Lucky

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".

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.

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.

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.

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!