Good Boy - DOGGIE HORROR FILM? - Angry Movie Review

Quick Overview

The reviewers strongly disliked the horror movie "Good Boy," rating it a 5/10 overall, primarily because they felt the film prioritized the dog's storyline over the horror elements, leading to an anticlimactic, non-scary, and ultimately frustrating ending where the dog's owner was revealed to be the monster.

Key Points: The reviewers collectively rated the horror film "Good Boy" a 5/10. The main critique was that the film felt more like a dog movie than a horror film, focusing too much on the dog's journey. The reviewers were frustrated that the plot heavily emphasized the dog, Indy, and his owner, Todd, over delivering effective horror. One specific point of frustration was the ending, where the owner is revealed to be the monster, which the host felt was poorly executed compared to the dog's heroism. The film took over three years to film using bits and pieces, which the host felt did not translate into a satisfying final product. The movie features the dog constantly seeing things humans cannot, such as the entity in the woods, which the reviewers found unconvincing. The director, Ben Lowenberg, is also the writer, and the reviewers felt the story failed to pay off its initial setup.

Context: The video is an Angry Movie Review segment where three hosts dissect the horror/mystery/thriller film "Good Boy," which focuses on a canine hero named Indy protecting his owner, Todd. The hosts discuss the film's premise, execution, critical reception (including high Rotten Tomatoes scores), and ultimately deliver their final verdict and score.

Detailed Analysis

The three reviewers express significant disappointment with the film "Good Boy," ultimately giving it a 5/10 rating. The main host argues that the film's concept—a supernatural entity attacking the dog's owner, Todd—was excellent, but the execution failed because the film spent too much time focusing on the dog's perspective and emotional journey rather than delivering solid horror. They mention the film took over three years to make, shooting bits and pieces, which resulted in a bloated narrative. The reviewers were particularly upset by the ending where the owner is revealed to be the monster, which they felt was illogical and unsatisfying given the narrative buildup about the dog protecting the owner from the entity. They noted that the film seemed to be trying to play both sides—a heartwarming dog movie and a supernatural horror—but failed to make either aspect truly work, especially since the dog's supernatural sight didn't seem to matter when the owner was revealed as the true threat. The host states he was already upset with the ending before the reveal.