Rottweiler (2004) User Reviews

"Eat. Sleep. Fetch. Kill."

[dmdearing · 2/10 · 23 September 2005]

Dante, everyone's favourite American immigrant trying to sneak into Spain has been captured! Along with his wife Oola he must try to evade the evil Rottweiler through Spain for an hour and a half. Only, Oola is never in the movie because shes raped and murdered as soon as they are discovered... oh well THAT is what the plot outline should have looked like on the back of the box. Instead it was rambling about some futuristic dog plated with metal that got loose in a prison and went on an unstoppable rampage.

Anyway, as our hero Dante is evading the prison dog, "Rot" he somehow finds himself naked and running through the woods, often turning towards the screen for no apparent to bombard you with his rugged looks. I was surprised at how long he managed to last naked, and what's more as soon as he found some clothes, they were immediately torn off and I was forced to watch one of the only scenes I've ever seen where a man is raped.

As for the dog, on the box he appears to be some kind of Terminator like robot on the cover, when in reality he's just a dog that got his mouth smashed in with a pipe, prompting him to get metallic teeth. Well, turns out the dog looks normal aside from his teeth on the outside. But on the inside, (As we see in roughly 3 hallucinations by Dante) His entire skeleton is made of extremely well polished metal (Don't ask me how he knows this, he just does). Because at the end of the movie we get to see the dog's skeleton fighting him. Now, I know this is a bit of a spoiler but It's just too amazingly pointless that I couldn't share it. At the climactic battle, the dog has its skin melted off and it's skeleton goes to fight Dante in a gigantic ring of fire. So basically, we have a metal dog skeleton fighting a character most of us probably want to lose anyway. As for who wins, well you will just have to watch the movie won't you?

It's a horrible movie no doubt about that, but it managed to keep me laughing most of the time. A feat that most bad movies have not done (Catman and Robovampire, I'm looking at you). It's pretty hard not to laugh at some parts, so I would spare it the 1/10 and give it a 2 instead.

Worth seeing for the chicken!

[udar55 · 3/10 · 22 July 2005]

Brian Yuzna is a cinematic mystery. After producing Stuart Gordon's first few films, Yuzna decided to pick up the creative end and began directing with BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR. Since then he has helmed a steady stream of horror titles that all have one thing in common; they are well made and full of outlandish ideas but never really good. His latest ROTTWEILER continues the trend.

But ROTTWEILER sets itself apart from the Yuzna canon with its extremely bizarre plotting. Set in the future (the only way to possibly explain a half dog/half machine), the film plods along from point A to point B without much originality (think THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME mixed with THE TERMINATOR). Refuges get caught…bad guy molests woman…lovebirds get separated…guy escapes prison…monster dog chases. But then, at roughly the 40 minute mark, things take a bizarre turn. Our hero Dante is trying to catch fish in a stream when the Rottweiler shows up. The dog then chases the naked Dante down the river and then tackles him off a cliff. Dante escapes and finds refuge with a mother and her young daughter. The mother holds Dante at bay with a shotgun and then proceeds to rape him. All the while the robo-pooch is stalking up to the house. Maybe Yuzna was trying to work in some kind of "man as beast" metaphor there?

But the weirdness doesn't stop there. After escaping from the dog for the 769th time, Dante is visited by the gory ghost of a former friend who tells Dante that his girlfriend is working as a prostitute in the city. Dante goes there only to find out that his girlfriend has been dead for quite some time. In fact, he was there when she was murdered. According to the flashback, she slept with Naschy to save their hides but jealous Dante was having none of that so he hit the road while Kufard unleashed his pet enforcer on Dante's girl. Dante is only a few steps away when this happens but only reacts after she has been torn to pieces. He beats the dog with a lead pipe which is the impetus for this entire long chase. As Kufard simply puts it, "You hurt my dog!"

The cast for the film is serviceable. For Euro fans there is the welcome treat of Paul Naschy as the main villain Kufard. It is good to see Naschy in something that wasn't shot over four days (I'm still trying to forget that Fred Olen Ray monstrosity) and, although he is on screen for probably 20 minutes total, he gives the film's most commanding performance. Well, other than Zeus as the titular beast. Lead William Miller, looking like a cross between Owen Wilson and Mitch Hedberg, is pretty bad but you have to cut him some slack when most of his lines are, "Go to helllllllllllllll!"

