A dachshund passes from oddball owner to oddball owner, whose radically dysfunctional lives are all impacted by the pooch.

Plot Synopsis:
-------------------

----------------------------------------
mrdisorder from United States
----------------------------------------

I went into this thinking it was a sequel to Welcome to the Dollhouse; I guess it technically is but it has greater concerns than letting us know what happened to Dawn and the rest of the WttD crew so adjust your expectations accordingly.

The movie is broken up into 4 parts, each part focusing on a different owner of the titular Weiner-dog.

The first part was my favorite, about a young boy struggling to understand his dog's place in the world. It is sweet and funny and I was incredibly nervous about what would become of the dog since I did not know the movie would take on a 4 chapter structure.

The second part reunites the Welcome to the Dollhouse characters Dawn and Brandon. Greta Gerwig's performance was a little strange and there were some distracting continuity issues and cutting. In fact, the entire movie had very distracting moments of editing, usually cutting back and forth from character to character for each individual line. It's very jarring, particularly because the moments without dialogue are usually portrayed in long takes.

There is an intermission, it is fantastic.

The third part is the weakest. It focuses on Dave, a screen writing professor, who is struggling to sell a script. It drags on a bit long and ends with a punchline that doesn't really have a ton of punch.

The fourth part is a bit more surreal, and feels more similar to his recent movies. It focuses on an elderly woman whose daughter comes to visit. Then takes sort of a bizarre turn in its second half.

I walked away from the movie thinking it was great but feeling terrible.

Overall, Todd Solondz continues to be one of the most interesting filmmakers out there. I feel like he's definitely making the kind of movies he wants to be making: quiet comedies reflecting our superficial, pathetic, and delirious culture packed with incredibly uncomfortable conversations and situations; I just think his previous work is more interesting.

----------------------------------------
jimbrennan98 from United Kingdom
----------------------------------------

I had cautious optimism - I love dogs, critics had given it a good score, and I enjoy dark humour. Unfortunately this was not the case with this movie.

You will enjoy this movie if you are a virtue-signalling art snob. As a normal guy, this movie contained 50% of a boring film and 50% outright shockingly poor.

The first quarter was kinda quirky, and using recurring themes to show vulgarity could be considered interesting by some. The awkward conversations seemed to be so absurd it was mildly amusing, but I was unsure whether the director was having us on or not.

The second quarter was the most boring piece of cinema I have seen in my life. Two awkward characters go on a road trip, and nothing happens - there is potential for emotional weight but it is squandered. It's not subtly awkward - it's obvious. By this point I wanted to leave - heck, I could have written this student script, but I wanted to still enjoy this movie, especially with DeVito coming up. I was shocked to learn this was written by a 52-year old veteran of the industry - the talking was way slower than the average person, which actively bored the audience, and was poorly acted, especially by the female lead.

The third act was OK - DeVito is funny, the script fairly inoffensive and a good mocking of the film school 'industry'. I could tell there was some personal beef and I enjoyed it. However, at this point my father had fallen asleep.

The final quarter had a good concept, but it could be told in ten seconds, or could have been mixed with the third act, especially as the millennial characters are similar throughout the second half. The final scene was vulgar & shocking, but not in a good way. In fact, very distasteful to top off a actively boring film. The movie 'jumped the shark' with one scene, which I will not spoil.

In summary this 'dark humour' could have been delivered faster with more authentic dialogue. The shots are good, but long without purpose. It needed to be serious or satire, it begin caught in the middle just annoyed the audience I was with. If I were the studio, I would never work with this director ever again - he clearly is too far up his own behind to entertain or intrigue audiences. I have only seen around 500 films in my life (not a lot), but I very clearly know this is the worst of them, and that includes Thunderpants.

----------------------------------------
rbnn from United States
----------------------------------------

When a writer runs out of ideas, he turns to profanity; when a screenwriter runs out of ideas, he starts killing animals. Not really much to say about this overacted, overwritten drivel. The opening shot, a long tracking shot over rows of dog cages, was very well done. The DeVito skit was quite interesting, although it would have been better in movie length. The other skits all involved typical film-student clichés (odd as the writer is long out of film school), full of wacky artists, wise drug addicts, and the like.

On the positive side, this film had truly brilliant marketing. The trailer and the posters beautifully sell this as some kind of interesting movie, like a My Dog Skip for adults. Too bad the same genius who did the marketing didn't write and direct the actual film too.

----------------------------------------
Slipped_Sprocket from United States
----------------------------------------

In a year that's been sorely lacking in films of any substance and creative or emotional depth, I was really hoping to be satisfied with this one. I let the endorsement of it being screened at Sundance (what were they thinking?) and an impressive roster of actors seduce me into going to see this regrettable and tasteless pablum.

