Like Dogs

Have you ever stood between two mirrors and seen yourself reflected into infinity? Check that box for now.

Have you ever manipulated/misused/etc... persons of a lower class/caste/etc...? Check that box for now.

Have you yourself ever been manipulated/misused/etc... by persons of a higher class/caste/etc...? Check that box for now.

The two latter propositions are your mirrors. You are a lab rat - or beagle, because they are popular experimental animals, believe it or not. "Like Dogs" is your experiment.

I know. You'll say...

I don't eat slop... from the McDonald's drive-thru.

I don't wear a leash... as you text on your cell phone.

I don't respond to shock therapy... as you pay your rent/mortgage.

I don't abuse others... as you ____ your neighbor/colleague/lover.

I don't suffer abuse from others... as you prepare your next apology to ___.

Yeah. Give it a few minutes. It's that kind of movie.

It is a low budget indies film and as such, I thought it was done pretty well considering others I've recently watched. This is attributed to both the acting as well as the screenplay. What I hate most in amateur films is overacting and in this film the actors, both major and minor, both seemed to escape that and did a very good convincing job.

The story was reasonable, nothing spectacular, but props on the mid film twist. I didn't see that coming. However, I felt that like a lot of films I've seen recently, it started out strong but ended weak. The beginning really do keep you engaged and wondering how they ended up in that situation, however after the mid film twist, then it seemed to run out of ideas and they were just winging the script.

My suggestion is take a little more time to develop the story, put the twist at the end, not in the middle. You lose your whole build up at mid point, which is why the 2nd half was like a completely different movie. I would give the first half a 7 and the 2nd half a 3, average both together at 5.

I understand that it's a low budget movie and I don't have any problem with that since it has a pretty interesting topic. But I still had to rate 1 because of the main character's (Lisa) acting. No exaggeration, I've never seen a worse acting in my entire life and since she's the main character, it's ruining all of the movie experience. Yeah sure, none of the actors are doing a good job overall but at least they're not doing as bad job as Lisa. Her body language, face expressions, everything is overacting and feels like you're watching a movie from 80's where acting wasn't as develop as the 21st century. I still think the idea is pretty good, even the writing isn't too bad, so it could've been a striking movie with a high-budget production. Shout-out to all writers and whoever came up with the idea and to all of the actors, please take no offense but just a constructive criticism.

Oh and lastly, I'd enjoy the scenario more if it was more wrapped up around the 'experiment' instead of the psychopathic love triangle. Like how the experiment would actually go and what kind of insights we would get from it. That was my expectation before starting the movie.

Old joke in film class is that the cheapest indie to make is filming two people talking on a park bench. God provides the lighting, the park provides the set, and luck provides the stars. In this one, it looks at first glance like Randy Van Dyke is going for the Guinness Record in cheap indies ... and then the twists come. Taking a page from the Joss Whedon school of genre deconstruction, Van Dyke keeps things moving briskly, making sure the viewer never gets bored. And that, in a nutshell, is the charm of this oddball extreme-low-budget production.

Boy...someone really has some spare time on their hands. Movie is garbage.