Customer Reviews

Lucky

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Ever sat in front of a blank screen day after day, wondering how you are going to convince yourself to thrash your writers block into submission and let those creative juices flow, while all around you normal life is falling apart? No? Well I have and although it seems like a mere 'phase' to the non creative sponge-brained square-eyed viewers out there, content to merely watch and never create, it really can take over and spill over into normal life, tainting everything with an odour of despair. This is exactly what life is like for the star of LUCKY, the winner of BEST FEATURE at the New York City Horror Film Festival and AKA Shriekfest.

Millard Mudd (Michael Emanuel) is an overweight balding loner, a writer of cartoons with a serious drinking problem and a distinct lack of grounding in normal reality, as his brain frequently jumps into a violent fantasy world when confronted by doubts and insecurities. Millard whiles away his days staring at his screen, trying everything he can do to convince himself to write, including tying himself to the chair and holding himself at gunpoint. Money is short and he desperately needs to pay the bills, to provide more liquid sustenance and produce something, a script, anything, more than he has done all year. His agent doesn't want to represent him and there isn't a woman alive who wants to know him and he knows... He's dredged the barrel trying every kind of woman from nuns and the physically challenged, to his own half sister, who's lower half is definitely more like a half brother. All it takes is a spot of drink driving and a freak accident to change his life, but is it for the better?

Once he runs over a mongrel named Lucky (Played by Sydney, Voiced by David Reivers), his life changes completely. Lucky resembles what my girlfriend calls a 'yappy type dog', small, terrier like, with a wicked mess of wild fur and hardly what you would rush to take home as a pet, certainly not with its intestines hanging out. But Millard is so lonely even a dying pet is better than nothing and Lucky is starting to look really good to him (and I don't mean to eat). He isn't bothered when it pops its furry clogs, because that's when things get really interesting. Yeah, one quick burial at the side of the road with a quick splash of beer toast and sermon, and Lucky is happily scampering around and talking away. Yes talking... and it's no yappy type voice either. Lucky has balls, deep baritone balls and a sense of the heartless manipulating pimp about him. No sooner has he started to deal with the fact that Lucky is talking, before it is ordering him to write, hiding his drink and even proof reading what he tells Millard to type. Lucky comes up with the story, Millard takes the credit and Hollywood just can't get enough. Things look to be on the up and up, when Millard's fantasy girlfriend, the curvaceous Misty (Piper Cochrane), appears for real and the scripts make Millard a hot prospect, so hot even his Agent comes groveling. But this is not a fairy tale folks, even if it does feature a talking dog...

No sir... LUCKY is a downright nasty film and will appeal to fans of such offbeat dark dreams as MAN BITES DOG and SCHRAMM, casting serial killers in a definitely non-Hollywood-police investigative-high octane-car chase, kind of way. Only an Independent film would be brave enough to have an acutely malfunctioning loner as a lead character, one so seedy you can practically smell the stench of stale beer, sweat and recycled farts in his room. The film casually dances between pathos and black comedy with a wink it its eye before diving cheerfully into a bloody ooze of serial killings, tooth trophies and necrophilia. One minute we are dealing with a talking dog, so conniving it can run rings around Millard, even when he is trying to poison or blackmail the mangy hound, the next we have to witness various acts of depravity and Millard's self loathing and the vomiting despair that come hand in hand, wondering which way our emotions will be tormented next and which dark alley this will all lead us down. Not all of this depravity happens on camera, thankfully with the constraints of low budget filmmaking most of the violence happens off screen and is alluded to with dialogue, clever blocking or sound design and there is a constant humour to break up the darkness and relieve some hysteria with nervous laughter. The almost constant voiceover device - narration and talking dog - can get monotonous, but the film is so well written and original that it wins you over and invites you along for the ride. I did find the opening contemplation driving scene a bit tedious and the ending/mental angle could have been clearer/more competently resolved - it does have a few plot holes, but inevitably it does work. You would definitely be surprised by both creators' pedigrees, seeing far more, well known TV work on their CV's - Stephen Sustarsic won an Emmy for the WILD THORNBERRYS and Steven Cuden created the DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE Musical! You have to wonder how much was based on reality...

