Dog Jack (2010) User Reviews

Good screenplay, bad acting

[Johnny_Hing · 5/10 · 26 April 2012]

Having recently watched Ken Burns' Civil War series, I decided to watch a movie based upon the Civil War. Seeing the name "Louis Gossett, Jr" drew me in to Dog Jack. However, he did not actually appear in the movie, but only narrated. The actors for the most part, appeared to have been recruited from a church choir, (although admittedly, this is pure speculation on my part), as many of them could sing very nicely, but were ineffective as actors. I did not recognize a single familiar face, not even a grade C or D actor. It was difficult to emotionally connect with the characters due to the contrived feel of the actors reciting their lines. The choreographed fight scenes were weak as well. On the plus side, the storyline was actually quite interesting. The cinematography was excellent, having been filmed in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. If you approach this movie as a documentary re-enactment, then you won't be disappointed. Civil War buffs should be able to enjoy this despite its flaws. But it must be said, this could have been *so much better*, had they hired a couple of professional actors, even B-grade actors, for a couple of the lead roles.

The movie also had a "faith/spirituality" message and feel to it, which is fine by me, but is one of the reasons why I suspect that the actors had been recruited from a church group, probably from somewhere in Illinois. (In the closing credits, special thanks were given to a church in the Chicago area.)

This is a decent family movie, with no graphic violence, sex, or cursing, and the children watching will most likely not notice the glaring weaknesses in regards to the acting.

Once I resigned myself to viewing this as a dramatized Civil War "re-enactment", I was able to appreciate the film on a somewhat modest level.

Highlights Important Aspects of the Civil War

[niamcdonald · 6/10 · 31 December 2016]

The movie Dog Jack is a good movie for kids to have a more extensive background knowledge on the Civil War. By using the true story of Pennsylvania 102nd's mascot (which is a dog and everyone likes dogs)it helps takes on the topic of slavery and how life on the battlefield was. Even though it doesn't show any gruesome aspects of war it shows the lack of supplies and dangers. Furthermore, it helps to show the roles younger boys and African Americans played during the Civil War. Also, by showing Jed(runaway slave) and Jack's life on/escape from the plantation it shows the gruesome aspects of slavery and why many blacks joined the Union army to fight. Overall, it was an interesting movie even though the acting wasn't the best and some parts were very predictable.

A runaway slave joins the Union Army during the Civil War

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 2 September 2021]

Accompanied by his dog, Jack, a teen slave in Virginia (Benjamin Gardner) escapes his plantation at the outset of the Civil War and goes to Pittsburgh to see a struggling minister (Frank Kasy). They join the 102nd Pennsylvania Regiment and see lots of action. Louis Gossett Jr. Narrates as the elderly version of the protagonist while Eddie Huchro is on hand as a seasoned corporal.

Based by the book by Florence W. Biros, "Dog Jack" (2010) is a Civil War movie in the mold of "The Colt" (2005) and "Pharaoh's Army" (1995), but without the funds of those low-budget flicks. In other words, if you can't handle really low-budget movies I suggest staying away. I was able to acclimate to its limitations and enter into the world of the characters and enjoy it. Inspired by true events, I liked how the film showed the challenges of a black soldier being accepted by members of a white platoon and the camaraderie that slowly develops. Furthermore, the music is a highlight and there are some moving dramatic scenes.

Most of the story takes place in the woods/fields or at a farmhouse while everything else was obviously shot at historic sites. For the most part, the forest/camp/action scenes are surprisingly well done considering the budget. Some acting by the peripherals is questionable with a few lines sounding too eye-rolling quaint, which could've been better written/executed. Nevertheless, I think it's interesting how you can make a worthwhile little movie with very little funds if you're efficient and know what you're doing.

If you liked "Glory" (1989) and don't mind micro-budget flicks, give it a try.

The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes, and was shot mostly in Darlington, Pennsylvania, but also Pittsburgh (Soldiers and Sailors National Military Museum and Memorial), Wisconsin (North Freedom), Illinois (suburbs of Chicago) and Iowa (Mt. Pleasant).

GRADE: C.

Good job

[vchimpanzee · 12 February 2015]

This is a good movie. Most of the leading actors do a good job. Jed is portrayed as quite intelligent and determined, and he overcomes a lot of prejudice to show he is a man and equal to others.

Being a war movie, this does have violence, but most of the violence is unrelated to the war. The cruelty of white people toward slaves is the worst part, but it is not graphic. As for the war itself, we see the unfortunate decisions that have to be made in combat situations, and both sides of moral issues. We are also reminded of what a terrible thing slavery was.

There is also good music. Songs performed by slaves are the best. There is also church music sung by white people, who don't sound professional, though overall they sound good. They are supposed to be soldiers, not singers, and so what if they aren't together or all on key?

It is a worthy effort.

