Johnny Mad Dog

Bleak, raw, intense, powerful, realistic, violent, depressing, savage, hopeless, and terrifying depiction of civil war.

With a cast of unknown but convincing young actors, many of which are actual former child soldiers, the acting is what makes this truly stand out.

This felt like a combination of Come and See (1985) and City of God (2002).

Covering the same territory as BLOOD DIAMOND this couldn't be further away from Hollywood's treatment of child soldiers. However, although sentimental and following the classical Hollywood patterns, BLOOD DIAMOND does have its merits. I'd also compare this with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN because there's a similar visceral realism, on a budget which was probably one percent of Spielberg's film.

This is difficult to watch from the opening scene onwards as the protagonists, boys from their early to late teens, commit the most appalling acts of depravity - such as forcing another child to shoot his father dead, raping a young woman. One of these acts is witnessed by a young girl, who Johnny Mad Dog is to face at the films denouement. The director overcomes his budget limitations with effective use of hand-held camera, close in, jerky, tightly edited, frequently with the look of actual documentary footage. Things are often obscured, you can't quite see whats going on, which further disorientates and unsettles making an effective portrayal of the chaos of war. Another film I'd compare this to is the Russian COME AND SEE, which follows a teenage boy whose village has been massacred by the Germans. It also works in terms of disorienting the viewer, building into a climax, with a character who is not goal directed but functions more as a figure through which we bear witness. Johnny Mad Dog works in the same way - most impact as the credits roll, accompanied by a series of photographs taken during the Liberian civil war of 1990 - 2003. The film has drawn on those images, recreating them on the screen and enabling us to bear witness.

Sound...very little music and impressive use of sound. The opening scenes made all the more effective with the horror of events conveyed through screams. Dialogue is in pidgeon English, subtitled and has a raw authenticity to it, with English words put into African grammatical constructs, mixed with local dialects, or words put together to form new ones.

Performances from the young cast are superb, with an utterly convincing blankness. The violence has a randomness and purposelesness to it. Shouting at their victims, randomly barking out irreverent questions such as 'what is the area of a triangle?' These kids can't be written off as 'evil' because they seem to lack any motivation. Dressed in bizarre clothes such as wedding dresses, sporting headgear, fairy wings, in a strange way they've adapted to a set of circumstances and through the violence have formed their own surrogate family. I think the best sense to make of this is through mental health and the idea of a collective psychopathy which maintains it own awful momentum.

Violence is all the more shocking in the way the director avoids cinematic conventions. There isn't a build up to someone being shot: one moment the boys are 'patrolling' a street, the next moment one drops to the ground, hit by a sniper. The treatment is very matter of fact, shocking for the banality, the casual nature of the violence.

Challenging, chilling, disturbing, harrowing and difficult to watch. Time will tell but I think this may well, eventually, be seen as one of the 'great' war films. I can't think of another which deals in the same way so effectively with child soldiers

There are no heroes here, no resolution, ultimately it points up the complete futility and waste of all wars.

Having heard so much about this film...i have to say that the outcome was quite disappointing, considering that the actors were child soldiers themselves. How I wished they could have done more to give viewers more intrinsic detail on a subject rarely explored by films. There is nothing wrong with the acting, as the 'actors' were basically playing themselves with ease. The problem in the movie is that visibility is restricted - we see the same scenario over and over again, only difference is they were in difference locations. Further investigation in other aspects of child soldiering could have easily been filmed (given the child soldiers' participation in this movie) but nothing was being done.

Johnny Mad Dog is a war drama in an unknown African country. The movie follows a group of African rebel soldiers that plunder and murder civilians.

To make a good summary of the movie, it's 90 minutes of African rebels harassing and shooting civilians with their AK47's. We are given a shaky camera and A LOT of close ups which is confusing since you don't really know what's going on. It ends very abruptly and leaves you with a lot of questions.

No characters to care for and no logic. You feel no sympathy for the main character this "Johnny Mad Dog". You just want him to die.

I don't know what Jean-Stéphane Sauvaire wanted to say with this movie, and to tell you the truth, you're not missing anything if you don't see it.

Any film about child soldiers is going to be hard to watch and also hard to review. As a depiction of the horror of war and the 'normalisation' of barbarity that can be instilled into children, it is a triumph. It was intensely bleak from start to finish with no solace. How could it be anything else? If you want to try and get inside the minds of child soldiers and maybe even try and comprehend their actions, then yes do watch this film. If you want your films to have some entertainment value, then avoid. I'm struggling to give it a score out of ten as I didn't enjoy it at all. Paradoxically, however, it was a must watch.