The Dog Stars (2026)
Seen in theaters, Thursday 3.5 / 5 |
When I first saw the trailer I was intrigued, mostly by the mention of the book that the film was based on. I looked it up, read it, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a sucker for book-to-movie adaptations and the whole compare-and-contrast exercise that accompanies them. After reading the book, the trailer started giving me mixed feelings. The book appealed to me in a way that post-apocalyptic stories normally don't. I don't go in for overly bleak or hopeless material, and a lot of that genre lands there.
The Dog Stars is different. It's quietly hopeful and even optimistic in a way most in the genre aren't. It takes the end of the world and makes it a very personal story: the emotional fallout, what that kind of isolation would actually feel like, the longing for the world that was. It's not simply a survival story, because just surviving isn't enough.
The Hollywood-ification
After reading the book, my take on the trailer shifted a great deal. I had a feeling the type of story the book told wasn't going to be something mainstream Hollywood would adapt faithfully. If they did, I'm grounded enough to know it wouldn't do well at the box office.
There are stretches that feel incredibly faithful to the book. But this is a classic case of a film not having the runtime to sit inside a character's head, and Hig's head specifically is where the novel shines. What saves the film is the cinematography, which does a lot of heavy lifting in place of his internal voice. Heller's prose is one of my favorite things about the novel, and the film's visuals stand in for that description more often than I expected.
The casting helps a lot. Josh Brolin as Bangley is exactly right. He's practical and blunt to a fault, but ultimately a likable asshole. His odd-couple relationship with Hig is well-worn territory, but it's effective. Jacob Elordi is far more enjoyable here than he was in that terrible Wuthering Heights, and honestly a good fit for this role. Margaret Qualley had me scratching my head at first, because she doesn't match the description or the vibe I had in my head for Cima, but she does a good job with it. And Guy Pearce disappears into Pops as well, despite not fitting the novel version.
Where it loses me
The other survivors are the biggest tonal problem. It's like somebody dropped a few scenes of Mad Max into a much quieter movie, generic apocalyptic sci-fi mash-up stuff that doesn't belong next to the rest of it. We do get some solid action scenes and cool shots involving night vision as a result, but they don't work well as part of this story.
Grand Junction also significantly bothered me. I found it jarring and strange. I understand the change, and it makes the point, but I disagree with that direction. On an up note, we did get a unique and interesting performance from Allison Janney out of it. To say more would be spoilery, so I'll have to leave it vague.
And that's the frustration in a nutshell. The film keeps reaching for action and spectacle in a story whose whole point is that it isn't exciting. The book is slow, reflective, contemplative, and it's that way on purpose. Trying to make it move faster is exactly how you miss the core of it. The moments where it does capture the spirit of the original make the misses hurt worse, which lands this as one of my more frustrating films of the year. After seeing it and thinking it over since, Ridley Scott directing this is a red flag I should have picked up on. I love his movies like Alien, Gladiator, and Blade Runner, but this story is about as far from that as you could get.
Worth noting: this is the first movie in a long time where I've seen a walkout. A couple in the back row got up and left a little before the halfway point. I didn't find it that bad. I actually enjoyed the movie, it just wasn't great, or what this story could have been if adapted more faithfully. It's nowhere near walkout territory on my scale, but I can understand why someone would.
I also won't pretend to be objective here. It's very hard to separate what I experienced reading the book while watching the film. I do suspect I got far more out of this than a cold viewer would. I know I was filling in the gaps and emotional beats the film was failing to translate, which evened out my experience.
Verdict
3.5 out of 5. I wish I could go higher. It's enjoyable, I'll watch it again, and I'll probably pick up a copy so I can have the novel and the adaptation sitting on the shelf together. It's an interesting one to pull apart and think through the choices made during the adaptation process. I'm bumping this an extra half star for also having a really solid soundtrack, and factoring in how much I loved the book.
If you've read the book, see it in theaters. The visuals alone are worth it, and there are sections where they nail the tone of the novel. If you haven't, consider waiting for streaming, or better, read the book first if you can get it done before this leaves theaters. It's worth your time. I just don't think the film is the best introduction to this story.
Ollie enjoyed it, mostly for Jasper (the dog) and the action sequences. Jake and John Paul both seemed to enjoy it overall, and not having read the book, they could accept the movie at face value, appreciating both the action and the more faithful portions. They both said this isn't one either of them would have gone to see on their own.
Frustration is the word for my experience with this one. It could have been so different, but I'm not sure how you adapt this book faithfully and still sell it. I don't know what "mass market appeal" requires, so I understand the changes they made. As a fan of the book, it's still disappointing.