Picking up these low-budget indie flicks is a little like playing Russian Roulette, except that it seems this way there are more chances to shoot yourself in the head. So few times do I actually find something good. 'Lucky' almost made it. It is a twisted look at the inner workings of a writer's mind, manifested in a dog that has come back from the dead. I did laugh a couple of times, but more often than not I found myself grimacing - almost sickened by this guy Mudd. It is a clever film, well done, but it sort of misses its mark, I think, because it is a lot darker than one would think a movie about a talking dog would be. Plus the philosophical ramblings of Mudd, whenever he got off on his tangents, were very hard to follow - although I realize that was the point. Interesting enough to warrant a look, but not quite a hit.
22 Reviews
Twisted, repulsive yet strangely compelling
Billybob-Shatner21 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I think it's safe to say Lucky is a dark comedy. A pitch black comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, it boasts reasonable production values, and some pretty damned good acting. Particularly from its lead. The abundant voice over narration is often clever, unique, and disturbing. After an engaging first act, the movie lost me a little when it became about its namesake. A dog named LUCKY. The limitations of the budget show here, and a potentially stronger film is squelched. The filmmakers are never able to effectively pull off, in my opinion, a believable talking dog (even if its obviously intended to be a hallucination of the protagonist). Frankly, it comes off continually silly, and without a hint of menace. The last act also is a major cheat, the equivalent of the narrative poison "It was all a dream". For what it was, I enjoyed Lucky. A superior super low budget straight to video movie. If you're not offended by much, it might just be worth a rental.
Man's Best Friend Gone Wrong
gavin694228 February 2007
A writer who has lost his way hits a small dog one night while drunk driving. After taking the dog home and nursing him back to life (a dog called Lucky, by the way) the writer begins to hear voices and his writing improves. But what is the hidden cost? In many ways, the writing of this movie is by far its best strength, but also its weakness. The first ten or twenty minutes have some of the best writing I've ever seen in a horror film -- the monologue is crisp, well-thought out and transcends the simplicity and one-dimensionalness usually found in horror characters. The sad thing is, though, that while the writer is really good at this... they seem to lack the ability to move beyond this. The film never stops being self-reflective to move on to a real plot-driven film.
Now, I'm not saying the plot is bad. A speaking dog telling a man how to write and then trying to run his life is a good story, especially when it leads to murder. But the plot doesn't evolve -- it's still in the same place throughout much of the film (and it doesn't help the action never leaves the man's living room).
The dog's voice was annoying to me, and we could have used less of this (again, it tends to become repetitious after a while with no progress). But when your story revolves around the dog, I guess you're only given so many options.
Another strength was the grotesque and violent (yet, in some ways comedic) sex scenes. The average viewer would probably be appalled by the violence and the man's cold callousness. And yes, there's necrophilia. But I think this is something many horror fans will appreciate -- I saw the film with two women, which was odd, but still found the scenes as appropriate as I did disturbing.
Overall, the film is okay and in fact quite decent if you look beyond the dragging in the second half. As I've said, the writing is excellent and the acting in all cases is also great (everyone was perfectly in character and had that morbid humor I think was necessary). You could do worse than this, and if you're looking for evil dog movies, this beats the pants off stupidity like Wes Craven's "The Breed".
Now, I'm not saying the plot is bad. A speaking dog telling a man how to write and then trying to run his life is a good story, especially when it leads to murder. But the plot doesn't evolve -- it's still in the same place throughout much of the film (and it doesn't help the action never leaves the man's living room).
The dog's voice was annoying to me, and we could have used less of this (again, it tends to become repetitious after a while with no progress). But when your story revolves around the dog, I guess you're only given so many options.
Another strength was the grotesque and violent (yet, in some ways comedic) sex scenes. The average viewer would probably be appalled by the violence and the man's cold callousness. And yes, there's necrophilia. But I think this is something many horror fans will appreciate -- I saw the film with two women, which was odd, but still found the scenes as appropriate as I did disturbing.
Overall, the film is okay and in fact quite decent if you look beyond the dragging in the second half. As I've said, the writing is excellent and the acting in all cases is also great (everyone was perfectly in character and had that morbid humor I think was necessary). You could do worse than this, and if you're looking for evil dog movies, this beats the pants off stupidity like Wes Craven's "The Breed".
