![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Film review: A Boy and His Dog (1975)
In 1975, someone decided to anticipate The Road Warrior with Don Johnson (nine years pre-Miami Vice) as a really horny Mel Gibson (which, honestly, I guess he is) and a telepathic sheepdog named Blood standing in for Max’s “Dog.”
Yes. It’s a movie about Don Johnson and a talking dog wandering around the desert looking for sex. And popcorn. Based on a story by Harlan Ellison. And everything you can anticipate about this, good and bad, is probably true. With a premise like this, I almost don’t need to write a review.
This is bad filmmaking at its finest; the kind that really needs to be seen to be believed, and yet is also highly entertaining. The plot meanders, the acting lags, many of the concepts and plot points are unseen, unexplained, or inexplicable (there is a society of people living underground in “Topeka” who march around with a band and wear face paint all day) but there is so much unexpected weirdness that it makes up for everything else. And it’s got just about the best ending you can hope for.
In the end, what’s wrong with this film isn’t so much its budget, or Don Johnson, or talking dogs. I can’t even say that the filmmakers wussed out. They don’t pull their punches, it’s true; but they don’t aim at enough for me to consider this film truly brilliant. This wasteland could have been filled with absurdist satire, rather than sprinkled on top of a rather bland post-nuke landscape; a line like “We could have used her three more times!” needs to be followed up with something more than half an hour of “I’m hungry/horny.” At the same time, though…
There’s a talking dog. And Don Johnson.
Yes. It’s a movie about Don Johnson and a talking dog wandering around the desert looking for sex. And popcorn. Based on a story by Harlan Ellison. And everything you can anticipate about this, good and bad, is probably true. With a premise like this, I almost don’t need to write a review.
This is bad filmmaking at its finest; the kind that really needs to be seen to be believed, and yet is also highly entertaining. The plot meanders, the acting lags, many of the concepts and plot points are unseen, unexplained, or inexplicable (there is a society of people living underground in “Topeka” who march around with a band and wear face paint all day) but there is so much unexpected weirdness that it makes up for everything else. And it’s got just about the best ending you can hope for.
In the end, what’s wrong with this film isn’t so much its budget, or Don Johnson, or talking dogs. I can’t even say that the filmmakers wussed out. They don’t pull their punches, it’s true; but they don’t aim at enough for me to consider this film truly brilliant. This wasteland could have been filled with absurdist satire, rather than sprinkled on top of a rather bland post-nuke landscape; a line like “We could have used her three more times!” needs to be followed up with something more than half an hour of “I’m hungry/horny.” At the same time, though…
There’s a talking dog. And Don Johnson.
Re:A Boy and his dog.
Jason robards was interesting in that one.
Re:A Boy and his dog.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I read the short story long before the movie. The story has a fantastic concept that is well done. In it, there's the revelation of a new world and a wonderland of sensations as the guy/boy is introduced to 'civilization' with his guide/dog/mentor at his side. What I recall was his exiting the devastation on the face of the earth above to arrive at a place of stability and prosperity below. For the first time there is the opportunity for him to meet a primal need: SEX. Suddenly, he has a woman available to stroke his hormonal surges. Heh. It's also supposed to be about his introduction to the vital purpose of civilization which is to acquire a mate and produce offspring that will regenerate the world.
That's the framework of the story; I only remember some of the details--hey, it's been 30 years since I read that one.
The story's ending was different, if I recall correctly,from the movie in that there was only one woman he had formed a sexual relationship with and an attachment to. That's why his final choice was memorable.
As for the movie, I thought so little of that rendition of the story that I wouldn't care to see it again. Jason Robard's version of the crusty, manipulative patriarch has been done too often for me.
The movie was definitely weird, even weirder than the original story. For me, that quirkiness was a substitute for the raw tension which was an integral part of the original story and which I found satisfying.
no subject
But it's not "good."