In terms of the small but appreciated "scientifically enhanced dog" film genre, this one is on the same level as 1993's MAN'S BEST FRIEND but pales in comparison to Earl Owensby's 1982 3-D classic DOGS OF HELL. However, this film will go down in cinematic history for featuring the greatest chicken reaction shot EVER! You'll know it when you see it.

Violent, Bizarre, Unpleasant and Disappointing

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 16 September 2006]

In 2018, in Spain, the prisoner Dante (William Miller) escapes from a prison and is chased by a robot dog. He tries to reach the city of Puerto Angel, where he left his beloved girlfriend Ula (Irene Montalà). While running away, he recalls his recent past in Spain with Ula.

I like Brian Yuzna, but the violent, bizarre and disappointing "Rottweiler" has one of the most ridiculous screenplays I have ever seen. The unpleasant story, where the political and economical situation of this future and the characters are awfully developed, has many situations not explained. We just see the lead character running most of the time tracked by a stupid dog that kills everybody. Better off sleep, since watching this movie is a pure waste of time. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Rottweiler"

Escaped convict and pursued by a robot dog in an interminable chase

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 18 July 2007]

A prisoner in a future location manages to escape and is chased throughout the country by a cruel warden(Luis Homar) and a bloodthirsty dog.The prisoner is again recaptured but when he finds with the vigilante, a rabbit gives him a chance to flee.The dog is severely beaten and with surgery its bones are replaced with metal.The protagonist goes to a house living a woman(Paulina Galvez) and her daughter(Ibana Vaquero:Pan's labyrinth) and the dog continues attacking ,but circumstance again gives him an opportunity for freedom,which he takes,solely he still encounter himself being pursued by the terrible animal.The dog goes after him and will cross hundred miles to get to him.He attempts to arrive the city of Puerto Angel where thinks encounter his fiancée named Ula.Meanwhile are developed various flashbacks and recalls his past on relationship with her. Finally ,he will confront against a brutal nasty(Paul Naschy) and the gruesome robot dog.

This is an exciting story about a convict on the run,William Miller stars as the hapless prisoner is wooden but his action scenes are well played.The mythic Spanish wolf man,Paul Naschy-Jacinto Molina-,is good as the sadistic villain,as always.The structure film is pretty plain and simple ,but concerns about the relentless pursuit and fighting among a fugitive and a savage dog following his footsteps.The picture is a remake from previous film titled : ¨The dog¨(1976)based on Alberto Vazquez Figueroa novel and directed by Antonio Isasi Isasmendi with Jason Miller,the first version develops a political intrigue with dictatorship included and resounding message.This new adaptation is a violent film with noisy action,stirring thriller and lots of blood and gore.The film is produced by Julio Fernandez(Filmax)with middling budget.Colorful and adequate cinematography by Javier Salmones,an expert Spanish cameraman(Romasanta,Thirteen chimes,The Borgia,art of dying) and atmospheric music by Mark Thomas(Dog soldiers,Agent Cody Banks 2).The motion picture is regularly directed by Brian Yuzna,a gore and guts expert director(Faust,Dentist 1,2,Society,Bride Reanimator).Rating : Average but entertaining.

confusing, but does feature the longest gratuitous male nudity sequence in memory

[HEFILM · 1/10 · 18 August 2005]

The plot synopsis of this film does not actually match the film. The narrative is all jumbled around in time and loaded down with long post dubbed dialog. Any excitement is lost in confusing flashbacks and the mentioned long long sequence of the "on the run" male lead trotting around naked.

Brian Yuzna knows how to assemble the elements to make a horror film but when he directs himself he has showed before and shows again he doesn't know how to do much with those elements. There is also the odd misplaced sexual perverse element that stops the movie dead in it's tracks, this time that is the silly nude hero sequence.

Paul Naschy, Spainish horror icon actor, doesn't have much to do here, but the overall level of professionalism doesn't make his appearance the embarrassment that his two recent made in America films were. Then again his own Rojo Sangre makes this film look even worse.

Behind the scenes footage reveals many better angles than Yuzna chose to use. Also the director of photography says he likes to use lots of big lights. This certainly shows in the film, one sequence early one looks like it was shot during the day time but then proves to be a night scene. This is only the beginning of the confusion this movie generates.

