Lucky

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.

Picking up these low-budget indie flicks is a little like playing Russian Roulette, except that it seems this way there are more chances to shoot yourself in the head. So few times do I actually find something good. 'Lucky' almost made it. It is a twisted look at the inner workings of a writer's mind, manifested in a dog that has come back from the dead. I did laugh a couple of times, but more often than not I found myself grimacing - almost sickened by this guy Mudd. It is a clever film, well done, but it sort of misses its mark, I think, because it is a lot darker than one would think a movie about a talking dog would be. Plus the philosophical ramblings of Mudd, whenever he got off on his tangents, were very hard to follow - although I realize that was the point. Interesting enough to warrant a look, but not quite a hit.

Millard Mudd is a down on his luck cartoon writer whose fortunes change with the arrival of a cute little dog named Lucky. Murder and mayhem ensue.

Lucky is not a good movie - it's too wordy, the "hero" is completely unlikeable, and the pacing is off. But it's filled with more disturbing stuff than most movies: necrophilia, sex torture, and chainsaws among them. Plus it really seems to hate women. SIDEBAR: I'm a chick horror fan and get really upset when people point to horror flicks as nothing but misogyny. But this movie really doesn't like women.

It kept me watching right up to the dumb ending because I had to see where it was going. Has some darkly funny moments but nothing special. No animal cruelty though - the car wreck that introduces Lucky excepted.

Best Line: "Perception is nine tenths of the law."

To be humorous on a low budget feature is often a very difficult task. To blend humor and horror is an even more arduous task. But director Steve Cuden does so with such imagination and creativity. With a feature that can best be described as daring, Cuden has created a jet black comedy that will chill you. With great performances and a distinct visual style, this hybrid film will thoroughly entertain and sit up and beg for repeat viewings. Definitely, check this film out!

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".