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".

i'm not sure what the other comment was about, but they had it dead wrong. this movie is not meant for people who are close minded. the movie in no way condones any of the behaviors of the characters depicted. this is the most original movie i've ever seen. it could be said that this movie would be offensive to just about anyone. you just can't take it as if its actually a true story. i know it says its a true story, but thats just a joke, since at the end of the credits you get one of those "any resemblance to....was purely unintentional..blah blah blah" things at the end. The movie is not only hilarious, but its shockingly charming and awkward. nothing about this movie says "hollywood". its so god damn independent, its great. i'd make sure you are uptight and close minded before watching. if you strongly believe that jesus will bring you to greatness, you are a tard and shouldn't see this film. the movie seems a bit student-film-ish when you watch it, but it after watching for a bit, it seems intentional. it's great. if you like comedies that are over the edge, this one defines the genre. your life will be forever changed after watching this flick

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-.

I happened to be one of the few, very fortunate people to see this at a recent screening during the "first annual" NYC (Independent) Horror Film Festival, and let me tell you, it was a real treat! It was far and away the favourite-of-show (winning Best in Show by the judging panel, and - ballot tabulation not having been posted, I can only guess, but probably - audience favourite as well). Pray that some distributor has the good sense to overlook its idiosyncratic, non-mainstream nature and recognise it as must-see cinema. This is one hard film to describe without ruining surprises or giving away too much. The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, has done a great job of summarising it without including spoilers, so I will try to give you a feel for the movie instead of a synopsis. In Hollywood Speak, it would be The Secret Life of Walter Mitty meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, with dashes of Amelie and Twin Falls, Idaho (and possibly Crumb) thrown in for flavour. But it is definitely much more than the sum of its filmic predecessor parts. First and foremost, it has a loopy, loony, don't-take-me-too-seriously quality, augmented by the music (one almost expects an accordion from some French cafe to be playing in the background, as in Delicatessen or Amelie, but it's a bit more restrained than that), which absolutely belies the seriousness of what's actually taking place. But it is this deludedly, deceptively droll approach which helps take the audience by the hand and lead them willingly along to the abhorrent shocks that await.It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!