Can't they make a straight forward chase/horror film? Well whatever they are trying to make here they couldn't make that film either.

FX are pretty bad overall, dog's robo makeup mostly looks silly as do the various puppet dogs and CG Terminator rip off dog. Much of the movie is devoted to padded dialog scenes. Only visual touches that work are a couple of nice crane shots, one right near the end of the film.

Sometimes the film is bad/funny but not enough of the time to overcome the boredom and confusion of the flashback structure and stiff re-dubbed actors. The reaction shot of the chicken though is fabulous. That chicken could teach the rest of the cast a thing or two about acting. All in all a loser in all ways. The film was nearly booed off the screen when it premiered at the Belguim horror festival.

That's a bad dog! That's a very bad genetically altered dog!!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 20 November 2005]

In case you are slightly familiar with horror cinema, you must have heard of the name Brian Yuzna already. He started as the producer of some hugely successful horror flicks in the mid-80's ("Re-Animator", "From Beyond") but quickly went on to directing his own grotesque and spirited horror projects ("Society", "Return of the Living Dead part 3"). Personally, I'm a rather big fan of Yuzna. His movies are always very entertaining and stuffed with blood & gore, even though the stories are hardly ever impressive...or even 'good', for that matter. For his latest effort, "Rottweiler", the story is even completely and utterly retarded and then STILL this is a very amusing B-movie with loads of absurd aspects that genre fans will love! "Rottweiler" is set in Spain in a not-so-distant future (2018). In order to avoid further immigration, the misanthropic Kufard (small but terrific role for veteran Paul Naschy) arrests everybody who washes ashore Puerto Angel. One day, he also arrests the young American couple Dante and Ula. They were playing the rich-kids game of "infiltration", in which the players illegally have to cross country borders. That game is just asking for trouble, if you ask me... Some time later, Dante escapes from a prison-transport and heads back to Puerto Angel in order to save Ula, only he's chased by a partly robotic and bloodthirsty Rottweiler that rips every living thing to pieces. The movie is truly incoherent, with extended and unnecessary flashbacks, and often provokes unintentional chuckles. It's fast-paced, though, and contains loads of sleaze and bloody deaths. The Terminatoresque dog looks thrilling and the music as wells as the opening credits are very funky. The acting is atrocious, but that what happens if you recruits cheap Spanish actors and force them to play American characters. The lead guy looks a lot like Orlando Bloom but his acting skills are even worse. "Rottweiler" surely is a meaningless horror film, but it remains fun to watch.

Fugitive hunted by rottweiler finds voracious cougar

[Chase_Witherspoon · 5/10 · 30 April 2011]

A convict escapes from a prison convoy, killing a hunter in the process, only to be relentlessly pursued across the arid landscape by a cyborg canine, hell bent on avenging the death of its handler. Unusual sci-fi horror follows the plight of William Miller mistakenly incarcerated after being caught in an illegal immigrant sting with his girlfriend – the pair apparently part of an elaborate game of risk where participants perform daring adventures to compete with other players. But when his girlfriend is apparently raped by the evil detention centre boss (a typical sadomasochist portrait of villainy by Spanish horror veteran Paul Naschy), Miller finds himself in a nightmarish situation, haunted by fractured hallucinations, and the real game begins.

Throughout the ordeal our hero endures countless narrow escapes from the steel jaws and tenacious predation of robot-dog, even running afoul a lonely farmhouse wife who sees an opportunity to satisfy her pent up sexual urges when he emerges from the wilderness, naked and despairing. As the connubial cougar becomes more incoherent, his parrying gives way to plundering, tucking in wholeheartedly, akin to a doomed man's 'last supper'. If it hadn't already proved its R rating (decapitation and dismembering befall one poor escaped convict), then the MILF seduction scene surely qualifies.

Barren wilderness and semi-industrial wastelands paint an acrid post-apocalyptic anachronism of hopelessness and despair. Even the finale, where the hero comes full circle to avenge his injustices, does the film offer little respite from the hedonic procession of brutality and cruelty in which director Yuzna seems to engage with a sort of carnal cinematic relish. The point-of-view visual effects borrow heavily from the originality displayed in the far superior "Wolfen", but with much less technical agility.