Dark Comedy Short on Laughs
suspiria1017 April 2004
This black comedy and horror hybrid stars Michael Emanuel as cartoon scriptwriter Millard Mudd. Mudd suffers from writer's block, alcoholism and a severely overactive imagination. One day on a late night beer run Mudd mows down a poor dog appropriately named Lucky. In his stupor he takes pity on the dog and takes it home to nurse him back to health. After a few days of heavy sleeping Lucky succumbs to his injuries. As Mudd gives Lucky a `good Christian burial' it appears that Lucky comes back from the dead and begins to dictate scripts telepathically to the very impressionable Mudd. The poor lonely Mudd's fantasy life and reality collide when the girl of his dreams enters his life and brings him floating back towards reality. But his happiness comes to an abrupt end when Lucky puts an end to his happiness and leads Mudd down the path of murder and debauchery.
This indie feature written by Stephen Sustarsic and helmed by first-time director Steve Cuden is a cleverly written low budget affair which is entertaining but not laugh out-loud funny. Put together well but lacked the budget to pull together a couple of good gory set pieces that would have helped the film tremendously. The writing and directing are good but a quicker pace may have helped the film too.
A good but unfulfilling dark comedy that has a twisted laugh every now and again and touches on horror elements but never seems to commit to either one wholeheartedly.
Suspiria10 gives it a C-.
This indie feature written by Stephen Sustarsic and helmed by first-time director Steve Cuden is a cleverly written low budget affair which is entertaining but not laugh out-loud funny. Put together well but lacked the budget to pull together a couple of good gory set pieces that would have helped the film tremendously. The writing and directing are good but a quicker pace may have helped the film too.
A good but unfulfilling dark comedy that has a twisted laugh every now and again and touches on horror elements but never seems to commit to either one wholeheartedly.
Suspiria10 gives it a C-.
Kept me watching, at least
FilmFatale21 January 2007
Millard Mudd is a down on his luck cartoon writer whose fortunes change with the arrival of a cute little dog named Lucky. Murder and mayhem ensue.
Lucky is not a good movie - it's too wordy, the "hero" is completely unlikeable, and the pacing is off. But it's filled with more disturbing stuff than most movies: necrophilia, sex torture, and chainsaws among them. Plus it really seems to hate women. SIDEBAR: I'm a chick horror fan and get really upset when people point to horror flicks as nothing but misogyny. But this movie really doesn't like women.
It kept me watching right up to the dumb ending because I had to see where it was going. Has some darkly funny moments but nothing special. No animal cruelty though - the car wreck that introduces Lucky excepted.
Best Line: "Perception is nine tenths of the law."
Lucky is not a good movie - it's too wordy, the "hero" is completely unlikeable, and the pacing is off. But it's filled with more disturbing stuff than most movies: necrophilia, sex torture, and chainsaws among them. Plus it really seems to hate women. SIDEBAR: I'm a chick horror fan and get really upset when people point to horror flicks as nothing but misogyny. But this movie really doesn't like women.
It kept me watching right up to the dumb ending because I had to see where it was going. Has some darkly funny moments but nothing special. No animal cruelty though - the car wreck that introduces Lucky excepted.
Best Line: "Perception is nine tenths of the law."
Ambition on a budget that should deliver but doesn't
dalbrect15 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, I was a little surprised when I came here and found that this movie had won a couple of awards. I pulled it off the shelf because I'd read a couple of good reviews on horror web-sites and I'm always up for something a little different. After watching the film, I can't help but think that the praise and the awards come from the fact that it is a decent effort whose low budget rarely shows in the production. With really good horror films a rarity, especially when you discount the teen-beat cash-cow flicks that hollywood cranks out, a movie like Lucky seems better than it really is because at least it tries to do something different, with "natural" actors, without relying on cliches and market research. Still, Lucky doesn't cross the line of cleverness that really would have made this one special. Throwing in a talking dog that helps you and then wants you to kill is the premise that sold me on this film but as it turns out it doesn't deliver. It's ok, with maybe a little too much graphic abuse to women, and you've seen it all before. But hey, at least they tried and if you ever sat around dreaming of making a low-budget horror movie you wouldn't fault yourself by watching Lucky and taking some notes.
And now a little bit of commentary that requires spoilers:
*SPOILER* The demonic talking dog actually works in this film. They don't use a cartoony voice for the Lucky (which, in the context of the film would have worked since the narrator is a cartoonist) but instead use a velvety, street-savvy voice and this really helps add a sinister edge to the creature. What doesn't work is the fact that the film boils down the hallucinations of a serial-killer which you expect from the first ten-minutes. The evil dog could have been a toaster by the end of this film for all it mattered and that really is too bad. It's not often you get such a silly image of evil in the guise of a cute little dog and when you got it working you have to run with it. A lot of potential lost here.