The picture suffered occasionally from some pixelisation, a result of being shot in DV and converted with the 'film look' process, but is far better quality than many I have seen of late. The sound was crisp which made the excellent deranged 'muzak' style score a joy, competently adding extra colour to the madness that is Millard's dementia and the dialogue was clear, one thing that usually lets these DV films down. The Screener I saw had no extras to speak of save the trailer, but it will be worth buying, in Widescreen along with the Director's commentary, which I'm sure will be as entertaining as the film.

LUCKY (Directed by Steve Cuden) WINNER-BEST HORROR FEATURE (A.K.A Shriekfest 2003 and NYCHFF 2002) -- Millard Mudd, a drunken failure of a cartoon writer, has his life transformed when he runs over a stray dog on a quick beer run. Guilt-ridden and panicked, Millard brings a bloody Lucky home and futilely attempts to nurse him back to health. It isn't long, of course, before Lucky goes stiff. Millard, being such a lonely loser, keeps the dead dog in his bed for days, occasionally trying to revive him with lackadaisical, and hilarious, attempts at CPR. Finally giving up, Millard opts to bury Lucky in his backyard. But a miracle happens! And Lucky magically comes back to life -- or at least he does in Millard's warped mind. Lucky can also talk now. He can even write cartoon scripts better than Millard could ever dream of doing alone. At Lucky's behest a partnership is formed -- after all, Lucky does needed a typist to take down his dictation -- and the mind control begins. Soon enough, Millard is at Lucky's mercy. But Lucky, as it turns out, is not only merciless, he's a ruthless, sadistic tyrant who badgers Millard's psyche until Millard cannot distinguish torture and murder from fun and fantasy. Expertly acted with sinister charm and morbid sentimentality by Michael Emanuel (as Millard Mudd) and David Reivers (as the voice of Lucky), this film nonetheless has to bow to the talent of screenwriter Stephen Sustarsic, whose narrative is eloquent, dark, funny, and wickedly insightful. This is definitely one to add your DVD collection, folks. Sadistically good fun!

First I saw Lucky at the San Francisco Indiefest last year and was totally blown away by it. One of the creepiest, sickest, most twisted movies ever. And funny as hell, too. I know it had to have been made for not much money, but who cares. This is incredible, wicked, over the top stuff. Then I saw the thing sitting on my shelf at Blockbuster and rented it. It was even better the second time around. So much stuff is going on in Millard Mudd's head that I saw it like it was new all over again. And the dog is incredible. I laughed my ass off. Now I own the movie. And I plan on watching it a few more times for sure. If you like sick horror movies that are funny, too, then this one is for you. I really recommend Lucky.

Ok, rented this one after hearing about it in Fangoria. Not too bad. Very predictible, but its execution was wonderful. I could of done without some of the talk about necrophilia. But, nonetheless it was a very good dark comedy.

Speaking of Lucky, check out Lucky McGee's "MAY". Excellent movie.

To the person who said that this was negative towards women. Please lighten up and watch Steel Magnolias. There are plenty of movies that are just as negative towards men.

I really did not know what to expect when I rented this bad boy, but having a sick fascination with B/amateur horror I decided to pick it up. The story was so twisted you couldn't help but laugh! But it wouldn't be nearly as enteraining if it wasn't for the dry, and quick wit of the main character and his narrations. His submissive persona and completely oblivious views of his character's slow spiral into dementia are priceless. It reminds me of a twisted version of "The Wonder Years", except in this one Kevin kills Paul and Winnie and buries them in his backyard.