It's primitive and an at times unattractive, but it must be said, memorable even if only for the disorganised miscellany of ideas and sensational showcasing of animatronic special effects.

Not much fun. Watch - or revisit - Yuzna's "Society" instead.

[Hey_Sweden · 4/10 · 29 November 2011]

To call this one a dog would be way too obvious a joke, but it certainly is also an odd duck of a movie. It's set in a futuristic Spain (and filmed there as well), where a prison escapee, Dante (hunky William Miller) embarks on an increasingly weird odyssey to reconnect with the girl he left behind, all the while pursued by the title canine, an unstoppable cyborg with steel teeth. Much of the story is told in flashback, as we see the sequence of events that led to this point. One has to assume that the novel "El Perro" upon which this is based makes at least some things clearer, but it's hard to say just what the screenwriters and director Brian Yuzna are thinking, as this thing often alternates between utter cheese and incredible surrealism. It's extremely laughable; that chicken reaction shot has got to be, far and away, one of the brightest moments along the way, which speaks volumes for "Rottweiler"'s W.T.F. quality. It gets awfully repetitive, with tough guy Dante surviving one encounter with his four pawed nemesis after another, and gives Miller awfully crummy dialogue, even having him say clichéd garbage like telling the dog to fry in hell. The entire episode with the mother and daughter has to been to be believed, as the lady gets a look at Mr. Miller in the buff and forces herself on the guy. That does, though, lead one to note just how much beefcake is thrust in the viewer's face, with Miller obliged to do protracted scenes of nudity. Overall, the viewer may have a hard time wondering what to make of all this. It's not without some entertainment value, but, ultimately, it's just too hard to care about this story and the characters fail to spark much interest. The dog himself is pretty cool, though, and there's a sufficient amount of gore and nastiness to give the movie some spark. If one is going to watch it for the presence of legendary Spanish horror actor Paul Naschy, note that he's in just a few scenes, but he makes the most of his screen time, delivering a delicious performance as the villain, although he can't really save it. Prospective viewers should proceed at their own risk. Four out of 10.

Unwatchable,

[willywants · 2/10 · 24 September 2005]

A fugitive escapes from a Spanish prison and is tracked down by a robot dog in the distant future. Oh, Brian Yuzna, why did you make this awful, awful movie? In general, I like the films he makes through his production company, Fantastic Factory. Faust, Dagon, and Beyond Re-Animator were fun, well-made horror movies. Hey, even Arachnid had its moments. But this…ouch, this was absolutely unwatchable. To start, it was boring as hell. The action was uninteresting and bland, the acting was often very poor, and the visual effects were crappy. Then of course you have our "hero" running around nude for about five minutes of screen time and one of the most tasteless sex scenes I've ever seen (I actually felt sick to my stomach during it), not to mention that even the gore is badly done and uninspired. To be fair, Yuzna gives the film a pretty decent look via desolate Spanish locations and the effects on the robot dog (From Vincent Gaustini, who was also responsible for the effects in Dogma, Requiem for a Dream and the made-for-cable adaptation of Stephen King's Thinner) weren't bad at times. Oh, and the opening title sequence was actually quite cool and creative. These three pros, unfortunately, do absolutely nothing to make the film more watchable. It's painful, terrible, and all-around bad.

Just don't see it.

1.5/10.

S10 Reviews: Rottweiler (2003)

[suspiria10 · 5/10 · 13 August 2005]

Spain's Fantastic Factory strikes again with this Brian Yuzna (Beyond Reanimator) directed hokum. Dante and Ula are playing infiltration (apparently a rich boy's game of sneaking into third world countries) and when it goes horribly wrong they are caught by the authorities and separated. When Dante makes a daring escape and then finds himself being hunted by the titular title character which is now more Terminator than dog. It eats everything. It destroys everything and it can't be stopped. How will poor Dante find his beloved Ula with the Doginator on his trail? Well where shall I begin? The script is pretty ratty even for low budget fare. Giant leaps in logic and plot inconsistencies are plenty in this tale. Unnecessary flashback sequences try to unlock or more correctly infer a twist in the ending but it fails to generate anything to sustain you that far. Things just don't jell in the end. The acting by the no name cast of Spanish actors is pretty straight as one would guess with a script that requires the lead to get attacked, shoot a shotgun, have sex with the local bimbette (while she holds a gun on him no less) and wander the desert starkers for 25 minutes you can't expect much and you end up rooting for the dog. The dog effects however are the only bright spot of the film as the kills can be pretty bloody and cool and the animatronic dog was actually pretty spiffy. Heck, the dog gives the only worthy performance here.

