Tonight I’m looking at another movie this year that has generated a lot of hype. That is “Good Boy”, a horror film entirely from the perspective of a pet dog. This was made as a side passion project by director Ben Leonberg. He used his own dog, Indy (Which is also his name in the story, for obvious reasons). Leonberg is his own cinematographer and wrote the story with assistance from Alex Cannon. The score is provided by Sam Boase-Miller. Indy the dog stars, but Shane Jensen is his primary support and the main human character.
Indy’s owner “Todd” (Jensen) has just moved into a rural house which he inherited off his grandfather. Todd is unwell, but is hoping some fresh air and relaxation will help. Indy however is unsettled. There is something else going on here and he worries that some dark forces may be trying to take Todd away from him. His nights are interrupted by a series of bad dreams, and he keeps catching glimpses of… something. Todd is getting worse and becoming irritable, but Indy loves him and will do anything to protect him.
Man’s Best Friend
This isn’t the first horror from the dog’s perspective, or at least where the dog is the protagonist. Bad Moon from 1996 was based on the novel “Thor”, which was written from the dogs perspective. That film, didn’t go all in on it, but Thor (The dog) is the one the story follows most of the time and the hero of the story. Good boy however, does go all in. Not first person (or dog) perspective, but the film shows as little of the humans as possible. Not just in their involvement, but also how they are filmed. Faces are covered, angles are from behind or below. Lighting is also used to diminish their visibility. Of course the human cast is mostly one person, Indy’s owner.
Showing the dog’s owner was essential to the story of course. This is really about the relationship between a dog and his owner. Deeper than that, this is about the well known extent of a dogs loyalty. It’s not a theme that has been turned into a horror film before, so this is original in more than one way. There are plenty of hints to the direction of the film as it goes on, which is deliberate. Being from the dogs perspective, there’s no easy way to provide context to the viewer. That means every bit of information you get has to be very deliberately put in front of you. Fortunately, the obviousness of it doesn’t do any harm to the story. It may even help.
Making it Work
With the focus on a real animal (Not CGI), the key to making this film was in the directors ability to control his dog. This probably couldn’t have worked had it not been his dog specifically. I doubt even a trained dog wouldn’t be able to pull off all of the expressions and actions on display here. I’m fairly sure there was a stunt double or two, but the acting part is entirely down to that relationship. An owner knows there dog, knows all the funny faces they make and that is why this works. This will be a hard feat to replicate. But also the story being told here is a very dog specific story. This is truly a one off.
The atmosphere in the film is strong but does get repetitive. This is why even at the short length of 72 minutes, the film gets very close to overstaying its welcome. There’s only so many ways to build tension when you are committed to a dogs perspective. The soundtrack does a lot of the heavy lifting, but that is itself pretty much just a series of noises. It’s a very modern soundtrack, lacking in anything you could really call music. Discordant strings, banging, piercing drones. It’s fine, but for an entire movie it can become tiresome. But the real story is so minimal, the atmosphere is what most of this is about. The film employs most of the tricks of ghost based horrors and uses them repeatedly.
Conclusion
The film is effective, but it gets very close to overstaying it’s welcome and probably lacks re-watch value. It is ultimately a gimmick movie, but one with heart. I suspect most dog lovers will find it moving. It has one thing to say and it says it. The rest of it is standard supernatural horror stuff and being impressed by Indy. Some of the human acting is mediocre, but not painfully so and a fair amount of it doesn’t really make sense, but since the whole thing is largely metaphorical anyway that probably doesn’t matter. This is a definite recommend, and a strong 6.5/10. But I can’t give it higher, simply because the nature of the film limits its own scope. If you like dogs or have ever owned one, you will enjoy this film.
You must be logged in to post a comment.