‘Dogs’ (1976): When man’s best friend becomes man’s worst foe (review)

We may earn money or products from the companies mentioned in this post.

Rent it from DVD Netflix

What happens when man’s best friend morphs into man’s worst foe? That’s the question 1976 Burt Brinckerhoff-directed film “Dogs” probes. With solid special effects and a minimalist plot which accentuates its terrifying premise, it’s a taut thriller.
Head of the Southwestern University biology department Harlan Thompson (David McCallum), though generally disgruntled with his fellow faculty members and the student body, takes a liking to fresh biology professor Michael Fitzgerald (Geroge Wyner). Thompson maintains a close relationship with his ex-girlfriend Caroline Donaghue (Sandra McCabe). When a string of cattle attacks plague local rancher Larry Ludecky (Larry Gene Darnell), Thompson initially attributes the cattle killings to coyotes, but after inspection rules out coyotes. Against Harlan’s protestations, Ludecky waits rifle in hand to catch the animals murdering his cattle, but is himself slaughtered by a pack of dogs.

Thompson and Fitzgerald investigate Ludecky’s corpse, as well as the cadavers of an elderly woman and a Southwestern University student. Both Michael and Harlan conclude that dogs have begun attacking humans. They urge SU president Dr. Martin Koppelman (Sterling Swanson) to issue a warning, but like the mayor from “Jaws,” Koppelman prioritizes preventing panic over public safety.

From the onset, there’s a minimalist vibe to 1976 “Dogs.” Its opening scene features a first-person perspective of a dog wandering around at a party, before it’s let out of a fenced in yard. Then, there’s a brief slow-mo montage of dogs prancing happily about with unsettlingly cheery music playing, and a title card of simply “Dogs” in white that drips red blood, a la the “James Bond” gun barrel shot. At a party, most of the character back story is quickly relayed through conversation. There’s virtually no character development, though it’s unnecessary in a 90-minute genre film which focuses more on atmosphere and less on its cast.

For much of the film, the body count remains surprisingly low, relying on tension. A particularly harrowing scene finds a kindergarten class holding a dog show which. While only minor injuries occur, it marvelously plays upon the children in danger trope. It’s not until the grisly finale with a bloodbath on the university campus, that “Dogs” truly bares its fangs. Much of the movie merely relies on the anxiety-inducing premise of beloved canine companions abandoning their domestication and reverting to pack animal instincts to quite literally bite off the hand that feeds them. The majority of monster flick such as “Jaws,” or “Grizzly,” feature a single seemingly-supernatural entity. However, “Dogs” presents hordes of dogs harassing the locals.

During their investigation, Harlan and Michael discover that pheromones have caused dogs to form packs. Both theorize that the experiments at the nearby top-secret government linear accelerator are to blame, a compelling notion. Unfortunately, it’s an underdeveloped subplot, despite murmurs about the accelerator throughout the entire film. The final scene finds Harlan and Caroline escaping unscathed, and listening to a radio broadcast which reveals state-wide dog attacks in California with a mention that “Only dogs are being affected.” But a freeze frame of a cat meowing ominously suggests that may change.

Typically in genre flicks such as “Dogs,” there’s an outside foe which threatens in the wild. This 1976 gem subverts that concept with its beasts invited willingly into their victims’ unsuspecting homes. The plot is decidedly barebones, and there’s an underdeveloped insinuation that a government experiment reverted domesticated dogs to feral instincts which goes nowhere. Still, “Dogs” is nonetheless thrilling. Filled with ample tension, grisly effects, and a compelling albeit subdued performance by David McCallum, “Dogs” succeeds as a delightful, campy genre effort.