Little Fish, Strange Pond

I saw this titled as "Frenemy" but "Little Fish, Strange Pond" is a much better title. It's not just that Mr. Jack (Matthew Modine) and Sweet Stephan (Callum Blue) are small players in the grand schemes of the world, but that the world is a strange place.

Mr. Jack and Sweet Stephan walk around L.A. together. It's about the weird characters they meet, the crimes they observe, but ultimately, it's about them, their place in the world, their past and their fate. Paraphrasing from one of Modine's speeches, it was a great day, just a day, but it had the perfect mix of intrigue, danger, tragedy, love, sex, violence and plain old American fun.

There was more tragedy and violence, and less love and sex than most people would have in their perfect day, but it was brilliant. Forget "The Social Network", "Little Fish, Strange Pond" has the best dialogue of the year, and Matthew Modine and Callum Blue deliver the best performances of their careers. Be prepared for profanity and disturbing actions, but this is one great little film in a strange pond.

Just a few words. First, the movie was above average. I like that the director was trying to do something different, but I think he didn't take his weirdness far enough. I'd like to have seen more stylistic camera work, and perhaps better written dialog at times.

I mainly signed up to post this: Am I the only one tired of these anti-intellectual pricks coming on here just to say OH I GUESS I'M NOT ARTSY ENOUGH TO GET THIS MOVIE or OH THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIKE THIS MOVIE THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR.

How insecure are people who post comments like that? How much of an inferiority complex do you have to have to watch a movie you don't enjoy and then automatically assume that everyone who enjoys it imagines themselves as superior to you? I think my previous sentence might be a bit too long for such people to follow. Translation: YOU INSECURE. OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MOVIE. THAT ALL. GO BED. BETTER YET EAT CHEETO. A LOT CHEETO.

Some people enjoy movies (or don't enjoy them (I'm not sure the type of people I'm addressing can understand the concept of digressive parenthetical remarks--particularly parentheses within parentheses--not to mention the double dashes which serve as further parenthetical-type remarks--no doubt this type thinks parentheses are optional and thus when happening upon that first curvy line skips immediately to the last curvy line--thus this type won't know I'm insulting them right here, right now)) without thinking about whether they appear intelligent to others for enjoying said movies.

In other words, if you think other people think they are smarter than you because they like a movie---they are probably smarter than you. But not for that reason.

I will start this article by conceding some points. yes the film cover is very misleading both in showing what kind of film it is and who the main stars are. Yes the film is made by a porn director who has little experience outside that field although he has directed several episodes of OZ!

Every review I have read has hated this film. I think maybe people's opinion may be clouded because it was not the movie they expected when they purchased the DVD. This movie is full of original characters and clever story telling. The dialogue (although not as good) is very much in the Cohen brothers/ Tarantino style of talk for the sake of thought rather than plot development and although the story is quite interesting the film is more about getting you thinking or talking about the issues it raises. IE - what is wrong and what is right and why do these 2 opposing forces exist in the human psyche. This is an original film and should be viewed not as a comedy but as a chance to spend and hour and 10 minutes enjoying some unique characters and discuss a subject which is part of the make up for all our psyches and not as a slapstick comedy that will make you chuckle twice if your lucky. Enter this film with the correct expectations and you are in for a real treat.

The film does have a religious undertone but I do not feel it was trying to use religion as anything other than a means to discuss the way we battle with "right and wrong" in our own minds

I, like many others, was drawn to this movie because Zach Galifianakis was on the cover. It was not at all what I expected it to be, but I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Very interesting, thought provoking, and the dialogue and story are good. Also worth mentioning, the acting was excellent.

Zach is not a major part of this movie, so if you're in the mood for a movie that he is more involved in, skip this one and come back to it later(but don't disregard it).

Don't be afraid to give it a shot due to the bad reviews, but don't expect to fall out of your seat laughing either.

Plain and simply Awful:

I rented this movie for a $1.07 and feel I've been robed. I don't usually do reviews but took the time to warn you: Do NOT, I repeat DO NOT watch this movie; if you value yourself and your time.

Bad dialogue pointless or almost non existing theme, it's not some sort of new art it's just a really bad movie with actors you may have seen before (agents should be punished literally like physical or standing in a corner for two weeks or something more creative than the movie itself and then fired for getting them these parts). It has nothing to do with being intellectual or understanding anything. It's just a really bad movie maybe good for a seminar on art school of what not to do as a director, writer, producer, camera operator, gaffer, grip etc....

I voted 1 because 0 is not an option. You've been warned...