Dog vomit

[ImpertinentGremlin · 1/10 · 4 March 2012]

While the overall story line holds great promise, the movie falls short by wielding a clumsy script and incongruous story line. One is constantly bashed over the head with the movie's many "points" in an unbelievable and unnatural line of dialogue in each scene as characters seem to line up in some shots, hovering in the background, waiting for their turn to speak to the main character as if they cannot see or hear the character before them. On top of that, the dialogue from some characters seems to come out of left field motivated by some unseen force having nothing to do with the environment, circumstances, or previous scene. Combined with the complete, utter lack of congruity between scenes and the overuse of narration, the movie constantly breaks the fourth wall and one has to force oneself back into the story over and over again. I'm not saying it's the worst movie ever made, but it's pretty darn close.

A badly done Civil War Story.

[hix-edward · 1/10 · 17 February 2012]

This movie was so badly done I would not let my dog watch it. The acting and the writing were poorly done. Even the voice over with Lou Gossett Jr. could not salvage this lemon. Anyone who funded this movie should get their money back. I know I wanted my dollar back from Redbox after viewing this one. Don't waste your time or money on this one. The plot was not consistent. I've seen better acting on local theater stages with amateur actors. The filming was also poorly done. So save yourself some money and rent something other than this movie!!!If this movie was based on a true story of a dog in the 102nd Pennsylvania as they claimed then he is probably rolling over in his grave at how they have soiled his heroic actions with a badly done movie. May he rest in peace because this movie needs to.

Ridiculous White Christian Revisionist Claptrap

[mzqjqc · 1/10 · 2 June 2019]

Bad writing, bad acting, the biggest load of claptrap I've ever seen. Talk about whitewashing the Civil War. I cannot believe Lou Gossett, Jr. had anything to do with this movie - his mortgage must have come due. Sheesh!

A hidden gem!

[b939931 · 10/10 · 13 May 2010]

This film appeared to be your typical small budget flop until the company soldiers appeared. The company soldiers were so believable that it seemed like they had just marched forth from 1860 into my living room. The dialog offered an interesting glimpse into the daily struggles of a Union soldier. Aside from the outstanding performance of the company soldiers (particularly this young Kevin Steck fellow who reminded me of a young Keanu Reeves!), the movie had the most magnificent special effects. As the barn burnt, I thought I could smell the blatant odor of an 1860's era timber-based shack lingering into my nostrils; such realism! The clinching factor was the performance by the dog Jack. Seriously, who trained that mutt? He was Airbud on steroids and so much more! I highly recommend this movie to not only civil war buffs and dog fanatics but to any fan of character development, extraordinary CGI, and professional dog stunts. A must see for any true American!

What a refreshing look at the Civil War!

[c42473 · 10/10 · 26 May 2010]

I received a copy of this seemingly no-name film a few months back and saw little reason to even pop it in my lavish entertainment system. Then, much to my misfortune, I suffered a bit of a setback (car crash) in Mississippi. I was couch ridden for sometime (my wife will attest to this!) so I figured why not watch that silly film that's been functioning as a beverage holster in my den. The wife was so kind as to toss the movie in for me, and so began my adventure back to the days of civil divide and slavery. I watched halfheartedly until these company soldiers began to converse with the greatest sense of natural instinct. It was as if these small time actors had taken a whirl in the Delorean back to the 1860's and taken on the demeanor of an actual Union soldier. This one fellow was all to dashing and a bit generous with his approach to stage direction, but he captivated me with his few lines of pithy dialog and active presence on the screen. It came to be that this young gentlemen was Kevin Steck. This particular actor along with his co-cast of soldiers transported my mind back to a historical time of severe ideological divergence. I began to place my self in the shoes of a Union soldier, and as I imagined the daily life of a company soldier I became lost in this simplistic film. I write this review solely in appreciation for having experienced the refreshing feeling of natural acting. I cannot help but reminisce about my days in independent films and small time roles. My sense of nostalgia comes from watching the casual manner of these actors and thinking how it was when I didn't think to act but instead just imagined and naturally behaved as if I were another person in another time. Thanks Dog Jack and the magnificent cast (especially the company soldiers *Kevin Steck*.)

Great family film

[charlene45 · 10/10 · 3 February 2012]

Our family and several friends watched DogJack.

The film is intelligent, thought-provoking, the music was great. script is well-written and the acting was good. The The actor who played Jed turned in a command performance as did most of the other actors. I am a big fan of Louis Gossett.

We had a meaningful discussion after the film. We talked about how life s so different today than it was 150 years ago for the young boys who were called to fight in the war. I am not normally a big fan of my kids movies but this was very watchable for my husband and myself and the kids thought it was one of the best films they'd seen in the past 2 years.

I would recommend this film to any family who wants to watch a meaningful film and not just rent a DVD as a babysitter for the kids.