--- title: "Man Bites Dog: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/man-bites-dog/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/man-bites-dog" critics_score: 73 critics_reviews: 6 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Man Bites Dog (1992): what the critics said Critics' score 73 from 6 reviews: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative. 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 — GA Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 15 April 2015. 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/man-bites-dog) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 2 April 1993. 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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-02-ca-18344-story.html) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 17 May 1993. 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 review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/05/24/killing-joke) ## Variety Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 4 June 1992. Festival review. 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 review](https://variety.com/1992/film/reviews/c-est-arrive-pres-de-chez-vous-man-bites-dog-1200430143/) ## The New York Times — Stephen Holden Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 9 October 1992. Festival review. 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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/09/movies/review-film-festival-mad-dog-violence-on-tv-sensationalism-or-spoof.html) ## Empire — Mark Salisbury 1 January 2000. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/man-bites-dog-review/) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias 28 January 2010. 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 review](https://www.avclub.com/man-bites-dog-1798218894) ## Collider — Makenzie Kingston Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 4 March 2024. 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 review](https://collider.com/man-bites-dog-movie/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/man-bites-dog.md