Critics’ reviews

Man Bites Dog (1992)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 73: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Man Bites Dog

73
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics respond positively to Man Bites Dog, with praise clustering around its mock-documentary style, black humour and examination of violence filmed as entertainment. The reviews find the combination of comedy and horror disturbing, particularly when laughter gives way to discomfort. Its scrutiny of filmmakers’ and audiences’ fascination with violence is the main point of agreement: the documentary format makes watching part of what the film asks critics to question.

The reservations concern how far that approach sustains itself through the graphic violence. The New York Times offers the most mixed assessment, treating the film as a grisly joke whose humour can just as readily appal. Empire argues that the critique of media complicity gives way to shocking set pieces. The AV Club remains appreciative of that critique but finds some shocks less effective with age. The spread is largely between qualified approval and stronger admiration.

Time Out
15 April 2015 · GA
85*

The film is a spoof fly-on-the-wall documentary that is funny, scary, provocative and profoundly disturbing in its exploration of filmmakers' and audiences' fascination with violence. It stands as one of the most resonant and caustic contributions to the cinema of violence since Peeping Tom, with its rigour forcing viewers to question why they are watching.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
2 April 1993 · Kenneth Turan
80*

The critic describes the film as an assured and seductive chamber of horrors that marries nightmare with humor before abruptly removing the laughter. It singles out the audacious look at the nature of violence on film as its key achievement.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
17 May 1993 · Anthony Lane
70*

The review portrays the mock documentary as a labor of love full of hateful things that dares viewers to confront every kind of murder. It notes the film's sneaky trade-off between genuine and fake elements in its cinema-verite style.

Read the full review →
Variety
4 June 1992 · festival review
70*

The review sees the film as reality programming meeting 'Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer' in an offbeat, darkly hilarious portrait of a hit man documented by a crew. It calls it violent yet trenchant with potential to attract a cult following.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
9 October 1992 · festival review · Stephen Holden
50*

The critic calls the pseudo-documentary a grisly sick joke packed with graphic violence that some will find funny and others appalling. It satirizes sensationalist television while highlighting how the camera crew's presence incites the killer's savagery.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Mark Salisbury

The film is a ferociously disturbing, bleak and raw debut that is sick, twisted and depraved. It starts as a scabrous black comedy questioning media complicity in violence but degenerates into shocking set pieces.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
28 January 2010 · Scott Tobias

The critic views the 1992 mockumentary as a still-potent but slightly dated satire that implicates filmmakers and viewers in its violence by showing how a camera crew becomes complicit with its charming serial-killer subject. It singles out the film's prescient take on documentary complicity and reality-TV-style performance for praise while noting its early shocks have lost some edge.

Read the full review →
Collider
4 March 2024 · Makenzie Kingston
90*

The critic praises the film's disturbing realism, dark humor, and social commentary, calling it a near-masterpiece of comedic bleakness and one of the most unforgettable black comedies. They highlight its mockumentary style that implicates the audience and crew in the violence.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate