Red Dog - Miller Brewing Co.
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 599 | Reviews: 172 | Display Reviews Only:
1.08/5 rDev -46.3%
Words can't describe this beer, but I'll try. It is bitter and painfully bitter, almost sour. It is watery and tastes like corn. There is nothing remotely hoppy about it. It hardly tastes like any other beer i've had. The mouthfeel is watery and heavier than it should be for an American Macro Lager. I don't think I'll ever have another Red Dog.
11-25-2006 03:04:26 | More by zeff80
2.55/5 rDev +26.9%
GABF gave it a metal, so i'll give it another chance...
Pours out a decent straw color with a small white head.
Smell. Overall sweet and adjuct-smelling, slightly rubbery.
Taste. Not too bad, but not really too good. Still a bit sweet and definetly macro tasting, but for the price is ok. If you try ro imagine it, you'll get just a slight hint of dry hops. Aftertaste is sweet.
Mouthfeel. Decent for the style, average but light body. Good amount of carbonation, balance is off though.
Overall, i guess it does what it is intended to do- be a cheap beer. Certainly not undrinkable when comparing it to others similar to it. but does it deserve any type of medal? hell no.
10-18-2006 05:03:04 | More by acrawf6
1.1/5 rDev -45.3%
CONTAINER VOLUME: 355ml
CONTAINER TYPE: bottle
PURCHASED @: anywhere
AROMA: metallic urine
COMMENTS: Another BMC, but with a little character. Why are they allowed to put "Premium" on the bottle?!
MOWING/WORKING ON CAR- n
WITH FRIENDS- n
GET MY BUZZ ON- n
09-13-2006 07:09:49 | More by TechMyst
2.38/5 rDev +18.4%
Bought this one, huge 32 oz. can, because it was there on the shelve.
Pours a light yellow, with no head nor lacing to talk about.
Smell is almost non existant.
Taste is mild, weak, absolutly adjuncts. Mostly corn.
Mouthfeel is has a surprising bitter finish, light though.
Drinkability is it's high point since out there, right now at 10:22 pm., it's 91°F. But I have much better domestic beers.
08-22-2006 03:19:13 | More by Pepeton
2.38/5 rDev +18.4%
Pours a yellow fizzy color, with carbonation streams going crazy, and a large white head. Aroma is definitely adjuncts. They are not strong however. Light bodied. Taste was adjuncty with corn being the most prominent. Metallic astringincys are also there. Mouthfeel is just not there. Not a very good beer.
08-21-2006 02:11:51 | More by HoustonTX
3.5/5 rDev +74.1%
A new beer can in my country, specifically in my city, little better than its other presentation glass bottle, made by miller, a strong american brewer in my country, i think best than A&B in market participation, a 32 oz beer, like "Caguama", i drink in a pilsner glass, its taste is like crusehd hops, little of malt liquour reminicense, poor color, pale yellow, poor lacing, good for the mexican food, 70% recommended.
08-08-2006 14:28:21 | More by tesguino
1.78/5 rDev -11.4%
Actually was not going to even rate this, but beer rating means every beer, no matter what. Reminded me of what my dad drank years ago, and even when I drank mostly macros, this would not have cut it. Simply another cheap beer, along the lines of Old Milwaukee, etc. Fortunately, someone left this at my house, so I actually did not pay good money for it.
07-21-2006 02:47:59 | More by kimcgolf
2.13/5 rDev +6%
Poured a clear yellow color with a fizzy white head. Aroma was corn/adjuncts, though not particularly unpleasant. Definitely smelled like a Miller product. Body was light and the taste had a lot of corn. Some metallic flavor in there too. Not very pleasant. Mouthfeel was lacking, which made the drinkability suffer.
I am somewhat of a connoisseur of cheap beer. This one isn't very good, though. High Life and Schlitz are still where it's at.
05-29-2006 03:29:14 | More by shererjt
4.03/5 rDev +100.5%
This beer is fairly decent. I like it a lot. A plus is that it's really cheap. It is failry smooth. Has a bite to it too. Don't think it's bad at all. Don't know why people think it's so bad. The smell of the beer amazed me for an american macro lager. Very nice. It's worth a try.
04-17-2006 07:01:52 | More by jasonjlewis
2.75/5 rDev +36.8%
Had it straight from the bottle at a college party. It's the only true way to drink this one, really.
Appearance: I poured a little into a plastic cup, just to see what it looked like outside of the bottle. Very clear, straw yellow with some bone-white carbonation.
Smell: Corn husk, sweet and smooth. Grainy.
Taste: Cream corn and cooked vegetables, sweet-yet-grainy. Very light levels of hop bitterness, nearly invisible to the taste buds. Baked toasty grains lend some texture to the bland sweetness of the malt.
Mouthfeel: Moderate in body for an adjunct lager. Fizzy.
Verdict: Par for the course.
04-15-2006 08:04:16 | More by bearrunner44
2.1/5 rDev +4.5%
Most of Millers lineup is a touch on the slow side, with both MGD and MHL checking in at 4.7% abv according to the brewery website. Enter Red Dog. At a full 5%, it represents an attempt by Miller to compensate this somewhat and at a good price to boot, and for that reason alone I hesitate to fault this brew overmuch. But the good intentions actually served to point up the reasons the earlier brews were pegged slower; Millers adjunct recipe seems to work best when not pushed too hard.
