to hold on to it. I hope this film eventually goes to DVD and it has the proper credit for Robert Schneider. On a scale from 1 to 10 I give this movie an 11. Go find Dogs. You won't regret it! For my name ain't Nathan Arizona!

Pheramones are responsible for transforming ordinary domestic pet dogs into a pack of wild beasts, roaming the countryside attacking anyone and anything in their path. Local university professor, alcoholic, playboy and dyed-in-the-wall cynic (McCallum, sporting a beatnik hairstyle and resembling Bill Oddie of "The Goodies") tag teams with new kid on the block Wyner to convince the local authorities that dogs are in fact responsible for the rash of brutal mutilations committed on both livestock, and the locals. Borrowing heavily from "Jaws", the stage is set for a hunt or perish climax where the pack hyper-excite their pheromones to dangerously high levels, and unleash hell on the residents, including sultry Linda Gray (top-billed on the dust cover, but only featuring in two scenes).

The only motif missing from McCallum's sage, neo-liberal, academic stereotype is the corduroy jacket with leather elbow patches. Not content to let the dogs do their own rampaging, Wyner's character helps them out, by managing to herd a bunch of students into a facility for safety, only for them to be torn to shreds by the marauding pack once inside. It's almost satirical, but then Wyner is more suited to comedy as his subsequent film career affirmed. After all the postulating, hypothesizing and gesticulating, the final fifteen minutes is a slaughter-fest, as the pack raid and pillage their way from one casualty to the next.

Aside from the frequent physics and social science dissertations delivered by the cast, the action sequences stand apart from other films of the ilk (perhaps with the exception of Robert Clouse's "The Pack"), even if the body count is unrealistically abundant; when McCallum and McCabe survey the damage late in the film, almost everyone in town appears to have been slain. And proving that filmmakers have a keen observation for potential in almost any situation, there's even a hint at a sequel. The film fades out on a somewhat docile looking ginger cat, expelling a yawn (audio overlaid by a fearsome growl), not too keen on the sequel idea.

Among all the horror movies involving mad dogs: MAN'S BEST FRIEND, THE PACK, WHITE DOG, WHITE GOD, CUJO, BREED, this one is probably the worst, at least the weakest of them all. A kind of JAWS on four legs with a collar around the neck, and so poorly done. But fun to watch, if you have really nothing else to do. Only the ending can be saved.

Hi and welcome to my review of Dogs - 1977

The story gets a 1.25 out of 2: I have to admit I enjoyed the realistic "I don't know what's happening" approach to this story from O'Brian Tomalin. The local dogs at modern rural township have begun acting strangely. For some reason, they have started to pack together and have taken to attacking livestock. When the attacks affect the community, it pushes Doctors Harlan Thompson and Michael Fitzgerald, professors at the local university, to rush to uncover the cause. What I appreciated most was the way O'Brian only hinted at the nearby generator being to blame. Even the way he instigated the Doctors quest for understanding, is well constructed. However, there are a few sections where the tale falls flat. These are around the end attack sequence, which is limited to the university and not the town. It should have been both. Also, when you see the library, you wonder why they decide to hold up there. There must be safe places other than the glass-fronted library?

The Direction and Pace receive a 2.25 out of 4: Burt Brinckerhoff isn't a brilliant director. Though, he does well with his skills. The initial sequence is bizarre. Calming and gentle music plays as the dogs pack together in slow-motion. Then the title comes up. DOGS in large white text, then the blood drips and runs down the word. So your eyes are imagining horror while your ears are hearing family drama and tear-jerker. But then the dogs run off into the sunset. Very strange. The sequence is constructed decently, which is the case with the rest of the movie. It's that Brinckerhoff doesn't push himself. Music has easy-listening. Dogs is easy-watching, and for a horror film, that shouldn't be the case. He's also hit-and-miss with his pacing. Brinckerhoff slows the tempo in the scene where the pack assail the hunters. The slight delay builds tension. Then he speeds it up for the killing attack to ramp up the excitement. But when fatso's trapped in the kitchen, he doesn't manage to produce the same outcome. He needed to stay constant with his tempo changes; it would have strengthened the audience's enjoyment.

The Performances get a 1.25 out of 2: For the most part, the cast is superb in their roles. The one person who stands out was Sandra McCabe, who played Caroline Donoghue, the love interest. Sadly, it was because she appeared a little "out of sorts". It could have been due to the way Caroline was written, though I believe her skills weren't as strong as her cast members.

And, my Enjoyment level hits a 1.25 out of 2: The ambiguity kept the story interesting as you're constantly wondering, what triggered the dogs' violent behaviour? Though my attention wavered a couple of times, I was swiftly brought back into the film when the action started. Brinckerhoff also adds a couple of interesting doggie cam point-of-views, though you'll have to wait until the climax of the film.

Giving Dogs a total of 6 out of 10: The film is worth one watch, especially if you like weird tales of mans' best friend. Though I'm not an adoring fan, I have to say Dogs possesses something. What? I don't know. Though I can genuinely say I'll be watching this film again: Maybe it's that pesky easy-watching.

