I enjoyed all of this movie but expected some kind of resolution, which never transpired. The story is about a weird creature being sighted in a rural area of Michigan. Part of the story is about a guy named Hank Purvis installing a night vision game camera in an area he hunts. You would expect footage from this camera to become part of the story, but it never happens. We never see anything recorded by the game camera. In fact, the only time we see the creature is inside five minutes from the end of the movie, reflected in a car window. We never find out what happens to the young man who was bitten. This is simply a story without an ending and it is absurd to think anyone was thinking "sequel." Worth a look, especially for Stacie Hadgikosti as the sheriff's deputy -- wow! Slap the cuffs on, officer!
24 Reviews
Dogman: Has it's charms, but not enough
Platypuschow14 August 2018
Dogman is a hyper low budget horror film despite being labelled a thriller.
It tells the story of a goofy middle aged man who discovers that there is something living in the local woods and it's not friendly.
Initially I thought it was a comedy, it was certainly written that way and the lead though competent would be better suited to that genre.
Due to the lack of budget the creature is mostly left up to your imagination. This rarely works and Dogman demonstrates exactly why.
Most of the cast are better than you'd expect as is the entire films cinematography but sadly by about a third of the way through the writing dips to painful levels.
There is something here and it's not devoid of quality, but the whole package just isn't enjoyable.
The Good:
Starts solidly enough
Considerably better cinematography than you'd expect
Competent little cast
The Bad:
Trails off into mediocrity
Lack of budget shows and hurts the film
The two kids were terrible
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
We need a comedy werewolf movie!
It tells the story of a goofy middle aged man who discovers that there is something living in the local woods and it's not friendly.
Initially I thought it was a comedy, it was certainly written that way and the lead though competent would be better suited to that genre.
Due to the lack of budget the creature is mostly left up to your imagination. This rarely works and Dogman demonstrates exactly why.
Most of the cast are better than you'd expect as is the entire films cinematography but sadly by about a third of the way through the writing dips to painful levels.
There is something here and it's not devoid of quality, but the whole package just isn't enjoyable.
The Good:
Starts solidly enough
Considerably better cinematography than you'd expect
Competent little cast
The Bad:
Trails off into mediocrity
Lack of budget shows and hurts the film
The two kids were terrible
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
We need a comedy werewolf movie!
My Review Of "Dogman" 2012
ASouthernHorrorFan21 August 2014
2012's "Dogman" is a low budget story around the legend of Michigan's Dogman. The film is directed by Richard Brauer, who does a really good job of navigating the issues of budget when telling this creature- feature. The film isn't so much about the actual legend per se, but more about a couple's farm and small community's deadly ordeal with the creature. Great horror story premise, with hit and miss execution-budget constraints withstanding.
The story of "Dogman" uses the legend of the creature to create an ominous set-up, with a couple struggling between, what they believe to be the acts of delinquent relatives causing property damage, or some other force terrorizing them. It soon becomes clear just what the situation is, and Brauer uses some classic tricks to tease the creature on camera. Some moments work and others show up on screen as uber-cheap. Budget- I know. The cast, for the most part, give pretty decent performances. Oddly enough the most seasoned among them-Larry Joe Campbell-gives the least convincing performance. The story arc never really falls apart, leaving most of the flubs to technical issues with special effects shots, and inability to create necessary thrills when needed.
The special effects are super low budget, when used, give poor quality and weak performance. Brauer does show prowess in his ability to create some suspenseful moments by leaving a lot of the creature off camera for the most part. Similar to how the werewolf creature in "Silver Bullet" is used. For the most part the actual effectiveness of the film's horror element comes from melodrama, creepy soundtracks, and the legend of the Dogman. There are better wolf-creature films out there that bring the beast clearly into the terror-zone but "Dogman" does give good story. It hits just below the 50/50 point with me personally.