I have not seen bottled Red Dog in a long time; in fact, these days even the cans apparently are available for sale only in 30-packs ($16 in glamorous Worcester, MA). The label itself, however, has not changed since it first came out in the early 90s. The red, white and black cans catch the eye at first glimpse but after that the label looks crude and brutish and isnt too much fun to look at. The beer itself looks just fine, never having claimed to be a red brew even in the first television spots in which the straight gold lager was in plain view; the color is a touch richer than most macros.
Red Dogs scent, alas, as many before have already mentioned, does not help Millers cause very much. It is an off tanginess with an underlay of sourness which frankly isnt too encouraging, and which I quickly trained the Rumpole schnoz to ignore.
The taste and texture fares somewhat better. Theres some maltiness and some body, and that tangy sweetness thrown in about midway through the tasting. The finish, never a Miller strength, is not too smooth but not the worst either, and disguised easily enough when served cold. On the whole, its not too bad at first. But as you work through the case, you notice the overall roughness of the brew more and more, and drinking it gets laborious. That tangy sweetness becomes harshness and somehow the flavor elements seem to be fighting each other rather than working together. Sometimes a good smoke helps a rough beer out, but in this case there wasnt much difference. I directly compared it to Coors Extra Gold - another effort at a macro with a bit of oomph - and the Extra Gold won easily.
Its too bad. Red Dog has the desired strength and at a decent price, but in this case, Millers good intentions were outstripped by its execution. At that, however, its still better than ice beers and with its 5% delivery, it beats a surprising number of other cheap stuff.
03-08-2006 17:37:16 | More by Rumpole
2.53/5 rDev +25.9%
Yes, I found this on tap the other night in Denver. Very surprised and would not have usually ordered it, but i had to.
Looks like a Killian's Red without the red. Tinge of pink in the light golden hue. No head.
It was very cold, which hid most of the smell and taste. Picked up some malt, grain and caramel in both. A refreshing drink, but I hesitate to call it a refreshing beer. Nothing special, can't imagine how it is warmer.
02-11-2006 17:12:39 | More by Mebuzzard
1.48/5 rDev -26.4%
Keeping with my American tour of Macro's I picked up some red dog from miller brewing. I'm in search of the finest from our big brewing monopolies and this one I hope is not it.
Golden in color very similar to its sister macro lagers. Has an off type smell ....this is a fresh sample. seems skunky but this is how I remember it so I doubt every sample I've tried is oxidized. Tons of medium to large sized carbonation give it a bit of a sizzly mouth.
What you would expect. Maybe a touch more malt presence than usual in this style. Ehhh this could be the last time I confront the red dog.
01-19-2006 06:39:09 | More by DogFood11
2.88/5 rDev +43.3%
Pours a clear, pale gold with a medium-sized, white, fizzy, quickly diminishing head. Some very spotty lacing. The smell is very mild of grain and corn. The taste is, well, not great, but not as horrible as I was expecting. Corn and cereal with some hay and a slightly crisp finish. Not disgustingly sweet on the finish either. Thin body, watery texture, and oddly a rather low carbonation, like its fizzed it all out on the pour. No real prize here, but far from the bottom of the barrel. Oh dear god, taking style into account, Im actually giving this a thumbs-up rating? Nope, cant bring myself to do it.
01-17-2006 22:07:20 | More by ski271
1.63/5 rDev -18.9%
Nasty. A really awesome example of a horrid attempt at making a red beer. It tastes like sour funky bread. Terrible. I cannot understand how they thought a "red" beer should be pale yellow in color, grainy and astringent in smell, and sour and bready in the taste. Not impressed, and will go out of my way to not try this one again.
12-27-2005 06:35:56 | More by jasonpeckins32
1.73/5 rDev -13.9%
Holy crap this is bad. Just figured i would try it cause a huge can was $1.29, knew it was gonna be bad though. This poured a very pale yellow color. People mock the beer because it isn't red but who the hell bought a red dog thinking it was going to be red? This is is a piss swill beer. Lots of carbonation and a unhealthy looking head. Typical macro smell of ass and grains. The chemical smell is there. The taste is fairly harsh, lighty sweet but disgustingly sweet and corny. Light but dirty tasting. Light body fizzy and prickly mouthfeel. Not drinkable!
12-01-2005 04:16:02 | More by kbnooshay
3.63/5 rDev +80.6%
Well, I expected more from this beer, since I wanted to try it in 1999, and just this year I was able to do it. Very pale, almost green, the beer, foam as a lager, but just a few. But what is great is, the dog, actually it looks like welcoming you and like showing you a bottle of the beerm but below the picture.