And now a little bit of commentary that requires spoilers:
*SPOILER* The demonic talking dog actually works in this film. They don't use a cartoony voice for the Lucky (which, in the context of the film would have worked since the narrator is a cartoonist) but instead use a velvety, street-savvy voice and this really helps add a sinister edge to the creature. What doesn't work is the fact that the film boils down the hallucinations of a serial-killer which you expect from the first ten-minutes. The evil dog could have been a toaster by the end of this film for all it mattered and that really is too bad. It's not often you get such a silly image of evil in the guise of a cute little dog and when you got it working you have to run with it. A lot of potential lost here.
Lucky..if you can stay awake!
mackdaddyspliffs17 January 2004
Well...i rented this movie only because i needed a second movie to rent at the video store and this one promised a dollar back if returned the next day...now i know why..they knew no one would want to keep this poor excuse of a movie in their house for more then a day. I believe it actually lowered my intelligence. The funny thing is, the main character rambles on as if he is supposed to be intelligent with a bunch of 50 cent words at best...and funny enough the only reason i rented this movie was the fact that the box description claimed a dog<which looked a little like the taco bell dog with a mohawk with an african american accent> actually talked, and told him things to do...well the dog never physically talks, it just talks TELEKENETICALLY...i would tell you more..but half way through the film my eyes began to close as well did my fiances...so at least this movie serves as a sleep aid...That sadly however is its only purpose. Please dont do like i normally do and rent the movie despite the bad review, when i say this movie sucks worse then having a dog p*ss on the leg of your best dress slacks...i mean it!!
bad
wrlang7 August 2006
Here it is. Out the thousands of movies I've seen over the decades, this one BITES. I could always find something to like about every movie, but this one is totally disturbed. A bad writer in a bad situation makes some bad decisions with bad results and creates more bad situations that snowball into more bad situations with bad dialogue and bad filming and bad screenplay. The dog is bad, even before it dies. The characters are bad. The music is bad. The smell of the DVD is bad. The art work is bad. There is no suspense. The gore is bad. The special effects are bad. I had to take some Pepto in the middle of the movie, but like a trooper I choked the entire movie down. That night I even had a bad dream about the movie. Guinness Book is looking at this one right now as the worlds badest of the bad.
Bizarre low budget
atinder15 March 2014
Lucky (2004) I have no idea what to say about this movie, I saw two night ago, I still can't find words to tell how it felt.
Well the movie was very low budget movie and very strange with all the flashing and thinking scenes from killing and the scenes repeating them self. There were some decent funny moments in this movie, which made me laugh , He dated his half sister, who had a bigger penis then him lol . I had me laughing few seconds, something I didn't like this movie, sleeping with dead that was bit to far!)
I thought story about dog controlling his owner, would of been a decent plot but this movie was just so Bizarre.
The dog was cute in every scenes, voice for the dog didn't really suit the dog at all, he didn't seem really.
Had some bloody moment, as some comedy moments but had some moments, were I think the movie went to far, I had to fast forward one scenes, I thought it was bad taste. 4 out of 10
Well the movie was very low budget movie and very strange with all the flashing and thinking scenes from killing and the scenes repeating them self. There were some decent funny moments in this movie, which made me laugh , He dated his half sister, who had a bigger penis then him lol . I had me laughing few seconds, something I didn't like this movie, sleeping with dead that was bit to far!)
I thought story about dog controlling his owner, would of been a decent plot but this movie was just so Bizarre.
The dog was cute in every scenes, voice for the dog didn't really suit the dog at all, he didn't seem really.
Had some bloody moment, as some comedy moments but had some moments, were I think the movie went to far, I had to fast forward one scenes, I thought it was bad taste. 4 out of 10
Deserves to be better known
taguanutivory23 September 2005
The story is a bit cold-blooded, but the dialog between Millard the mediocre writer and Lucky the demonic dog is some of the wittiest ever you'll hear in American film. And the sparkling cast does the dialog justice. A minor morbid gem along the lines of "Eating Raul" and "The Honeymoon Killers."
The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, have a long and extensive background in television sitcoms, but here he seems to have let his unbridled id indulge in the sort of Rabelasian humor that the networks would NEVER allow. As it is, this movie's take on every writer's nightmare when facing creative paralysis cuts a lot deeper than anything Stephen King has managed.
The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, have a long and extensive background in television sitcoms, but here he seems to have let his unbridled id indulge in the sort of Rabelasian humor that the networks would NEVER allow. As it is, this movie's take on every writer's nightmare when facing creative paralysis cuts a lot deeper than anything Stephen King has managed.
un"lucky" to have seen this film!!
criterion-11 November 2002
I saw this at NYC Horror Film Festival and was shocked to read that it won for best feature!!! This film was boring and lackluster and by no means was compelling. I do not see why it is labeled as a horror film. Maybe because it is horrific.
