I never thought in my life that I would write a review about a movie that consists of one actor meaning, one living being or that I would find myself watching a film in a cinema full of dogs (admittedly, it only enhanced the experience).
“Good Boy” is the feature debut of Ben Lundberg, and its main star is a famous archaeologist, who happens to also be a retriever the dog Indy.
But although at first it seemed like a gimmick, I discovered there is much more to it.
There is a very controversial element here.
On one hand, as a narrative template, the film does not have a real script everything is based on emotion, tension between scenes, in other words “body language”.
Second, the plot itself is not complex, and it all unfolds, as the title suggests, from Indy’s point of view and through his actions throughout the narrative. And yet, it is hard for me to say I was not curious to see how it all connects and concludes.
Indy and his owner, director Ben Lundberg
Since there is no script, even the supporting actors (humans) do nothing to justify their appearance.
Therefore, most of the critique of the acting focuses purely on the dog.
I can say wholeheartedly to all animal lovers that Indy captured your heart from the first frame.
After all, there is an interesting concept here that usually seems suitable only for shorts or YouTube videos not a full feature.
For 70 minutes Indy captured my heart.
The film managed to spark curiosity after all, what are the chances today that a movie would be released featuring a dog’s performance without voice actors?
Bringing real dogs is not a big challenge, but making them perform actions like “lie down”, stand still, wag their tail when scared, or intimidate the viewer that is a form of performance that requires significant training.
And even if the dog is trained, making him move exactly as the owner or director wants that is definitely not simple.
Nevertheless, and it should be emphasized the overall haunted house plot is not as interesting compared to Indy’s acting, which literally carries the entire production.
Through the camera angles focused on the dog, rather than the story, the viewer enters the suspenseful atmosphere.
Also, the cinematography techniques and the excellent use of light and shadow are done wonderfully.
It is enough to see the effect created on the windowsill in the rain at night to understand how much thought and effort was invested in this project. Beyond the filming, there are also many nuances that come from Indy’s body language through the camera it is possible to understand when he is afraid, happy, or anxious. In my view, the fact that everything is conveyed almost without words ultimately enhanced the experience.
An example of a filming technique among dozens
As mentioned, the choice not to show the owner’s face for most of the film is a genius move.
The director makes it clear from the first frame this is Indy’s film, and he does not intend to let anyone else steal his moments of glory.
This is an excellent artistic choice that increases the sense of tension in the air: all the viewer’s attention and concern is focused on the dog.
After all, neither I nor you would want something to happen to him, especially if you have pets.
The level of concern rises, along with curiosity: what else could happen to Indy?
Furthermore, the concept of the film, a dog living in a strange and unusual house, is a great motivation for a horror movie.
Indy’s performance only makes one wonder why it hasn’t been done before. As a dog owner myself, the film made me think about what dogs are really afraid of us? scary shadows? and what goes through their minds when they are frightened? On this promising idea, the film attempts, at least partially, to provide answers.
As a result, what we ultimately get is a psychological horror creation around supernatural themes.
The gimmick that opened the story fades later, but in its place comes an experience that is not necessarily narrative, but more sensory, based on the dog itself and the way we experience the world through him.
Brave or fearful dog?
The entire film script could probably be read in ten minutes.
The actors may say one or two sentences before making the sharp transition back to the dog.
Also every command given to the dog likely required a bit more than a simple script.
Since no visual effects were used, filming the movie was “a bit challenging”. The use of shadow and light was not necessarily an element that required special attention.
Therefore, and since the dog is real and no AI was used, a 70-minute film took over 400 days to shoot.
To give perspective on how unusual this is normally, only a few months are required to shoot a full-length movie, even in the largest productions like Nolan’s “Odyssey”.
The last film that exceeded 400 days, inevitabl was “Formula 1”, which involved real racing.
Just thinking about the number of takes required for each simple scene is a complex subject itself.
After all, it is not enough for the dog to perform actions according to the script all practical effects must also be integrated into the scene.
“Man’s Best Friend” receives a very interesting concept here.
While the film “Good Boy” is not particularly notable in its plot, it works wonderfully thanks to Indy’s excellent performance.
With the help of the director who is also the dog’s owner Ben Lundberg, a unique horror film is created from the perspective of one of the most innocent and beloved animals.
The technical execution is very impressive, both in cinematography and editing, emphasizing the “horror” element to the extreme.
After all, one of the audience’s greatest fears is that something will happen to the dog and the tension built between scenes kept me glued to the screen until the very end.