The story of "Dogman" uses the legend of the creature to create an ominous set-up, with a couple struggling between, what they believe to be the acts of delinquent relatives causing property damage, or some other force terrorizing them. It soon becomes clear just what the situation is, and Brauer uses some classic tricks to tease the creature on camera. Some moments work and others show up on screen as uber-cheap. Budget- I know. The cast, for the most part, give pretty decent performances. Oddly enough the most seasoned among them-Larry Joe Campbell-gives the least convincing performance. The story arc never really falls apart, leaving most of the flubs to technical issues with special effects shots, and inability to create necessary thrills when needed.
The special effects are super low budget, when used, give poor quality and weak performance. Brauer does show prowess in his ability to create some suspenseful moments by leaving a lot of the creature off camera for the most part. Similar to how the werewolf creature in "Silver Bullet" is used. For the most part the actual effectiveness of the film's horror element comes from melodrama, creepy soundtracks, and the legend of the Dogman. There are better wolf-creature films out there that bring the beast clearly into the terror-zone but "Dogman" does give good story. It hits just below the 50/50 point with me personally.
Excellent credits song, but the movie's too low-key and prosaic
Wuchakk6 August 2016
Released in 2012, "Dogman" is about Michigan's legendary half-canine, half-human creature first supposedly sighted in 1987 in the northwestern quadrant of the Lower Peninsula. The star is that goofy rotund guy from the sitcom According to Jim (who has since lost the weight). Mariann Mayberry plays his wife, Kimberly Guerrero a Native American neighbor and Stacie Mitchell (aka Stacie Hadgikosti) an investigating deputy.
Despite an outstanding opening & closing folk-rock song, presumably by Grant Floering (who's credited for the music), and the presence of a few formidable actors, you can tell this is a micro-budget flick right out of the gate. The slow-going, mundane proceedings don't help. For instance, there's a scene of the deputy interviewing two teens at the hospital that's just tedious and unnecessary. The runtime could've easily been cut in half. Then there are some inexplicable elements, like all the time spent on the tree camera, but we mysteriously never get to see the footage. The ending leaves you with a big question mark and the potential for a sequel (which materialized in 2014 with, amazingly, the same cast). Speaking from someone who appreciates low-budget woods-oriented flicks, "Dogman" is just too uneventful and pedestrian with uninteresting characters. Still, it's competently made for a no-budget flick. It's just not that entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.
The movie runs 90 minutes and was shot in Benzie County, Michigan.
GRADE: D+
Despite an outstanding opening & closing folk-rock song, presumably by Grant Floering (who's credited for the music), and the presence of a few formidable actors, you can tell this is a micro-budget flick right out of the gate. The slow-going, mundane proceedings don't help. For instance, there's a scene of the deputy interviewing two teens at the hospital that's just tedious and unnecessary. The runtime could've easily been cut in half. Then there are some inexplicable elements, like all the time spent on the tree camera, but we mysteriously never get to see the footage. The ending leaves you with a big question mark and the potential for a sequel (which materialized in 2014 with, amazingly, the same cast). Speaking from someone who appreciates low-budget woods-oriented flicks, "Dogman" is just too uneventful and pedestrian with uninteresting characters. Still, it's competently made for a no-budget flick. It's just not that entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.
The movie runs 90 minutes and was shot in Benzie County, Michigan.
GRADE: D+
Redneck indie
Leofwine_draca26 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
DOGMAN is an indie wannabe horror/adventure flick about a bunch of rednecks battling against something mysterious in the woods. It's one of those films based on local legend which has been made on the kind of budget that precludes any kind of proper plot, writing, or indeed set-pieces. Instead you get rednecks roaming around the woods, driving cars, and a very slow pacing. It's not the worst of its type, it's just that there aren't many redeeming features here.
DON'T DO THAT
nogodnomasters23 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Hank (Larry Joe Campbell) and Dorothy (Mariann Mayberry) live in rural Michigan and have things go missing, such as their chickens. Hank sets up a camera to catch pictures of a large buck rumored to be in the woods. The production includes the nephew, a friend, a lady cop, and a neighbor with a dog. Unfortunately what it doesn't include is the Dogman. There are glimpses of it, but you see less than White Fang and Black Tooth (Obscure Soup Sales reference to characters that only showed one paw while on the screen.)
