Little Fish, Strange Pond

Plain and simply Awful:

I rented this movie for a $1.07 and feel I've been robed. I don't usually do reviews but took the time to warn you: Do NOT, I repeat DO NOT watch this movie; if you value yourself and your time.

Bad dialogue pointless or almost non existing theme, it's not some sort of new art it's just a really bad movie with actors you may have seen before (agents should be punished literally like physical or standing in a corner for two weeks or something more creative than the movie itself and then fired for getting them these parts). It has nothing to do with being intellectual or understanding anything. It's just a really bad movie maybe good for a seminar on art school of what not to do as a director, writer, producer, camera operator, gaffer, grip etc....

I voted 1 because 0 is not an option. You've been warned...

Yes, this film jumped on the ZG bandwagon and that's probably the only reason anyone honestly watched this film. It's also the only reason anyone got to see an interesting idea get completely butchered by terrible writing and equally awful directing. Perhaps it's because the budget was so low, perhaps its because the writers and director were simply talentless. The concept, without spoiling it for you (but really, don't bother) is a discussion of violence and what is evil, what is addiction, and what is human nature. Interesting, right? Yeah. Toss in some relatively talented and interesting actors and its all up to the writing and directing to bring this film together. Those two cogs fail miserably, and we're left with a film that features a superb ZG doing what he does best for about fifteen minutes. After that, you're left to fumble around the film on your own. Good luck, but don't bother. This film was a failure. A good idea, but poorly executed.

Just a few words. First, the movie was above average. I like that the director was trying to do something different, but I think he didn't take his weirdness far enough. I'd like to have seen more stylistic camera work, and perhaps better written dialog at times.

I mainly signed up to post this: Am I the only one tired of these anti-intellectual pricks coming on here just to say OH I GUESS I'M NOT ARTSY ENOUGH TO GET THIS MOVIE or OH THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIKE THIS MOVIE THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR.

How insecure are people who post comments like that? How much of an inferiority complex do you have to have to watch a movie you don't enjoy and then automatically assume that everyone who enjoys it imagines themselves as superior to you? I think my previous sentence might be a bit too long for such people to follow. Translation: YOU INSECURE. OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MOVIE. THAT ALL. GO BED. BETTER YET EAT CHEETO. A LOT CHEETO.

Some people enjoy movies (or don't enjoy them (I'm not sure the type of people I'm addressing can understand the concept of digressive parenthetical remarks--particularly parentheses within parentheses--not to mention the double dashes which serve as further parenthetical-type remarks--no doubt this type thinks parentheses are optional and thus when happening upon that first curvy line skips immediately to the last curvy line--thus this type won't know I'm insulting them right here, right now)) without thinking about whether they appear intelligent to others for enjoying said movies.

In other words, if you think other people think they are smarter than you because they like a movie---they are probably smarter than you. But not for that reason.

I guess you can't blame whomever whomever financed this cheap attempt at art for trying to trick people into paying for it, but everyone should KNOW exactly what they are trying to pull here. Two years after it is released, they take this pig, slap lipstick on it and try to get people to believe it's another funny Zach Galifianakis movie. It's not, he's in maybe 25% of the film, it's pointless, the black humor is not good either, makes little to no sense and just strings together scenes that are supposed to be deep or edgy and leaves you to fill in the rest. DO NOT WATCH IT UNLESS YOU THINK THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A MOVIE IS IF IT HAS GOOD ACTING AND NOTHING ELSE. I'm guessing the actors did it for free and the rest of the budget for this movie was probably about $200. Calling it Frenemy doesn't even make any sense, to give you another hint at how they are trying to trick the viewing public. Anyone who claims to like this is giving it WAY more credit than it is due. I saw it for free and they owe me 75 minutes of my life back.

I, like many others, was drawn to this movie because Zach Galifianakis was on the cover. It was not at all what I expected it to be, but I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Very interesting, thought provoking, and the dialogue and story are good. Also worth mentioning, the acting was excellent.

Zach is not a major part of this movie, so if you're in the mood for a movie that he is more involved in, skip this one and come back to it later(but don't disregard it).

Don't be afraid to give it a shot due to the bad reviews, but don't expect to fall out of your seat laughing either.