Before you scoff at my condemnation of it, let me give you some background. First, I LIKE, in fact LOVE, quirky and even shocking films. I've been a student and fan of cinema my whole life, starting in the 1950's when my dad used to borrow 8 mm projectors from Boston University (where he was an instructor) and screen classic films and documentaries from all over the world on our dining room wall. I took film courses in college and even studied filmmaking and produced my own short films. I'm not an aesthetic elitist and will watch just about anything -- my favorites run the gamut from experimental efforts made on a shoestring to big studio extravaganzas.

Yeah, I do have my prejudices and admit that not all highly vaunted films and genres match my taste. But no matter what my personal tastes might be, I do know quality when I see it, and "Weiner Dog" is a lazy piece of cr@p. Yeah, the director used a trash bag full of Film School 101 "I'm so avant garde" clichés to try to appear clever: long pans, off balance static shots, sustained closeups, dysfunctional characters, gross-out imagery that adds nothing to the story, ad nauseam. And mild nausea is the result, at least in this viewer (and the fellow film lover who went with me.) Don't get me wrong -- I don't object to being disturbed by a film. In fact I do appreciate, even relish, a film that's creepy, dysphoric and even violent. One of my favorites last year was Jonathan Glazer's "Under the Skin" (which, by the way, uses many of the same techniques Todd Solondz attempts in "Weiner Dog" but Glazer executes them successfully.)

The fact that "Weiner Dog"s Todd Solondz could not coax effective performances from a roster of such seasoned good actors is a testimony by absence to the importance of directing. The single major accomplishment of this waste of time is that he managed to make veterans like Ellen Burstyn, Danny De Vito and Julie Delpy come off like blundering amateurs, or, at best, B grade hopefuls at an initial blind script read. And the lesser known actors come off even worse. I've seen high school video productions that had better scripts, continuity and more convincing performances. The script, pacing and editing would have earned a C minus in any film class. It's telling that the "climax" vignette with De Vito is a snide put down of film schools. Ironic that Solondz has such a sour grapes attitude towards them -- since he teaches directing. I wouldn't pay this guy to direct a hemorrhoid cream commercial, let alone expect him to teach anything of value.

His Wiki blurb describes him as being "known for his style of dark, thought-provoking, socially conscious satire." Meh. Producing condescending and inane stories that exaggerate stereotypical and cynical views of people with limp dialogue, poor direction and a few grotesque scenes of violence and excrement thrown in for shock value is a lazy, immature and cheap way to get attention. And the dilettantes that fall for this kind of insult to the viewers intelligence deserve to waste their time on it. I won't do so again. Solondz has been added to my list of smug cinematic hacks to avoid.

----------------------------------------
Karl Self from Yurp
----------------------------------------

Todd Solondz makes interesting movies about odd, unattractive people, the people you're trying not to be, while most of other movies Focus on idealized people. I found this hist most entertaining movie so far, which might be either because he has become lighter and funnier, or because this was the first time I saw one of his movies on the big screen. In general I'd say that I find his films are more suited to a proper cinema because it makes it easier to admire his perfectionist visual style and to sit through the movie, which is not always easy.

Solondz follows an art for the sake of art approach that is oddly entertaining and fascinating. You don't get to see this stuff anywhere else. On the other hand, you don't come away with great moral lessons or anything. But then I don't want movies with moral lessons. I tend to get them from my mum already.

Wiener Dog is a set of four short films about four completely different people (a young boy, a young woman, an aging professor and an old Lady) connected only by the successive ownership of a small dog.

It suits Solondz's approach that he doesn't get to dwell on each person for overly long.

----------------------------------------
ruth1964 from United States
----------------------------------------

The movie trailer made it look like it would be a heartfelt comedy but this movie was painfully dark. I'm not even sure why it was made. Don't waste your money, especially if you are an animal lover. Those critics who gave it multiple stars because it was artful, clearly do not have the emotional capabilities exhibited by any other member of humanity. Spoiler Alert: If a 120 second scene of pavement and diarrhea doesn't repulse you, then a family pet run over four times will. This isn't even movie making anymore. As a movie lover and indie film aficionado, this film has taught me never to blindly go to a film again. Read all of the reviews first.