Brian Yuzna's Masterpiece, relatively speaking....

[rixrex · 6 June 2008]

'Relatively speaking' means in comparison to all of the films he's directed. Yuzna is not a seminal horror film director but he does have a certain style and following, and is not merely a hack. For example, a few of his films can stand up with seminal horror directors such as Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, and George Romero, and ROTTWEILER is one that can.

It's not a straight-out, routinely linear-plotted opus, but rather asks the viewer to follow a storyline that jumps through past and present. There is a purpose for this, that mostly being to maintain an intrigue about how the events leading to the chase of the bionic rottweiler and the hunted man came to be, and how the rottweiler itself became a killing machine.

There are also plot points that need the viewer to exercise some mental abilities to follow, and in doing so reward the viewer with a more inclusive experience rather than that of being a 'couch potato' merely as a recipient of programmed emotional effects. These are the folks who complained that they couldn't understand what was going on.

As a point of example for this, it's shown in subtle ways that the bionic rottweiler tracks the hunted man by his scent and the scent of his blood. Anyone who gets this scent on them becomes a victim as well, or if they are between the dog and the man. Those who are not do not get attacked. But the viewers who are looking only for simple plot devices and completely explained maneuvers won't get these subtleties.

This is Yuzna's most interesting horror film to date and the most enjoyable for me, and as I feel it is his best so far, I've called it his masterpiece. Plus it does have the gore that we've come to expect from him.

This is what low budget films should be

[Oddark123 · 9/10 · 23 May 2009]

Rottweiler is a great movie that a lot of people just can't seem to appreciate for it's feel. It is a movie piece and not just bland horror. The film follows a prisoner who has escaped and must find his lost lover. He is also being chased by a rottweiler who is essentially a cyborg. As we go further on we get glimpses into the past. The movie puts out a lot of odd stuff, that while people who don't like to think with there movies will find it boring, people should be drawn in by just where is this going. In the end we get even more confused by what happens when Dante reaches the town and then comes the big reveal as to what exactly happened to get us to where we are. The reveal makes the movie all come together and comes together as a piece. Great movie and I would recommend it to people who really want something good.

If you want some gory disgrace of a horror film, not here If you want something mainstream box office style, not here If you want a good piece to sit down and watch (maybe a few times) then here it is, see Rottweiler.

Better than Most of the Crap in Recent Memory

[BoneDragon23 · 7/10 · 23 April 2006]

Seriously, I don't see why everyone hates this movie. It's not THAT bad.

I felt the choice of actors was actually quite nice, for a low budget film starring a bunch of little known Spanish actors. There were several nice touches in the film that I enjoyed. For example, the main character slowly goes completely insane through out the movie, and I loved it. As he watches more and more people butchered by the rather well down robotic dog, he continues to decend deeper and deeper into insanity, with it finally culminating in his visions of his dead girlfriend speaking to him, even though she's been dead for a year.

I also felt the dog was well done, it didn't look that bad either... I must admit one last thing, I saw the movie on the Sci-Fi channel, so I didn't have to deal with the awkward nudity scenes, and the main character remained fully clothed throughout the movie.

As for the plot, yes, it was a bit lacking, but what do you expect? It was a movie about a killer, robotic dog. Tell me any movie where you have altered dogs as killers that was actually a success? And after having watched this movie after some of the Watchers flicks, you'll appreciate this movie so much more.

All in all, when compared to the other horror movie/slasher flicks of the twenty-first century, this really wasn't that bad. However, if you came into this movie thinking it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread, you will be sorely disappointed. Come into it with lowered expectations, and you'll be well satisfied.

And remember, it was better than "Watchers"...

100% rubbish.

[rainking_es · 1/10 · 27 April 2006]

It's quite hard to talk about a movie such as this without insulting someone or without swearing. I think that the guys at IMDb should reconsider their position about that, because if we could use certain (forbidden) words these comments would be much easier to write.