The film moves slow. The title character appears in cameos. There is really no horror to it. The film makes minor attempts at humor and gives us good characters. They just did nothing with it.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. A few SOBs.
The film moves slow. The title character appears in cameos. There is really no horror to it. The film makes minor attempts at humor and gives us good characters. They just did nothing with it.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. A few SOBs.
Waste of time.
mertgsb12 February 2021
Can't believe how bad this truly is
will-4421119 September 2020
Ugh, it was AWFUL.
jeffreytmahon30 March 2021
Enjoyable Enough
alllostthings20 March 2021
Light and Fun Horror Film - Well Produced
bestoftheweb884 December 2012
Our group of movie goers really liked this film. It was a horror film, but written and presented in an even paced approach, with funny moments, teenagers doing bike tricks, snowmobiles on dry land, surprises, action, and mixtures of every day life with this horror creature. The mystery of the Dogman unfolds, in a comic sort of way, with an element of a medicine woman as a quiet hero. The plot is interesting, layering back the ancient story of this dogman creature thing. What is it? We can't tell you too much, but it's a fun watch. The ending leaves room for more, we agree. Maybe a sequel? it was worth it to make a nice introduction, and we would welcome a sequel. Get your popcorn and enjoy this one. We did.
Actually enjoyable
jodylehrer-226465 April 2021
What A Waste of Time
katanaguy5 April 2021
This was abysmal...
paul_haakonsen24 February 2022
Granted, I have to say that I wasn't expecting anything, virtually nothing from the 2012 mystery thriller "Dogman" from writer and director Richard Brauer.
And with good cause, because "Dogman" was a swing and a miss of a movie. Talk about a laughably bad script and storyline, accompanied by equally dubious acting performances and special effects. This movie was just bad, downright bad. And not bad in the way that it becomes cheesy fun to watch. No, "Dogman" was just bad.
Well, it would be a lie to say that the cast ensembled in "Dogman" would spur any sense of excitement for the movie. I mean, sure I liked Larry Joe Campbell from his role in the "According to Jim" series, but in a movie such as "Dogman", nah, not so much.
The special effects in this 2012 movie were just awful to witness.
I suppose if you get a kick out of watching low budget and dubious horror movies, then there is something to be enjoyed in "Dogman". I just found it to be a waste of time. And believe you me, I have no intention of sitting down to watch the 2014 sequel.
My rating of "Dogman" lands on a very generous two out of ten stars.
And with good cause, because "Dogman" was a swing and a miss of a movie. Talk about a laughably bad script and storyline, accompanied by equally dubious acting performances and special effects. This movie was just bad, downright bad. And not bad in the way that it becomes cheesy fun to watch. No, "Dogman" was just bad.
Well, it would be a lie to say that the cast ensembled in "Dogman" would spur any sense of excitement for the movie. I mean, sure I liked Larry Joe Campbell from his role in the "According to Jim" series, but in a movie such as "Dogman", nah, not so much.
The special effects in this 2012 movie were just awful to witness.
I suppose if you get a kick out of watching low budget and dubious horror movies, then there is something to be enjoyed in "Dogman". I just found it to be a waste of time. And believe you me, I have no intention of sitting down to watch the 2014 sequel.
My rating of "Dogman" lands on a very generous two out of ten stars.
Like but questions
sammeyphammey19 February 2021
Great flick!
gmb1410 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is impressive that people are stating that this movie has no closure..leaving me with an utterly confused look on my face. The idea of a sequel is to leave you with unfinished business so that the next film can carry many of the issues from the first. Anyway, I loved the suspense of not blatantly seeing the creature first hand. I would much rather use my imagination (which most people are lacking nowadays) and wait to see what the writer/director has in mind. I am excited for the sequel to come out to see how this will all wrap up, because no one should judge a movie series by merely plucking one film out of it. I hope people can open their minds to the idea of not all the facts being handed directly in front of them on a platter.
Nice Piece of Work!
TheJonesBones9 October 2021
This is a story about - guess what? - a Dogman! It's also a well done indie movie about a small village of rural-ites confronting said Dogman to the best of their abilities.
