Lucky

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.

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".

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.

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-.

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.