----------------------------------------
Thomas (filmreviews@web.de) from Berlin, Germany
----------------------------------------

"Wiener-Dog" is a pretty new American film that runs for almost 90 minutes and was written and directed by Golden Globe nominee Todd Solondz. The cast includes a handful known names such as Gerwig, Delpy, DeVito and Burstyn. This is actually pretty much four (short) films in one long movie. The one thing they all have in common is the title character. The first story is about a man who, against the opinion of his wife, gets a wiener dog for their son. The second film is about a(n ex) vet nurse who goes on a trip with the dog and her childhood friend to meet his brother. The third episode is about a disillusioned screen (and professor) and the last one is about an old woman who gets visited by her daughter (and her new boyfriend) after not seeing them for years.

I must say I mostly enjoyed episodes one and two. They were good for the most part and even had a great moment here and there. Also I liked that the dog was the center of the story in the first and also played a crucial role in the second. I did not enjoy parts 3 and 4. The stories were okay overall, but I never really cared for the protagonists in these two as much as I hoped I would. And I also felt that the dog was almost entirely irrelevant in there and it was all just about the humans. And it seems Solondz recognized this himself and that's why he gave both parts the most spectacular endings possible, so shallow audiences would not realize the massive lack of wiener dog reference in parts 3 and 4. And also these big in-your-face endings were pretty bad in my opinion as they really offered nothing but huge thrill factor, but sacrifices all the quietly convincing approach that made this film so watchable earlier.

All in all, I guess I recommend the watch. I just wish the film could have stayed as convincing as it started. The actors all do a good job and probably elevate the material, especially Delpy early on in the emotional moments with her character's son. The latter was downright amazing to watch though and I think he can have a good career in the industry. Gerwig and DeVito were good too, even if they may have played these characters in the past already and probably not worse.The only reason Burstyn left me fairly uninterested was the story and also her huge sunglasses. Lowery, Mamet and Shaw were scene-stealers too. The ending with all the imaginary twin girls was pretty bad though. The fact that their comment about how it's time to go referred to the dog and not to Burstyn's character was the only good thing there. It all felt extremely pretentious with them saying all she could have been instead. All in all, not a happy ending for the dog (as almost always), but a good watch for the audience. I give this film a thumbs-up.

----------------------------------------
MisterWhiplash from United States
----------------------------------------

To begin with, where else will you see a movie this year with the line of dialog like, "Was the squirrel spayed?" Todd Solondz is a moral filmmaker. At least, I should hope so. He's moral the same way that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are with South Park: they throw many, many subversive images and characters and situations that will shock you - and if you aren't shocked it may be because over time methods of attack on the audience like dog poop scored to the 'Clair de Lune' music by Debussy aren't shocking to you for some reason - and yet there IS a heart underneath and a compassion for human beings. Or, in Solondz's case as it has been since Welcome to the Dollhouse, it's backing you into a corner going "I double dare you motherf***er, don't feel sorry for this pathetic, insecure piece of garbage!" If that person is such, though in the case of Wiener Dog, for the most part, it's a little less than the usual lot of satirical horror shows of people on display.

I think I read Solondz say that he saw this film as being somewhere in sensibility between "Benji and Au hasard Balthazar." A joke, of course, since I at times wonder if Solondz IS a filmmaker with a bleaker worldview than Bresson. Tough accusation you may say? Over the course of what is essentially like an author tossing to us a collection of short stories with a running theme - a wiener-schnitzel goes through stretches of time with four owners, a little boy and his parents (Julie Delpy and Tracy Letts); a veterinarian who runs off with the dog along with a not-boyfriend (Gerwig and Culkin, reprising I think the roles from Matarazzo and Sexton from 'Dollhouse'); a jaded screen writing professor (Danny DeVito); an old woman looking at the end of her life (Burstyn) - the dog brings a little joy to some, and to others is there just to, well, be there.

It's a dog, what can it do for a person's life if they're already miserable or clueless about the world or hopeless or misanthropic? I don't know if there's any major point to these stories except to say that, simply, people sometimes got to be decent to one another. And short of that, try and suck it up and put up with the major jerks (like an upstart a-hole 1st time director returning to the university to give a lecture and demoralize DeVito's character) or those who live in this country but against their better judgment (a trio of Mexican musicians who feel lonely and overweight in America). I think the wisest story, or the moment that had some resonance for me, was in Burstyn's segment where she has a dream seeing identical little girl versions of herself and all of the different directions she could have taken if she made other choices in her life. But Solondz is asking: 'would it really matter? Would it? Please.'