It won't win any big awards, but so what? Most Oscars reward the propaganda machine and its bizarre agenda. This is just a great story told well and presented by an outstanding cast and crew.
Don't listen to the naysayers on this one. Watch and believe in the Dogman!!!
It won't win any big awards, but so what? Most Oscars reward the propaganda machine and its bizarre agenda. This is just a great story told well and presented by an outstanding cast and crew.
Don't listen to the naysayers on this one. Watch and believe in the Dogman!!!
monsters and midwestern charm are a nice pair
warnerkimberly9 June 2015
Dogman is a skillfully executed and engaging story that elaborates on the mysteries of a Michigan monster myth while still maintaining a sense of good Midwestern charm. There's something subtly "feel good" about this thriller - a fun contradiction that plays all the way through the film without serving up an expected and cliché ending that you might expect with other "light" thrillers. Writer, director and cinematographer Rich Brauer's characters are fresh, natural and unassuming and his camera work exceeds what one might expect from an independent film. If there ever was a thriller for the whole family, this would be one.
So-so backwoods creature feature
Woodyanders18 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A vicious bacteria-ridden humanoid dog beast terrorizes a small rural community in Michigan. While writer/director Richard Bauer keeps the fun story moving along at a reasonably quick pace, takes time to develop the likable main characters (Larry Joe Campbell makes for an amiable protagonist as the bumbling Hanklin Purvis, Mariann Mayberry adds some spark as the sassy Dorothy, and Stacie Hadgikosti impresses as the gutsy Deputy Samuels), maintains an engaging lighthearted tone throughout, and makes good use of the rural locations, he nonetheless fails to generate much in the way of either tension or spooky atmosphere as well as offers too much build-up, but not nearly enough pay-off. Moreover, while Bauer deserves credit for going with an old school guy-in-a-gnarly-suit monster over cheap'n'cheesy CGI ala the Syfy network, alas said monster gets precious little on-screen time and we never even get a decent look at it. The limp non-ending likewise leaves a lot to be desired. Obviously done on a low budget, it's nothing really special, but competently done and fairly enjoyable (if flawed) just the same.
I need some clarification
sammeyphammey20 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I guess since I'm still thinking about this movie long after I finished it. It must be pretty good.
It ends very abruptly and there are a few moments that I don't understand at all and I ve rewatched it recently
I dont how how else to get these questions out there but I would love them to be answered.
First of all I love frances' run at the end of the film. Why did Frances say she wasn't alone in the woods? What was the point of the puppy scene? Why was there an emphasis on Frances' stomach at the end?
First of all I love frances' run at the end of the film. Why did Frances say she wasn't alone in the woods? What was the point of the puppy scene? Why was there an emphasis on Frances' stomach at the end?
Simple Fun - Excellent Acting, Scripting, Directing
marshallsreid16 April 2021
I presume this is a low budget affair but the acting, scripting, and directing is better than any Oscar winning big budget blockbuster. So many interesting, fun touches were added - kids doing bike tricks, kid watching YouTube bigfoot video, irritating little pranks, etc. The acting is so realistic, I felt like I was present at an actual event. For example, the ER scene where the doc was patching up the boy's wound - it was like I was sitting in an ER watching an actual doctor treating an actual patient. The things that were said, the delivery of the lines, the staging of the scenes, the motions of the actors - all were so realistic. The best acting is where actors are behaving as real people would act in real situations and they did it perfectly in this movie The lead actor and his wife are a treat to watch. The story is so well delivered. Lots of fun.
I loved the movie
sheliawells8253 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was great with a bit of a disappointment toward the ending. I loved the characters Hanklin Purvis played by actor, Larry Joe Campbell and Dorothy Purvis played by actor, Mariann Mayberry. (She died August 1, 2017 from complications from Ovarian Cancer). They really did the show justice. The other actors were also great, but the two main characters I just mentioned were fantastic. However, I did not like the ending where they didn't show them getting the antidote. I was a bit confused at the end, but I believe Francis Wellman, played by actor. Kimberly Guerrero apparently got one of the babies from the Dogman. It showed her having the baby inside of her coat on her lap. And the Dogman did not attack her at all...GREAT entertainment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