OK, here we go: a man escapes from a prison and he's pursued by a dog... hell yeah! Well Brian Yuzna is not only a dreadful director, he's also so slapdash (the lack of money is not an excuse), and he's learned nothing throughout all those years he's been in the industry. He does not have the faintest idea about cinema, he can't narrate, and he makes a mistake after another.

PS: the funniest thing about "Rottweiler" is that it was made with the money of some Spanish public institutions. So, now we not only subsidize the local rubbish but also the foreign one.

*My rate: 0/10

Stench from this movie will make you want to move

[igornovikov · 1/10 · 30 July 2005]

I finished watching this movie about 30 minutes ago, and I am still in shock. I sincerely wish IMDb instituted negative ratings because this movie deserves at least -15. To be honest, I don't even know which part is the worst. The plot of the movie is thin even by sci-fi/horror movie standards. If you have already rented this movie, make the best of it and count how many times the plot goes from improbable to impossible and beyond. I know, I know, we are the generation that is used to Jason, Freddy, and Michael having more lives that William Shatner. But this movie is taking the tops. If it's not nominated for a Razzie award, I will be very disappointed.

And what about actors' abilities? The better question is: what abilities? Where were all of them found? Rejects of a beauty school in Arizona? They don't know how to act, how to move, how to present themselves as "believable". After watching this talentless bunch, you will crave for the return of Kevin Costner in Waterworld.

Short version is: if you love throwing your money away, then watch this pale attempt at horror. (By the way, true horror-loving fans: this movie is NOT scary.)

It looks like Yuzna's career has gone to the dogs.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 11 December 2009]

Brian Yuzna's directorial career started off well with the innovative and freaky Society, followed by a serviceable sequel to Re-animator and the excellent Return of the Living Dead III; but since setting up his own production company, Fantastic Factory, in Spain, Yuzna's output has been surprisingly bad, with Rottweiler being the biggest dog of them all.

Set in the near future, the film sees a risk-taking young couple, Dante and Ula (William Miller and Irene Montalà) caught by the authorities as they play a game called 'infiltration', which calls for them to try and illegally enter a country without papers. Dante is sent to a high security prison, but is soon presented with an opportunity to escape into the surrounding wilderness, where he finds himself relentlessly pursued by a savage, cyborg tracker dog.

Admittedly, the above synopsis sounds like it could shape up to be a quality piece of sci-fi/horror entertainment—kinda like Westworld crossed with Cujo—but that is only half the story, and how the plot develops after Dante's prison break is simply insane.

However, since the sheer unpredictability of the narrative is the one of the only enjoyable aspects of the film (the other main 'positive' being the gore), I'm not going to spoil things by revealing too much, suffice to say that you should prepare yourself for some unbelievably poorly executed action, including a silly chase sequence involving numerous shots of Dante's naked ass, the least harrowing rape scene in movie history, the hilarious sight of the dog disposing of a gun (twice), and a priceless shot of a surprised chicken that is easily the best moment in the whole damn mess (the bird certainly gives a more convincing performance than the rest of the cast).

They spent money on this?

[jennieb145 · 1/10 · 6 March 2006]

When I first saw the promo for this movie, I thought "oh great, they're going to ruin the rottweilers rep" I needn't have worried. This is without a doubt the worst movie ever made and believe me I've seen some real stinkers on Sci Fi. I didn't think it could get any worse. I was horribly horribly wrong. This movie's storyline meandered all over, the gore wasn't gory, and I couldn't believe this guy had forgotten that he had managed to get his girlfriend killed until he reached the beach and dug her up. Was there a point to this movie? There are starving kids around the world and someone spent money on this? Did they have a 6 year old with a macabre imagination write the script for this thing? Don't waste your time AVOID AVOID AVOID

Oh Lord help me

[AAChaoshand · 2/10 · 3 November 2006]

Horrendous isn't a strong enough word to describe this film. The movie is about a dog that got trashed as a young dog and got rebuilt with metal bones...yeah okay wolverine go get your own damn plot. Anyways, it continues on about some guy who is hunting for his girlfriend that got taken by some fat dude. This guy somehow manages to shoot this dog to death and it still comes back. I know this is supposed to be a horror movie but it is more along the lines of a comedy/horror. It's so funny its stupid. Craptastic acting, makeup, and the rendering of the dog as pure metal was almost decent. Don't waste your money with this garbage, go buy another film.

