mikehurst33 I bought the DVD of Lucky after reading about it on a horror film site I stumbled across. I just watched it and was very, very impressed. Other comments accusing the film of misogyny are, in my view, misguided. Every abuse and sadistic scene is set up in such a way that, well, I'll abide by the SPOILER warning and not spell it out here, but if you watch the film (and I strongly recommend you do) then you'll see what I mean. All in all I felt this was excellent story telling, really communicating the inherently terrifying concept of what it would FEEL like to lose your mind. That (in answer to some of the previous comments) is what makes it a horror film, and a damn effective one at that. Congratulations to the guys who made it and I'll be sure to check out anything else that the writer and director make in the future.

suspiria10 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-.

mackdaddyspliffs Well...i rented this movie only because i needed a second movie to rent at the video store and this one promised a dollar back if returned the next day...now i know why..they knew no one would want to keep this poor excuse of a movie in their house for more then a day. I believe it actually lowered my intelligence. The funny thing is, the main character rambles on as if he is supposed to be intelligent with a bunch of 50 cent words at best...and funny enough the only reason i rented this movie was the fact that the box description claimed a dog<which looked a little like the taco bell dog with a mohawk with an african american accent> actually talked, and told him things to do...well the dog never physically talks, it just talks TELEKENETICALLY...i would tell you more..but half way through the film my eyes began to close as well did my fiances...so at least this movie serves as a sleep aid...That sadly however is its only purpose. Please dont do like i normally do and rent the movie despite the bad review, when i say this movie sucks worse then having a dog p*ss on the leg of your best dress slacks...i mean it!!

erawlinsnyc 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!