A Fantastic Film
plpete11 November 2002
I saw this film at the New York City Horror Film Festival, and have to say it was one of the scariest but funniest movies I've ever seen. I was laughing out loud when at the very same time I was scared half to death by Millard Mudd, the lead character. This movie is brainey, sick, and yet very entertaining. I couldn't believe how I was laughing even at the most horrifying things. Very well done! It truly deserved to win Best Film at the festival. I really reccommend it if you like creepy black comedies.
Count yourself Lucky if you didn't see this
pawacoteng12 February 2003
I saw this at the San Francisco independent film festival, and it was totally contrived and boring. It was intended to shock the audience, I was just shocked on how slow and unimaginative this supposively innovative movie was. I won't give it away, but will only say that you will be disappointed if you decide to watch the whole movie through. It certainly does not get better as it drags on.
Misogynistic Garbage
clarason-110 June 2004
This movie is complete garbage. I didn't think it was funny or anything. I could find no redeeming value in this movie at all. Do you think it would be okay for someone to make a movie about a child molester killing kids and raping them? Neither do I, and I also don't think it is okay for them to make a movie where the killer does this to women. When is the world going to wake and realize that this kind of stuff is not okay?
This movie supposedly won awards. So did Eminem, the guy who sings about raping his 10 year old sister. Well, I think it is very misogynistic and Hastings should not be carrying this kind of movie. Next time I'll be renting at Blockbuster.
This movie supposedly won awards. So did Eminem, the guy who sings about raping his 10 year old sister. Well, I think it is very misogynistic and Hastings should not be carrying this kind of movie. Next time I'll be renting at Blockbuster.
Daring Pitch Black Comedy and Horror
haydenflicks4 February 2004
To be humorous on a low budget feature is often a very difficult task. To blend humor and horror is an even more arduous task. But director Steve Cuden does so with such imagination and creativity. With a feature that can best be described as daring, Cuden has created a jet black comedy that will chill you. With great performances and a distinct visual style, this hybrid film will thoroughly entertain and sit up and beg for repeat viewings. Definitely, check this film out!
Disturbing...yet compelling and amazing.
barlowman930 September 2002
Wow! Attended a local film festival where they were showcasing horror / sci-fi films. This definitely caught our eye being the basis about a talking dog and how it drives his owner to kill. After the film, my friends and I were shocked and disturbed but we were so enthralled that we can't stop talking about it. This is one pet you don't want to forget to walk or feed!
A Boy and His Dog on steroids.
lbacker26 June 2018
If you chuckled at the lines "Marvelous judgement, but not particularly good taste" at the end of A Boy and His Dog. This might interest you.
If you roared with laughter, This is for you!
The interviews and information added to the disk are almost as good as the film.
A very complex plot. Everyone takes away something different. Pay close attention to the ending and it makes sense - Sort of.
Does a lot with a low budget. Plenty of droll humor, and subtlety.
Not a kiddy film. This is as far from Lassie Come Home as you can get.
If you are the kind of person who watches people and likes to know what makes them tick, you will find plenty to chew on.
One of the better NOIR films. Quills is another. Subtlety of plot makes it fun for someone who doesn't want everything spelled out.
A real treat in our Politically Correct TV sitcom world.
If you roared with laughter, This is for you!
The interviews and information added to the disk are almost as good as the film.
A very complex plot. Everyone takes away something different. Pay close attention to the ending and it makes sense - Sort of.
Does a lot with a low budget. Plenty of droll humor, and subtlety.
Not a kiddy film. This is as far from Lassie Come Home as you can get.
If you are the kind of person who watches people and likes to know what makes them tick, you will find plenty to chew on.
One of the better NOIR films. Quills is another. Subtlety of plot makes it fun for someone who doesn't want everything spelled out.
A real treat in our Politically Correct TV sitcom world.
Dark Imagination
mikehurst3325 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I bought the DVD of Lucky after reading about it on a horror film site I stumbled across. I just watched it and was very, very impressed. Other comments accusing the film of misogyny are, in my view, misguided. Every abuse and sadistic scene is set up in such a way that, well, I'll abide by the SPOILER warning and not spell it out here, but if you watch the film (and I strongly recommend you do) then you'll see what I mean. All in all I felt this was excellent story telling, really communicating the inherently terrifying concept of what it would FEEL like to lose your mind. That (in answer to some of the previous comments) is what makes it a horror film, and a damn effective one at that. Congratulations to the guys who made it and I'll be sure to check out anything else that the writer and director make in the future.
