The film opened to negative reviews when it opened in the late spring of 1976.
Richard Eder of
The New York Times wrote, "What saves the movie, a jumble of good jokes and bad, sloppiness, chaos and apparently any old thing that came to hand, is Madeline Kahn...What she has as
W.C. Fields and
Buster Keaton and
Charlie Chaplin had is a kind of unwavering purpose at right angles to reality, a concentration that she bears,
Magoolike, through all kinds of unreasonable events." Arthur D. Murphy of
Variety reported that "this project might have worked to a degree of whimsy. But the alchemy in the direction has turned potential cotton candy into reinforced concrete; Winner's
Death Wish is funnier in comparison.
Kevin Thomas of the
Los Angeles Times wrote "Sixty guest stars can't save
Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood...from its unrelentingly crass tone and steady stream of unfunny jokes. Unquestionably, the best performance is given by an appealing German shepherd named Augustus Von Schumacher, who plays Won Ton Ton."
Gene Siskel of the
Chicago Tribune gave the film two stars out of four and called it "a scattershot comedy that can't make up its mind whether to be 'wholesome family entertainment' or a smutty film industry in-joke. It goes both ways."
Jerry Oster of the
New York Daily News wrote that "the script, by Arnold Schulman and Cy Howard, is singular among comedies in that it has not one funny line. The direction, by Michael Winner (Michael Winner, he of such cynical movies as
The Mechanic and
Death Wish, directing a comedy?) has a confused, questing quality to it. The acting—by Bruce Dern, as the dog's director, Madeline Kahn, as the dog's best friend.
Art Carney, as a producer, and
Ron Leibman, as a
Valentino-esque actor—is extravagantly bad, as if grimaces and gesticulations would conceal the script's inadequacies. Won Ton Ton is played by a dog named Augustus Von Schumacher (pets should be protected from their owner's muses), who is quite appealing and who, when he covers his ears as some dynamite is about to explode, chalks up the movie's only laugh. If only it weren't for all those people." Patrick Taggart of the
Austin American-Statesman wrote: John Pym of
The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote "Michael Winner does not have
Mel Brooks' frenzied gift for marshaling this sort of material; and, to make matters worse, the script attains a level of parody no higher than Ron Leibman's mincing caricature of Valentino, embellished with little more than the standard mannerisms of the familiar theatrical queen." Gary Arnold of
The Washington Post stated "This tacky exercise in mock nostalgia may be added to that recent, weirdly miscalculated genre that includes
W. C. Fields and Me,
Gable and Lombard and
The Day of the Locust...They may be presented as uninhibited, madcap spoofs of
Old Hollywood, but they tend to end up illustrating the
New Hollywood at its most crass, insecure and condescending." Susan Stark of the
Detroit Free Press wrote that the comedy "has about as much to do with a dog named Won Ton Ton saving Hollywood as it has to do with God having made little green apples or the price of eggs in China. We have become accustomed to imprecise or misleading movie titles but this one is downright inaccurate. Probably there was once a movie about a dog named Won Ton Ton who saved Hollywood that looked like a loser and was sent back to the cutting room. We'll never know for sure, but that picture almost had to be better than the one presently on view. As it stands, this picture not only omits the story of the dog who saved Hollywood, it omits any story altogether. A dog named Won Ton Ton, however, is indeed present." Of the acting, Stark wrote that "not even an actor of Dern's estimable caliber can do a thing with that kind of tiresome material", that Kahn, "In addition to being given a wealth of flat comic material", "is coiffed and clothed in exceptionally unflattering style" and that "the dog, a German shepherd, comes off best, largely because he does not have to share the burden of speaking the lines as written but also because no one interfered much with his naturally dignified appearance. The rhinestone collar he has to wear for the part is all but obscured by his healthy coat and they never did get him to use the gold-plated fire hydrant parked next to his between-takes spot on the movie-within-a-movie set." She ended the review by saying, "you've heard of
Lassie, Come Home? They should call this one,
Won Ton Ton, Go Home.." Jeanne Miller of the
San Francisco Examiner also enjoyed the dog's performance, but remarked, as well, that the film "starts with a marvelously whimsical premise that director Michael Winner is unable to develop in rich comic terms." Joe Pollack of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote "On one level,
Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood, is an atrocious movie. Supposedly a comic spoof, it lacks humor. It also lacks grace, class, style and intelligence, a group of attributes more common in their absence than their presence in many Hollywood productions, but not generally absent to such a great degree. On another level, however, the movie is so bad that it is almost good. It is an exercise in how to take a pretty good idea and to overdo it until quintessential boredom is reached, but it also provides an opportunity to see a fading galaxy of former-stars, most of whom cause a first reaction of, 'Gee, I didn't know he was still alive.'" The film was one of five reviewed in the July 16, 1976, edition of
The Times of London, where
David Robinson had some particularly biting criticisms of it: A mildly positive review of the film came from Perry Stewart of the
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, who wrote, It will come as no great surprise to any of you that
Won Ton Ton the Dog Who Saved Hollywood falls short of, say,
Citizen Kane and
Barry Lyndon. What will be a mild and agreeable shock to some is that this new comedy at the
Cineworld and Pioneer 4 is not the dog (sorry) that some national reviewers have said it is." Stewart continued, "
Won Ton Ton is in fact a pleasant dose of PG humor which, while not altogether without sophistication, must have missed a G rating by the narrowest of squeaks. And oddly it is those few lapses of language which seem the most awkward and unnecessary. ==References==