Tag: Thriller

Good Boy (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

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.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Don’t Look Now (1973)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s horror we’re checking out the early 70’s horro/Thriller movie “Don’t Look Now”. This is from British director Nicolas Roeg, based on a short story of the same name by Daphne du Maurier. The screen play is from Allan Scott and Chris Bryant and stars Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie. Graeme Clifford deserves a special mention as the movies editor. I don’t normally mention the editors (Which maybe I should), but in this instance the movie wouldn’t be the same without him.

There will be spoilers here, since it’s impossible to talk about this film with tackling it’s conclusion. This is a film where almost nothing can fall into place without that final context, so if you do not wish to have the 50 year old movie spoiled for you, skip ahead to the conclusion section which I will leave spoiler free. You have been warned.

A Series Of Events.

The actual plot of the movie in it’s driest form is simply John (Sutherland) and Laura Baxter (Christie) attempting to move on after the death of their daughter who drowned while playing in the back yard of their country estate. Laura gains some peace after a chance interaction with a blind psychic woman. The woman that explains her daughter is still with them and happy (Albeit still dead). John meanwhile is plagued with strange visions and believes he keeps seeing glimpses of his daughter.

The psychics warn Laura that John is in danger. They encourages him to leave Venice, but he continues to be skeptical. . After a near death experience he starts to wonder if there was some truth to the warning. However he continues to be confused by his own visions and what they mean. Eventually he finds himself chasing after what he thinks is his daughter only to find out it is… well, it’s a psychotic dwarf woman, who kills him. The end. No, I didn’t make that up.

It’s All In The Edit.

The main thing to note is that this film is all about the editing and the themes. It is through the editing that it tells most of it’s story. It is a sort of expressionistic art piece of a movie. If you take away all the visual symbolism what you actually get is a very boring movie with a very strange ending and an infamous sex scene in the middle (Which is actually what it is most famous for). Judging it in in this way you could easily conclude this is a bad movie. In some ways it still is as I feel like there is an over reliance on themes and editing and perhaps most significantly, viewer interpretation. This places the movie as more of a chin stroking art house piece than a story or piece of entertainment.

That said, as more of an art based and theme based movie it does work. John is a man struggling with both grief and his psychic powers, neither of which he is willing to spend time accepting or dealing with it. There is an undertone that perhaps he is even out to punish himself for the events that lead to his daughters death. His daughter drowned and yet he chooses to move to Venice, the most water based city in the world. He has a poor grasp of the language too, which leaves him somewhat isolated. Although he goes about his day to day activity as if the grief is not impacting him, it is clear it haunts him.

Grief And The Need To Deal With It.

This is why a lot of the interpretations of the movie focus on dealing with grief and this was largely my read of the film too. But on top of (and deeply related to) this John is experiencing visions, which he is unable to accept as such. These visions are ultimately of his own death and the events immediately following it. For example when he sees his wife in Venice after she has flown back to England, what he is actually seeing is her at his funeral. But unable to accept such concepts he concludes she is somehow back in Italy and in trouble.

By contrast Laura, who had been struggling more with the death outwardly is able to find some peace when she is told by the blind psychic that her daughter is still with them and is happy. It could be interpreted that her and the psychics attempt to get him to leave Venice is actually talking about the city in a way that is symbolic of his grief and how he blames himself. He is warned, if he doesn’t lead he will die of it. This is true of his grief and of Venice.

The Self Fulfilling Prophecy.

Outside of the metaphors though we have a story of a man predicting his own death, but only drawn to the events that cause his death by his visions that predict it. This is the self fulfilling prophecy, except in this case John’s refusal to accept the visions for what they are becomes a factor. In most cases with such a story it is in an attempt to avoid the prophecy that it ends up fulfilled. These tend to be quite poetic, but here it is presented as more like a malicious ghost story. It actually reminds me of the TV remake of “House on Haunted Hill”, where one character keeps seeing visions of herself with a broken neck, and said visions eventually drive them to die in that manner.

This is an interesting aspect of finding ways to interpret this story. If the visions caused his death, were they given to him maliciously? Was the death of his daughter even just a part of some nefarious spirits plan to destroy the man. Yet the sheer randomness of a lot of these events suggest this is probably not the case. The visions could then be a combination of underlying thoughts of suicide interacting with his gift. Throughout the film we have the symbolism of red and of water, both linking the start and end of the movie and his and his daughters deaths. It certainly has some poetry to it, but it is also fairly obvious and heavy handed.

Red is a Warning, Red is Blood.

Most interpretations of the movie tend to suggest the psycho dwarf is the same killer that is mentioned several times throughout the story. However, that killer has been murdering young women via drowning and the dwarf kills John, a middle aged man, by slashing his throat. This is the key event of the film and yet seems to require a lot of justification by the viewer to make sense of it. I’m less convinced the two killers are meant to be the same. But either way this is clearly designed to throw the viewer of the scent. Ultimately John’s death is a random, meaningless act that is only given context through the characters personal journey. Not that this is a problem, because ultimately that reflect how life works. Most events are random, what gives it meaning is our personal journey.

As I mentioned, this film is very focused on the work of the editor. We constantly see splices of visions of the past and future throughout our journey. The music however, seems to have been stripped right down deliberately to force the focus onto the visuals. The most the music engages with the viewer is with the very dated love theme we get during the intercourse scene. Ultimately, I wasn’t a fan of the soundtrack.

The acting and directing is a bit of a mixed bag. Donald Sutherland does a fantastic job, but outside of that I didn’t find the characters terribly believable or realistic, bu then with such an arty movie you can never be sure if that is intentional or not. A lot of this movie feels like a day time soap, but unlike that form of entertainment, to enjoy this you need to be paying a lot of attention to the smaller things.

Conclusion

Ultimately, I didn’t particularly enjoy this movie. I appreciate the masterclass in editing that it is, the themes and the subtle brand of storytelling it employs. It is a movie with fascinating deeper layers, but not a great deal on the surface. Certainly it will appeal to the art house crowd, but I like movies to have deep layers and provide a solid surface level of appeal.

I should note, I watched this twice, once (My first ever viewing) the night before writing this review and a second time just before writing). My second viewing was better than the first and it is this kind of movie. The more you watch it, the more you gain from it. So perhaps my view will continue to improve over time. As it stands though, the best I can give this is a 6/10. If you like subtle movies with a lot of symbolism you’ll likely be a fan, if however you want a fun ghost story or thriller you may well be disappointed.

Rating: 6 out of 10.