10-24-2005 14:30:38 | More by nekronos
2.33/5 rDev +15.9%
If Alf was a beer, he would be an ice cold Red Dog. Let me explain why... Miller brought this adjunct into the world in the early 1990's when red beers were a fad...remember that? Oh yeah and that "Plank Road Brewery" thing yeah that was a fad too.. having macro conglomerate companies make virtually the same product under a different name. Now that the red beer phase has sadly come and gone (I miss my Red Wolf, Anheuser Busch) this beer is without a home. From the days when my older brother picked up 6packs of bottles at premium prices to the days of "on sale" 30racks, this beer is past its prime. Pours a light amber color with a robust scent of barely malt and corn. Taste is also of malt with a hint of bitterness left in the palate. Not an impressionable beer at all, especially when trying to get the most of your money. For now this beer will live on in college frat house basements with all loss of the prestige it once had.
10-03-2005 05:58:19 | More by rpgman456
1.23/5 rDev -38.8%
Presentation: 12oz brown glass US-generic longneck bottle, red and brown on white label
Appearance: pale yellow color, medium head, a little lacing
Smell: sweet malt, grain
Taste: medium body, watery mouthfeel, grainy, minimal maltiness and hops
Notes: not a good one
08-27-2005 16:46:57 | More by BeerBeing
1.9/5 rDev -5.5%
This review is part of Macro Smackdown VI, my ongoing attempt to make the consumption of macro lagers more interesting. This edition pits Red Dog against Michelob in a no-holds-barred grudge match between two of the Big Three. Miller has attempted to give this beer some cachet by putting Plank Road Brewery on the can instead of SABMiller. Same old dreck in new clothing or good beer? Let's find out...
Medium amber with slightly more vigorous carbonation. I like the color of this beer better since it's darker and richer looking, but the head is a mess. It's a ghastly shade of grey with a mealy texture, falls to near nothing in minutes and leaves the glass clean. Red Dog has the slight edge on color, although it's more than wiped out by the miserable looking cap. Advantage: Michelob.
The nose is below average, even when taking style into account. The graininess borders on spoiled and there's no hint of hops. I can also appreciate an underlying, chemical-like nastiness that can't be ignored... and is the reason why Michelob wins this round.
Given the smell, I was expecting the full monty of foulness from Red Dog. To its credit, that isn't the case. It's as grainy as its competitor, but is less harsh. It's also a little sweeter (as are many Miller beers), which makes me like it a bit more. Not sweet in the corn syrupy malt liquor sense, but still modestly sweet. Edge to RD in the most important category of all.
The mouthfeel is light and is enthusiastically bubbled. That makes it more interesting in the mouth, even as the flavor is supremely uninteresting.
I'm not sure how the final tally will come out since I haven't put in the scores yet, but the only score that really matters to me is taste. In the end, Red Dog is the slight winner over the more highly heralded Michelob Lager. I could drink a can or two of this stuff if I absolutely had too. Ice cold and accompanied by tongue-numbing spicy food ideally.
08-27-2005 13:32:37 | More by BuckeyeNation
3/5 rDev +49.3%
poured a pale yellow color with abundant white puffy head. Smell is minimal with only a slight sweetness noted. Taste is very mild with little hops or malt to be found, only wetness. Finishes refreshing, but not much more. Good thirst quencher. Spacer beer.
08-27-2005 00:26:14 | More by tgbljb
2.1/5 rDev +4.5%
Pours pale amber with a one finger head. Fades to abundant lacing in a few seconds. No detectable hop aroma, but strong with malt. The lack of hops gives an unbalanced flavor, tastes like low- alcohol malt liquor. Adjunct is present, possibly corn or rice. Naturally, bad tasting beer is one that is difficult to drink. Even the high carbonation does not smooth out the lingerng aftertaste. A bad choice for a cheap session brew.
08-01-2005 23:13:03 | More by PBRstreetgang
1.7/5 rDev -15.4%
Appearance: typical of an American Adjunct - fizzy, pale gold, frothy white head with no stamina.
Aroma: You need to ask? Corn.
Taste: Actually worse than others in the style, if you can believe it. Brackish, metallic. They recommend drinking it ice-cold. Probably to numb the taste buds.
Empty aftertaste sitting on a watery mouthfeel. Not the worst of the style I've had, but...
I tell myself the reason I review these types of beers is so I have a firm appreciation for what a GOOD beer is when I taste it. This 'aint it.
04-30-2005 01:02:54 | More by Hunter
1.48/5 rDev -26.4%
The mighty Red Dog. It's never bad when it's free. It pours the typical golden macro color and has no head. The aroma is bitter, a chemical bitter so it is wise not to smell it before you drink it. The bland corn flavor is not terrible when ice cold, but can become quite gross if allowed to warm up. This is not the worst beer made, but it is by no means worth drinking if MGD or Bud is available.
03-28-2005 05:52:02 | More by RushLimbmalt
1.65/5 rDev -17.9%
A refugeee in my fridge, came from I don't know where. Clear light gold color, with about 2" of foamy head. Lots of visible carbonation. Smell is not very prominent, but when you get close enough smells like skunky corn. Taste is bland, but whatever flavor it has is fairly off. Not a lot of hops presence. A cheap, nasty macro, which I'll recommend a pass on.
03-23-2005 00:18:52 | More by TastyTaste
Red Dog from Miller Brewing Co.
50 out of 100 based on 599 ratings.