Dogs in Space

source: Dogs in Space

Set in 1979, Melbourne, the film starts prior to the opening of a David Bowie concert. We are then introduced to a collection of characters, all living out of a two story place, maintained as if by a bunch of pigs. Instead we have a budding band, Dogs In Space, it's lead, Hutchence, in an impressive debut, if acting from experience as a spaced out junkie, dependant on her girlfriend, (Saskia Post) going from job to job. When asked by a stray girl, who's run away from home, "What's it like being in love?", Anna (Post) responds with a not so favourable answer-a line that became locked in my memory. This film is about 20+ sorts who live a life without rule, nor respecting who they are, blinded to the consequences of what may happen when that day of reality will wake them up, and knock em' on the head. That moment comes near the film's end, with one of them o'ding, which is a wake up call, powerful moment. Lowenstein's portrait of disassociated youth is right on the money, where it's blend of comedy and satire blend in well with the real undertone of seriousness, especially that o'd scene that hits you like a hammer. Haywood's brief appearance as a "take no s..t", chainsaw lover, I liked, but it had me trying to figure out, who he was related to here, from which would be a mind wracking waste of time of guesswork. Although it comes off as more of a comedy, the script is a sharp and originals 80's one. Some dialogue is priceless, some moments, memorably funny, like a couple involving an exam stressed student, the most sanest one living in this madhouse, who's got himself into some hot water, when knocking up a loud whale of a woman, who's tracked him down. Another one features a young social worker, who's not of the norm, where in contrast, S.O's would probably really, like to express themselves like that. The cemetery scene where Hutchence is straight, is quite a chilling opposite as to how we've seen him through the whole film, that has him basically a doped up, heroin addicted if childish pig. Of course we're afforded a shot of Lica, the first dog on space where may'be pigs, would of been a more appropriate replacement in it's title. What I loved too was the party scenes, as if the actors threw away the script and used their own pen and brush, which is how it really came across. Hutchence has created an undying, guilty Aussie pleasure of a film, of cult potential, that would be a crime in anyway to tamper with.

This movie was made when I was two. I reckon i would have liked it then as well. the lead character, Sam, barely says two words the whole movie and walks about a meter, otherwise crawling like an animal. I thought it was so cool, and I really felt like I was breathing the air of 1987 as well. Being in a band in Sydney at the moment feels really commercial and this movie inspired my friends and I to tap into that trashy rock lifestyle once again. I think that this is a good indication of the movies artistic integrity- it is thought provoking and interesting. Just remember to accept it for what it is though. There are twists in the plot but this is not it's strength. The real art in the telling of this story is the cinematography and priceless characters. There is also a bit of insight in this film. You feel as if you have survived the episode and are wiser for it.

I witnessed this atrocity sometime in the late 1980's and It Remains to this day to be the worst film I ever seen, Running a Close Second is the film Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow, Both Stinkers.. And this surprises me that Richard Lowenstein Directed, he If I am not mistaken did some fine videos for the band, Guess Michael owed him a favor and hence, Dogs..... But... Michael K Hutchence remains to this day one of the most prolific and sincere front-men of our time. Love The Man, Hated The Film.. See Ya

This film may in fact be an accurate depiction of what it was like to live in punky late 70s Melbourne. If so, it was a very boring era. It's stylish, with an excellent soundtrack (even though they talk over the Gang of Four), but really it's hard to ignore the fact that there's about two minutes of plot. Also it's hard to make your groundbreaking No Wave band plausible when the singer looks like Garry Who from "All Together Now".

I love Michael Hutchence but this is one of the stupidest movies I have ever seen.

This film has all the core elements that on paper could be a dynamic, artistic, exciting film. It missed the mark. 2 stars for the magnetic Hutchence

Dogs in Space is a slice of life film, with no plot. Didn't hate it, unlikable characters and realism though.

To some this movie doesn't make a whole lot of sense but for others it opens a door to a different world. I saw this movie after picking up the soundtrack in the bargain bin at Sam Goodie and loving it. No, it doesn't have a lot of plot but that isn't really important because there is something for everyone. Being a movie about a collection of people either living or visiting a single house allows for different archetypes that people will identify and/or connect with. Example: Sammy No-brain-the free spirited drug addled lead singer of the band, Tim-the good natured virgin hanging with the in-crowd, Lucio the well-meaning nerd on the fringe of the in-crowd, Chainsaw man who (I feel) represents the man in our lives who expresses his innermost feelings through machinery. This combined with the free manner in which the house is run in allows for the discovery of a new/different way of life not seen or considered by many. The ensemble cast allows for a sort of video "Magic 8 Ball" into life, seeing how things turn out for the different archetypes. Perhaps best viewed for the first time by a teenage audience trying to fit into the world, this is none the less a good movie.

At various points during this film, I noted the time, and thought "Well, I'm still waiting for something to happen". And I kept waiting, watching what appeared to be a film with no structure, direction or progress as far as its characters or "plot" were concerned. Like an idiot, I just didn't realise until the end. Someone who has not lived like this, or known people who have, could easily dismiss this as a directionless mess, a string of scenes with no real purpose, and characters who don't learn or evolve. But that's the point Lowenstein is making, he has deliberately structured this film in a way that mirrors the lives the characters led: directionless and stagnant, not planning or thinking of a future, but just staggering from one party, gig or shag to the next. Not living at all, just existing. Only when something drastic happens beyond their control are they forced to re-evaluate where they are and change their lives. The existence they led ends, and quite rightly the film ends also. It's a clever piece of film-making, and the more I think about it the more impressed I am.