Seen It? Oh, You Lucky Dog!
erawlinsnyc28 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I happened to be one of the few, very fortunate people to see this at a recent screening during the "first annual" NYC (Independent) Horror Film Festival, and let me tell you, it was a real treat! It was far and away the favourite-of-show (winning Best in Show by the judging panel, and - ballot tabulation not having been posted, I can only guess, but probably - audience favourite as well). Pray that some distributor has the good sense to overlook its idiosyncratic, non-mainstream nature and recognise it as must-see cinema. This is one hard film to describe without ruining surprises or giving away too much. The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, has done a great job of summarising it without including spoilers, so I will try to give you a feel for the movie instead of a synopsis. In Hollywood Speak, it would be The Secret Life of Walter Mitty meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, with dashes of Amelie and Twin Falls, Idaho (and possibly Crumb) thrown in for flavour. But it is definitely much more than the sum of its filmic predecessor parts. First and foremost, it has a loopy, loony, don't-take-me-too-seriously quality, augmented by the music (one almost expects an accordion from some French cafe to be playing in the background, as in Delicatessen or Amelie, but it's a bit more restrained than that), which absolutely belies the seriousness of what's actually taking place. But it is this deludedly, deceptively droll approach which helps take the audience by the hand and lead them willingly along to the abhorrent shocks that await.
It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.
This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!
It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.
This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!
Scary/funny - good acting Carrie Barton
ggmail1 September 2006
This movie must be viewed with an open mind - realizing it is a spoof, I believe - and not to be taken seriously. Carrie Barton (as Sadie Pray) in the blonde wig was just too funny and completely looked different than her pix on this website. I believed her and wanted to see more of her. Even though Carrie's part was small, she continued to be impressive with her subtle portrayal of a character difficult to portray, in that it was a character that could easily be "overdone." While the movie does have some disturbing scenes, overall those scenes were not so objectionable that I turned away. It was funny. I look forward to following her career planned for the future.
I've seen worse
wheelsofterror11 February 2004
The previous commenter said that the dog talked telekinetically. That's what Millard makes up. I believe Millard actually made up the dog's voice in his twisted mind. I think most of what occurs in the movie is in Millard's mind and he's the killer all alone by himself. Some of Millard's voice-overs aren't that bad . It's only worth one viewing though, nothing great here.
Clichéd and uninteresting
planometric-rotoscope20 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This film has nothing to do with the 'horror' tag it is being sold on it is more of a sit-com about a screen writer's delusions (in more ways than one). The film's central character provides a cliché ridden narration from start to end - on word count alone it would probably be enough for 4 films however the schoolboy shallows that are being scraped make it wearisome after the first five-ten minutes. Maybe this is intended but it makes any genuinely interesting (visual) details, and there are at least enough to count on one hand, seem forced.
I think the only reason this film has been noticed in any way is though some cabal amongst screenwriters determined to see their profession on the silver screen, which judging by this effort must be resisted.
The next bit contains SPOILERS.
Into our hero's world comes Lucky as soon- to-be undead dog whose magical 'knowledge' helps our hero to hitherto unknown success (which isn't enough for a rags-to-riches story). The dog is as clichéd as the hero (I think velvety, pimp voices as signifying 'knowledge' outdated themselves in the early 70s) but his acting is marginally better. A major turn for the worse is seeing the sexual fantasies of our middle-aging hero in their full suburban banality, and for these segments the narration intensifies to full-on teenage angst. It would have been a far, far better movie if we actually saw the dog killing the women that provided the energy for his scripts rather than hearing the hero sitting at his computer.
I think the only reason this film has been noticed in any way is though some cabal amongst screenwriters determined to see their profession on the silver screen, which judging by this effort must be resisted.
The next bit contains SPOILERS.
Into our hero's world comes Lucky as soon- to-be undead dog whose magical 'knowledge' helps our hero to hitherto unknown success (which isn't enough for a rags-to-riches story). The dog is as clichéd as the hero (I think velvety, pimp voices as signifying 'knowledge' outdated themselves in the early 70s) but his acting is marginally better. A major turn for the worse is seeing the sexual fantasies of our middle-aging hero in their full suburban banality, and for these segments the narration intensifies to full-on teenage angst. It would have been a far, far better movie if we actually saw the dog killing the women that provided the energy for his scripts rather than hearing the hero sitting at his computer.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