This ain't Cujo!

[lastliberal · 4/10 · 14 June 2007]

I just watched Cujo the other day and found it to be an interesting story. Well, this isn't Cujo, as the rottweiler in this film just doesn't seem to want to die and does a mean job on anyone it comes in contact with, including Paulina Gálvez, who I saw recently in Face of Terror, which she had made the year before. She was almost as ravenous as the rottweiler when she captured Dante after he was running through the woods completely naked. I mean if you like seeing a dude doing the full monty through the brush for what seemed like eternity, this is the film for you.

But, we didn't see much more of Paulina as she gave it up for the cause, as did many more before the movie ended. No zombie movie I have seen has had as much carnage as this dog perpetrated on its victims.

Of course, at the end you see why.

This was one creepy looking and ferocious animal. If you like it raw, then this is the film. I rated it low because that is all there was. The acting was atrocious except for the few minutes that Paulina performed.

Awful!

[modgirl-3 · 1/10 · 29 July 2005]

This is no decent horror flick. The writing is disjointed at best - the story never really makes sense, the story is too contrived and there is no actual resolution at the end. Lots of gore, and it looks great, but I found myself wishing too soon that the dog would put an end to them all. The sole exception was watching the lead bumbling around naked - not too bad to look at! If your hope is for a vengeful robo-dog story, this isn't it. There is no explanation of why the world is as it is, let alone why the dog is a robot. All in all, the movie is just too ambiguous, too uncertain of it's path for its own good. A bit more clarification and some connection to the characters would have made it more desirable. If you must see it, catch it on cable.

My friend made me watch this and he's not my friend anymore

[MonkeyDonut69 · 4/10 · 9 October 2006]

I just wanted to check the spoilers box because I thought it would be funny. You can't spoil a movie that (1) nobody has ever seen or (2) nobody will ever want to see.

This movie had one cool part where there were boobies. The rest of the time I wished I was looking at boobies. This movie made my face hurt.

My friend buys really bad movies from the local video store for $3.95 or less and then watches them just to drive his wife crazy. I happened to be in town when this gem was purchased and watched.

I still would rather watch this than King Kong because at least this was only 1/3rd as long. Wow; I never realized how much I hated King Kong. Oh yeah; this movie pretty much sucked, too.

A Film for the Ages

[mstuartmiles · 10/10 · 28 March 2020]

A film like "Rottweiler" does not come along often enough. It presents us with a rare combination of an innovative, thrilling storyline, well-developed characters, expertly crafted special effects, and a message that strikes the hearts of viewers everywhere. From start to finish, characters are portrayed with world class acting, notably by William Miller, who enters the role of Dante on his valiant mission of escaping prison and finding his girlfriend, who he suspects is working in a brothel. Meanwhile, the role of bloodthirsty dog that follows in pursuit (played by Zeus) was equally impressive to watch.

The film is tense, gripping, and surprisingly full of lessons. Although you may try to piece together the various events from flashbacks (a well-known device used by director Brian Yuzna), eventually everything comes together in the end. "The sands of time," says the main villain at the end of the movie, effectively and adequately tying up any loose knots that the viewer might have.

Shortly put, "Rottweiler" is a film that everybody should watch at least once in their life. To not watch this film would be to miss out on an essential part of cinematic culture.

Somewhat of a disappointment, but still alright

[slayrrr666 · 7/10 · 23 April 2006]

"Rottweiler" could've been glorious rebirth for the great Jacinto Molina.

**SPOILERS**

Making a daring escape from jail, Dante (William Miller) wanders the mountains around the prison trying to be reunited with his long-lost love, Ula (Irene Montala) who is at another prison camp. They were sent there for infiltrating the prison of the nefarious Kufard, (Paul Naschy) who owns a Rottweiler with a set of steel teeth. Eventually, everyone that it runs into are brutally killed by the dog as Kufard wastes no expense at hunting Dante. When he finally makes it to the city to find Ula and reunite with her, the dog also arrives and begins another round of terror.

