Apocalypse 2024

Here's a ridiculous movie that never aspires, so it wallows in self-pity.

The best way to describe this is an unimaginative version of 'Mad Max' and '1984'. Sadly, this doesn't break any new ground for our imagination. The only novel element is the talking dog which, by now, isn't amazing aside from his 'Lethal Weapon'-esque conversations with Don Johnson.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

A lot of fans of 1970s SF movies love 'A Boy And His Dog'. I don't. But I don't hate it either. I have read many stories by Harlan Ellison, but not the novella which inspired this (though I have read the prequel 'Eggsucker') so I can't say whether the fault is in the source material or L.Q. Jones' adaptation. Jones, an excellent character actor probably best known for his work with Sam Peckinpah, previously scripted the underrated horror movie 'The Brotherhood Of Satan', and also directed this time around. There's nothing really bad about his work here, but it ultimately fails to satisfy, and one can't help but feel it would have made a better short than a full length movie. Future 80s TV heartthrob Don Johnson is actually pretty good as "the boy" Vic, and Tim McIntire is even better as the voice of Blood. The cast also includes the late Jason Robards ('Magnolia') who had acted alongside Jones in a couple of Peckinpah movies, and Alvy Moore ('Green Acres'), an old friend of Jones' who was also in 'Brotherhood Of Satan'. Many people regard this in some ways as an inspiration for 'Mad Max'. George Miller claims he wasn't aware of 'A Boy And His Dog' until after he made the first movie in the series, and I can't see any reason to doubt him. The post-apocalyptic background was already a regular theme in SF stories even if it wasn't all that common in SF movies, and let's face it the movies have a lot more differences than similarities, but it's worth mentioning just the same. There were several SF movies made in the 1970s that deserve more attention. 'A Boy And His Dog' is one of them, but it still doesn't alter the fact that it is far from a great movie, and not without some dull patches. Even so, it is still worth watching, especially if you want to see what the decade had to offer other than 'Star Wars'.

Surely those who were looking for nothing more than what Hollywood usually delivers when they invoke the words "science fiction" were disappointed, because this movie resembles the usual horror or action film masquerading as sci-fi very little. Its source material is a novella by Harlan Ellison, a writer who's recognized by many in the sci-fi community as a master on the same playing field of "psychological sci-fi" as Ray Bradbury and Philip K. Dick. From Ellison we get a very dark tale about a strangely human dog and his boy. They live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where Phoenix Arizona used to be, and hunt women and food with the same predatory zeal. But when Vic (or as the dog calls him, Albert) is lured into a surreal society living in a large bomb shelter, their friendship is threatened and Vic is almost forced to become a sort of sexual machine for the good of the State.

Just to run through some of the aspects of the film that I enjoyed, I really liked Tim McIntire's voice work as the dog, perfectly crisp like a cranky old man. How exactly the dog knows so much or is able to speak to Vic is never really explained, but I think there's a clue in that Lou (Jason Robards, Jr.) believes that Vic has spoken to a dog he encounters in the shelter. That, along with the "Committee's" seeming obsession with recounting facts and figures almanac-style, makes me believe that the dog actually came from the shelter. Perhaps he was sent there to "observe" Vic, as Lou tells him they have been doing for some time, and he rebelled against their control. Like all good sci-fi the idea is vaguely proposed but never explained.

Don Johnson did pretty good work here, I mean it doesn't strike you as all that impressive at first but when you think about the fact that he had to do so many scenes with just this dog as his co-star it's a pretty tough act to pull off as well as he did. Susanne Benton was decent in her role as well. I loved when she tried to sweet-talk the dog, basically the same way that she treated Vic. Vic seems confused about her intentions all the way up to the end, which is excellent -- if he had figured her out completely then the ending would just feel mean-spirited instead of humorous. As it is, it's as if Vic believes he's making a sacrifice but the dog knows better and turns it into a joke. By the way my girlfriend thought the last line was too tacky but I thought it was perfect, it gave narrative closure to the film as well as filling in those who might not have understood the scene with the campfire.

Honestly the only performance I wasn't crazy about was Jason Robards'. There's these great scenes he gets to play with Alvy Moore ("Green Acres") and Helene Winston (great laugh she's got... she didn't make a lot of movies but strangely enough just this week I saw her in Curtis Harrington's "The Killing Kind"). He just has no energy, I guess that's the way he wanted to do it but it's annoying how he kind of mumbles through the dialog and I just didn't feel that the dialog was supposed to be quite that casual. Basically I just did not like the way he decided to play the character, I didn't think it was scary at all. His android assistant, like a twisted American Gothic, is pretty strange though. Plus I never understood why everyone down there was wearing clown makeup. Was it the idea of the forced smile? Anyway, I salute the film because I think it was a brave decision to make it as it is and not to try to turn it into a more conventional thing with romance or too much action. I think I can see some influence from this movie on George Miller's "Road Warrior" (though I was told that he claims he hadn't seen it), and definitely on "Slip Stream" with Mark Hamill from the 80s. But this isn't really the kind of movie that was made to fall into place inside the pantheon of "sci-fi" anyway. It's a closer relative to "Electra-Glide in Blue" and other films of the early 70s that explored the bitter end of "hippie" idealism, the same trend that Hampton Fancher was trying to catch onto when he wrote his first drafts of the film that eventually became "Blade Runner." Frankly I can't remember seeing another sci-fi film that is so close to the feel and ethos of the most transgressive and anti-establishment sci-fi of the 1960s.

Like many artifacts of the 60s & 70s, y'hadda be there...at least in order to feel a protective fondness for what is without question a very flawed movie. The miracle of this film was that it was made AT ALL. (Due in no small part to the tenor of the times it sprang from. The shackles on pop culture and genre fiction were loosening, allowing for more serious themes and treatment; of course, two years later STAR WARS would tighten the shackles again.) I'm a little amazed at the many posters bitching about cheap sets, poor fx, etc. Does everyone watch a movie EXPECTING a 50-million-dollar budget and CGI up the wazoo? If so, we're in deeper trouble than I thought. I look at A BOY AND HIS DOG with great affection as a sincere attempt to do something different, provocative and heartfelt, and although it's informed by a naive leftist worldview I don't share, there's a great deal of audacious creativity at work here that transcends many of the budgetary limitations. You'd think oddities like this would be treasured as artifacts of a more open and experimental period in movie history, rather than derided for falling short of INDEPENDENCE DAY's store-bought bombast and opticals. Go figure...

First off... To the guy who said that this movie doesn't say anything.. Please try to use more than 1 percent of your brain cells next time you analyze a movie. To those who think that the writer of this story, Harlan Ellison, intended on being anti woman in his creation of the final scene, you need to re-examine the story's real meaning. The movie (and especially the original story) is making a strong statement about the meaning of love. Love is honest. Love is survival. Vic probably makes the most mature decision in his entire life by choosing the dog over the woman. He needed to choose the dog over all else in order to have a future in that harshest of all worlds. He chooses life over temporary sexual pleasure. Vic was never in love with Quilla June. In the world of "A Boy and His Dog" a Vic and Quilla June relationship was destined to fail for many obvious reasons.

Nevertheless, the original story does a much better job of exploring Vic's ambivalence in making the final decision. It is true that Ellison's original novella is a masterpiece. Thanks for listening.