axapvov
I guess I had forgotten who Todd Solondz was when I decided to watch this movie. I remember now how much I hated "Happiness" and it seems the psychopathic film maker hasn't really changed and continues to exploit his trademark of depressive characters and deadpan so-called humor. If people are buying why would he stop?In this, the dog is supposed to be an excuse to link different stories but practically the only time you will notice the dog is in the intermission, a lame trick to stop even trying to connect any story of any kind. After that, he feels finally free to do what he likes the most: showing disconnected, half-assed stories that don't go anywhere. If you can't get good, get bleak, he most probably believes that. Every single character in this is the saddest ****. There aren't nuances of any kind, everything is ****, no redemption, no nothing, everyone is either a loser or a moron. The worst part is that vision doesn't even feel honest, or convinced, but more like a trademark he maintains cause he can't think of anything else.This guy hates his characters and his audience almost as much as Haneke. Both are up there as my most hated directors. The difference is I respect Haneke.
lincolnbirch
Naming the dog cancer was genius and related to all "owners". Sequence of ownership is possibly "frock bomber professor", little boy, vet, married couple, Nanna and finally "inherited" to Fantasy. The mutual contact point being cancer (and the dog) throughout the movie is satirically stunning and facilitates an utter skew in the viewer composure, while imaginations are fueled with other probable narratives. My rating is not 10 for sake of the intermission, after which has the dog still in Ohio, but changing owner from the married couple to the old lady. The thread of all stories is cancer (little boy, professor, alcoholic Dad of brothers, Nanna). The final scene of Nanna awaking from a lucid premonition of her possible after-life, sees her awaken and discover she has "lost cancer". ...seeing the dog run over the same amount of times as main character-groups ("owners") of the doggy.Why this is not clearly understood in 75+ comments is a bit strange and might be film-worthy in itself. ;)Utterly strange is why a CGI doggy being run over is so shocking!? Simply makes no sense compared to so many other films e.g. Game of Thrones where people are dropping every few minutes. Why over exaggerate in that manner and humanly detach from the actual film?? ...and miss the final scene of Fantasy' eternalisation!
areatw
Well, what a let down. Here's me expecting a feel-good, laugh out loud comedy about a dog and instead I get a dull, boring and almost entirely laugh-free drama in which, towards the end of the film, the dog hardly even features. 'Wiener-Dog' couldn't have been any more uninteresting if it tried.The problem is that none of what is happening in this film has any purpose. None of it leads anywhere, it's just one pointless story after another. The dog is completely irrelevant for the most part of the film, only at the start does the dog feature centrally in the story. A big disappointment and huge waste of time.
trippholland
I will never get this 90 minutes back in my life. I can appreciate dark humor, but this movie was just so poorly written and directed I have to say probably the worst film I've watched in my entire life. Really bad. The beginning was bad. there were a few amusing moments in the middle and the end was just such... it's not worth your time. staring at the wall for 90 minutes would be more entertaining.
AD