The Good News: As is typical with the Euro-horror scene, the film is pretty gore-filled. People are mangled in very vicious ways, and the wounds are nice and bloody. Without a doubt the greatest one is a neck bite that eventually turns into a decapitation. It's got a lot of great, bloody deaths in here that no gore-hound will want to miss. The creature in the film, the titular Rottweiler, is an inspired concept. It's a normal Rottweiler on the outside and in viciousness, with the addition of a set of steel-lined jaws that deliver most of the gory bites and scratches in here. It's one of the better horror creatures of recent memories.

The Bad News: This could've been one of the better horror films of recent times, but as it stands, it's a bit of a disappointment. The film has a sweet plot-line (a vicious Rottweiler with steel teeth tracks down an escaped convict) features one of the best Spanish horror actors in Jacinto Molina and directors in Brian Yuzna, and contains some cool gore effects, and while all of these give the film a large amount of potential, all play a part in why this film's a disappointment. Molina didn't have to take this role, as it can be counted merely as a cameo, he has so little screen time. False advertising to make it seem he was involved heavily in the film. The Rottweiler itself isn't all that scary, despite it's twist. It is seen way too early to really develop some tension that it could've had. The gore is the film's greatest aspect, but it comes too randomly than it could've. However, the biggest problem is Yuzna's direction. He allows the film to vary off on a lot of different tangents, and it makes the film incredibly confusing. It almost feels like several different movies came together instead of one continuous one, especially toward the middle part of the movie.

The Final Verdict: Considering all the talents involved in this film and the potential to be had, the end result has to be declared somewhat of a disappointment. There is still some good qualities to be had, so it's not an extreme waste of time. Give it a chance.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Female and full male Nudity, Adult Language and a sex scene

Ouch.

[captaincameron · 1/10 · 5 May 2013]

Oh, my God. While I am a fan of all films, good and bad, one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If a pair of stoned film students with a fluffy cat made a "Benji Saves The Universe," it would be of Oscar quality as compared to this. Acting-bad. Special effects-bad. Storyline-convoluted. And bad. The storyline is actually the best part (here is where a semi-spoiler is) that it jumps back and forth, making you think that perhaps it's an art film, or has flashbacks, or has elements of An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bride. But that was just optimism on my part--hoping against hope that there would be something--ANYTHING--redeeming about this. But there is not. My apologies to the fine people who clearly put in some effort and spent at least three days writing, casting, filming, and editing this horrendous piece of crap. If I could list a score of less than 1, I would. If you find yourself somehow forced to watch this, you may consider by drinking drain cleaner a better and more enjoyable alternative.

...what just happened?

[dinogrrl86 · 1/10 · 15 October 2006]

I have seen this movie twice on the Sci-Fi Channel (meaning I didn't have to deal with the nudity bits, thank goodness), and I STILL can't make heads or tails of it. While some B-movies are actually entertaining in their lack of coherent plot, this one drags 'pointlessness' down into the realm of painful.

The director attempts to try a sort of mixed-up flow of time in order to save the climax of the plot for the end of the movie (as it really happens in the beginning of the story)...but fails miserably. All the jumping around from beginning of story to the present time is done in a very choppy fashion, and the climax of the movie? I still don't really understand what it is--the main character, Dante, is looking for his girlfriend Ula, beats up a Rottweiler, gets chased around by the newly-enhanced now-cybernetic Rottweiler, gets raped, and eventually remembers that Ula is dead and kills the Rottweiler? It sounds like a relatively straight-forward, simple plot, your average B-movie, right? Well, like I said, it's done in the most painful way possible to the point where I have no idea what the climax of the movie is supposed to be. Maybe there is no point, I don't know any more.

I'll admit that I'm not the best at critiquing directing, but even I can see that there really was no attempt to make a passable movie here. Badly-framed shots, glaring light even in night scenes and interiors that should be rather dim...the movie is confusing from even a visual standpoint. Even the title character, the cyborg Rottweiler, seems to be three different dogs--the live animal, the stiff, unrealistic puppet, and the relatively smooth-textured CGI version. Most movies will pick just one or two of those to use for their monsters and stick with it, but this one has all three and they each look different.

So in conclusion, even if you like B-movies you'll probably want to avoid this one. Each time I've seen it on the Sci-Fi Channel, it makes me sad that I just wasted hours of my time with it...even when I just had it on for background noise.