Stay ahead of the pack and check out my Absolute Horror, Monstrous, The Final Frontier, and Guilty Pleasures lists to see where these dogs ranked.

Take Care & Stay Well. Get Inoculated.

I can't QUITE say it's one of my favorite films. Maybe it's one of my favorite independent films. Or one of my favorite HORROR films. Or to be more specific, one of my favorite animal fear films. It certainly is my favorite film in which dogs are the monsters.

I was a teenager at the time, so I guess that is why the film made such an impression on me. The film is an example of that ineffable quality called "film craftsmanship." I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. (Or at least I think I do.)

The director, Burt Brinkerhoff, spent almost his entire career in television. "Acapulco Gold," Brinerkoff's other feature, also delivers the goods.

A film that really entertains is a "very good" film to me. And an "excellent" film is one that really entertains in an IMPRESSIVE manner. In other words, a film that packs a punch. And "Dogs," despite its flaws, is such a film, one fully deserving its ten star rating. It's the kind of film that's so good that you want it to be even better. You want it to be an all time classic.

I know Burt Brinkerhoff knows how a thriller should be directed. I guess that in America, Hitchcock is thought of as the king of the thrillers and most thriller-directors imitate him or are at least inspired by him. In which case Brinkerhoff learned well from the Master.

The writing is surprisingly literate. The situations are suspenseful. And as for that ending....well, I won't give it away. Let's just say that, like the movie as a whole, it really packs a punch. Tomalin is such a good writer that I was inspired to do some research on him. The man also wrote Brinkerhoff's other feature, "Acapulco Gold." The screenplay for that film isn't quite as literate, yet it contains some of the same kind of "nastiness" that is present in "Dogs." Tomalin just wrote those two screenplays, while also working as a driver on "Bull Durham" and an assistant on "The Hudsucker Proxy." He ended up running a restaurant in Northampton, Massachusetts. (If I have the right O'Brian Tomalin.) It's a shame he wasn't more prolific. The man really can write.

David McCallum plays the lead with style and authority. His character is that of the stereotyped maverick scientist who is aware of the "danger," despite the fact that no one believes him (at first, that is). If you watch disaster pictures or horror flicks, you've seen this character dozens of times. In this case, McCallum plays the "renegade intellectual" part as a fun loving drunk. It's a shame he didn't have more chances to do leads in films.

Sandra McCabe is good as the leading lady, McCallum's girlfriend. She had an active twelve-year career in films and television. Then (like many other actresses), she appears to have left the industry in order to concentrate on her marriage and family life.

George Wyner plays a scientist who is more "careerist oriented" than McCallum. The Wyner character, called Michael Fitzgerald, at first doesn't believe in McCallum's theory with respect to the dogs. Yet in time he "sees the light" and ends up collaborating with McCallum. Thus, Wyner also plays a stereotyped role, the doubter who eventually becomes convinced and ends up "doing the right thing." It's a "stock" character, sure, yet Wyner plays it well.

Linda Gray, who plays George Wyner's girlfriend....well, Linda Gray is HOT. She later found fame in "Dallas" and became one of the entertainment industry's conspicuously "successful" Beautiful People. Of course she was always one of the Beautiful People. It's a shame she didn't stick with making b films. (Though she did provide a voice for the independently produced and released animation feature, "Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night.") The world of b films and independent productions really needed her and could have put her to good use....

Bob Steadman's photography is good. I mean "good" in a funky/slightly trashy low budget kind of way. I know next to nothing about cinematography. I don't know how THIS kind of cinematography differs from the slick major studio/big budget approach to the craft. Yet I know that I really LIKE this approach to photographing films. Steadman specialized in shooting low budget films at the time. He did "Hammer," a Fred Williamson action film which I haven't seen, in the seventies, and brought his own kind of funky glory to "Executive Action," "Good Guys Wear Black," and Brinckerhoff's "Acapulco Gold" (all of which I have seen).

John Wright's editing is choppy, yet it has a certain kind of rough-cut power. (This was his first feature film. He went on to do "Acapulco Gold," then went on to television and eventually ended up dong Major Motion Pictures.) I LIKE Wright's editing. However, the print of "Dogs" that I happened to see appeared to have about one reel worth of footage missing toward the end........

Alan Oldfield's musical score? Well, I didn't notice it. Which means that apparently it was effective. I read somewhere that you're not supposed to notice a film's musical school. It's supposed to "just be there," doing it's job, functioning as part of the picture. Oldfield also did the score for "The Astral Factor," which I saw. His music for that film didn't make much of an impression on me, so i guess he knows how to do his job.

So just about everybody associated with "Dogs" should stand up and take a bow (wow). This film is definitely worth seeing for anybody who likes horror, thrillers, disaster pictures, or just plain movies in general. It's a shame that there is such little interest in low budget horror films among the general population....