When his nephew tries to wrest control of his estate from him, the Duke of Dingwall removes the boy from his will and leaves everything to his dog.When his nephew tries to wrest control of his estate from him, the Duke of Dingwall removes the boy from his will and leaves everything to his dog.When his nephew tries to wrest control of his estate from him, the Duke of Dingwall removes the boy from his will and leaves everything to his dog.
Sophie Uliano
- Shamela Stewart
- (as Sophie Heyman)
Patrick J. Phillips
- Butcher
- (as Patrick Phillips)
Featured reviews
Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.
The Duke is about a real duke and his slobbering hound Hubert. The Duke is a sensitive man who sells all his priceless painting and furniture to raise money for the poor. Everyone in Dingwall adores them. However there is an evil-doer amongst them who wants everything for himself. On the Duke's deathbed, he overhears what is planned and in his will, the Duke leaves everything he owns to Hubert. Now Hubert has to rule Dingwall. There are weddings, robberies, mad dog chases and true love in this gorgeous little tale.
Friends, beware. This movie is bad. Really bad. Like there are no ways in which this film is not bad. Where shall I begin?
Perhaps the camera work? To put it bluntly, the whole movie seems as if it were filmed by a cheap Dollar Tree Kodak smashed to the wall with a piece of moist bubble gum. I got a crick in my neck trying to understand the bizarre angles that these directors evidently thought were "artistic." The acting? Horrific. What back alley did they scour to find these wretched excuses for thespians? If any one of them found a penny on their way to the set, they'd be grossly overpaid. The plot? What plot? The plot had as many holes as the inexplicably pot-hole filled, overused driveway "joke" from the film. It seems as if the directors picked up a cheap copy of The Idiots Guide to Movie Clichés (much of which would have gone over their heads) and utilized every page. Twice. The movie has about as much continuity and clarity as an ADD 5-year-old in a crayon shop. The whole movie makes you feel as if you have just missed a previous scene.
I've never witnessed a film where every single character elicited such disgust and revulsion. It's like it didn't let up. They failed at even playing normal human beings. It might as well have been filmed with Martians. I mean, a dog is crowned the Duke of Dingwall. (A fitting name...) And what do the inhabitants of this bizarre little town do (who are so often mentioned and yet so rarely seen, except when portrayed by repeat actors from previous scenes...)? They applaud the whole way!
I won't even venture into the awful "sloppy-joe" sequence. Such a banal and iniquitous perversion of the art of cinema should never even have been thought of.
In sum, this movie was not worth the 8 seconds it takes to put the DVD into the player. It is a monument to how far a few desperate actors and "filmmakers" will go to make a buck or two. Which is evidently pretty far. Pretty much, the only difference between this film and a bucket of garbage is the bucket.
Perhaps the camera work? To put it bluntly, the whole movie seems as if it were filmed by a cheap Dollar Tree Kodak smashed to the wall with a piece of moist bubble gum. I got a crick in my neck trying to understand the bizarre angles that these directors evidently thought were "artistic." The acting? Horrific. What back alley did they scour to find these wretched excuses for thespians? If any one of them found a penny on their way to the set, they'd be grossly overpaid. The plot? What plot? The plot had as many holes as the inexplicably pot-hole filled, overused driveway "joke" from the film. It seems as if the directors picked up a cheap copy of The Idiots Guide to Movie Clichés (much of which would have gone over their heads) and utilized every page. Twice. The movie has about as much continuity and clarity as an ADD 5-year-old in a crayon shop. The whole movie makes you feel as if you have just missed a previous scene.
I've never witnessed a film where every single character elicited such disgust and revulsion. It's like it didn't let up. They failed at even playing normal human beings. It might as well have been filmed with Martians. I mean, a dog is crowned the Duke of Dingwall. (A fitting name...) And what do the inhabitants of this bizarre little town do (who are so often mentioned and yet so rarely seen, except when portrayed by repeat actors from previous scenes...)? They applaud the whole way!
I won't even venture into the awful "sloppy-joe" sequence. Such a banal and iniquitous perversion of the art of cinema should never even have been thought of.
In sum, this movie was not worth the 8 seconds it takes to put the DVD into the player. It is a monument to how far a few desperate actors and "filmmakers" will go to make a buck or two. Which is evidently pretty far. Pretty much, the only difference between this film and a bucket of garbage is the bucket.
10Susan G
I really enjoyed this movie about a dog who becomes a Duke. It would have been very easy to mess this one up, but along with the humor, the script was filled with warmth and even some profundity about nobility and class. It's a feel good movie that the whole family can watch.. even the adults!
In case anyone was wondering what kind of dog Hubert is, he is a Black & Tan Coonhound; the only one of six subspecies of coonhound recognized by the American Kennel Club. Although they were bred to hunt racoons, they are also used for hunting bear and cougar. They have a sweet disposition and make excellent family pets.
Did you know
- TriviaJames Doohan's final film.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Obscurus Lupa Presents: The Duke (2015)
- How long is The Duke?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Герцог Дюк
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content