This is a seriously twisted work. It is one heck of a dark comedy that is bound to make those of us with the toughest of stomachs feel a bit queasy in parts. You've all read the other synopsis', so I won't recreate the wheel. Rent only if you can handle some grossness.

I gave a three for great efforts... I fully believe there could have been much more to the plot, the acting, more action, more gore, more comedy... it's very lacking. I personally love stupid, campy horror movies... i love dark humor... i even love most horror films which try to give an intelligent humor... this was none of those things and not "scary" or "creepy" enough to be a horror movie beyond those things. I believe I own over 400 horror/thriller/gore/b-horror movies... this one I purchased knowing it would be a great addition. 3 of my campy horror movie night pals watched this with me... they said I couldn't give it away for free!!!! They all hated it as well. I'm going to see if it burns better than it plays...

On the other hand, if you liked this... you might also like "I.Zombie" which was also terrible.

I've wasted way too much time agonizing over how many stars to give LUCKY. For the first three-quarters of the movie I had it pegged as a solid five stars. I enjoyed the demented inner life of Millard Mudd.
I even bought into the premise: Schlep cartoonist runs over dog. Dog dies and returns to life. Dog feeds Mudd story ideas and Mudd begins to pull his life together. The situations were creative, the writing sharp and the dialogue crisp. I laughed out loud more than once.
What I really didn't like was the last half-hour or so, when we pull away from Mudd's inner world and track, sometimes graphically, his career as a serial killer and necrophiliac. It was like tacking HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER onto the end of HARVEY.
Look, you can argue that there's humor in the scene where Mudd is tying up his imaginary girlfriend Misty and they have a cheery conversation about the terrible things he'll have to do to her and the souvenirs he may wish to keep. Macabre, black satire isn't everybody's cup of tea, but at least Misty was a figment of Mudd's imagination. Knowing that, and with the Stepford-wife treatment given Misty in this scene, it worked.
No matter what the film makers seem to think, though, abducting, torturing, and raping young women isn't funny. That's about all that happens in the final quarter of this movie, and it pretty much wrecks everything that preceded it.
LUCKY betrays itself and defrauds the audience. Considering its great start, this is the most disappointing movie I've seen in a long time.

This movie was just sitting on the new release shelf at blockbuster and I thought to myself "why not a serial killer talking dog sounds awesome." WELL I couldn't have been more worng. The movie central theme is having sex with dead people. This just isnt my cup of tea. The other reviewers are just plain retarted if they think this movie should get more then one star. I know that sounds harsh but I want my money back from blockbuster. The movie itself is just rambling speeches about life and infinity or something to that extent, I lost interest real quick. The most memorable part of this [not good] of a movie would have to be the part where he proceeds to choke wendy over and over again while she is passed out he has his way with her limp body. Let me tell ya that secne will be with forever, it ruled, (...) you sick freak the whole movie was twisted and just worng. The cover of the DVD box is cool looking though the dog named lucky has red eyes and a axe. I know this movie is a small independent film but Manos Hands of Fate is like a masterpiece compared to this garbage.

Lucky is one of those movies that looks at the bare animalistic nature of things existing in the suburban wasteland, with lots of weird and complicated monologues. They're not bad. In fact I like monologues. Of course these monologues were a bit disturbing, but that's okay. This is a horror movie. The storyline is a bit simplistic: a cartoon writer writes only junk until a talking dog inspires him to greatness, however the talking dog wants him to kill. The movie seems to evolve slightly from this model, as the killings seem to take precedence over the dog or the writer. The other characters, other than his girlfriend, are quite one-dimensional and play into stereotypes. I did get the feeling that we were not only seeing the world through his eyes, but also his perception. Maybe this is all in his head, as a waking nightmare. Maybe it's a rationalization for his own violent sexual fetishes of sadism, torture, and necrophilia. Oh by the way, if you're very sensitive about those kinds of things, you may want to skip this movie. While it is simplistic at times, I still recommend the movie for its psychological bludgeoning.