Some of the shorts are funnier or more cohesive than others - actually the one that started strong and got a little less interesting (not so much incohesive but 'ok and then') was with Wiener and McCarthy, as the latter takes her along to Ohio so he can see his retarded brother and tell him about a tragedy in the family, which becomes like some unironic dialog-bit exchange. And then they leave the dog and then... well, maybe this is the kind of short that would get criticized by DeVito's screen writing character (who gets satirized in a wonderful way with his advise of "What if... and then what?" to make a "successful" script). But so many scenes and moments and lines and exchanges work in this movie, to the point where it feels like not a culmination but a deadpan celebration (if that's the word, hell, I'll stick with it) of what Solondz has done in his career with shades from Dollhouse, Storytelling, Palindromes and more.

It's sometimes very funny, occasionally deeply moving and tragic, and it's more or less Solondz saying "I don't know if I identify with ALL these people, except the professor, I've been there, I teach by the way...but, do you?" And, on top of this, what do you do with your life will matter by the time you face the end of the line, if you have the capacity to acknowledge it. Or, at the least, it's got a cute dog and it's a cringe-fest that is a delight, featuring the funniest "INTERMISSION" (yes, for a 90 minute film) since Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

----------------------------------------
averagejoe59 from Kenya
----------------------------------------

I don't write reviews of the movies i watch in regular but i felt that this movie deserved some dissection.

The movie itself is structured into four parts which are all very loosely interconnected by the Wiener-Dog.

While the first two parts explained how the dog got passed over it remains completely unclear how he went from April (PART2-Ending) to DeVito (Part 3) or from there to Nana the grumpy old Lady, trowing you over and over again into a story-line without explaining the connection.

The Characters themselves are pretty flat and two dimensional with exception of the little Boy (Part 1) and especially Greta Gerwig (Part 2) which plays the social awkward young woman remarkably well.

Other than those two there are no performances that i would consider more then mediocre.

Another reviewer mentioned that Solondz portrays ugly people in contrary to the idealized people you see in regular movies which is in fact true but except in this movie it was overly odd for odd's sake being no better the idealized contrary. There are movies that manage to portray every day people without idealization or using overly odd characters like Mathiessen's 'Dennis' but Wiener Dog is none of those.

I'm the kind that likes to watch experimental movies but this just felt like a waste of time as it was overly stretched to fill the 90 Minute mark when it could have been done in 50 Minutes without lacking anything of its message.

There are people that like voyeuristic movies in which you get to take a look inside the life's of regular people but this movie doesn't work this way. It is a overly stretched freak show featuring the oddest kind and which is very loosely hold together by the Wiener Dog as somewhat of a gimmick that theoretically could be completely cut out of the movie without doing too much damage to its message.

In a way it reminded me of 'Amores Perros' by Alejandro González Iñárritu which featured four stories all interconnected and all of them featuring a dog (multiple dogs) which probably influenced Solondz yet besides that are two incomparable movies.

Another thing that itches me quite a lot is that this movie is considered Comedy when it is in fact a pretty depressing very gray movie featuring out of the back of my head TWO(2!) scenes that could be considered funny in a sarcastic way.

One being Julie Delpy portraying the Islamophobic Mother of the little boy telling the story of the rabid squirrel raping dog which strangely was named Mohammed and the other featuring DeVito and his specially made "Dog Dress".

This was also the thing that left a slight Islamophobic aftertaste i didn't quite like.

Overall I'd say people looking for a comedy should look elsewhere as this movie is ANYTHING BUT a comedy.

This movie is at best worth a watch if you are into experimental movies if not DO NOT WATCH IT! If you are in a depressive mood DO NOT WATCH IT!

Simply put this movie is:

A boring long stretched pretentious attempt to interconnect the stories and life of four overly odd (for odd's sake) and overly 2D Characters by using a dog yet failing to deliver this premise by leaving huge explanatory gaps in between them.

FINAL VERDICT: NOT RECOMMENDED!

----------------------------------------
LouieInLove
----------------------------------------

I sort of understand what 'they' were trying to do with this film, but sadly for all concerned, it failed.

I'll start with a positive. The dad in the first section was played very well. I know that kind of father. Well done to the actor concerned. Now I'll address the kid.

It may be deemed bad form to criticise a child's performance or casting, because, after all, it's not their fault. Nevertheless, the part of the child in the 1st section of story is poorly cast & poorly acted which leads to the viewer having very little empathy for the wee tyke. I think the part is best suited for a slightly younger girl as opposed to the odd looking wilted thing that played the role... & if this was done as a juxtaposition to the sausage dog, it didn't work. By the time your suspicion that the kid is ill is confirmed, the battle is lost.

If the person who played the child somehow reads this in later life, don't let it worry you, we all go through an odd looking period in childhood. I call it 'the teeth years'.

Watching the first section makes it difficult to trudge on with the whole film. It kills it.

It's annoying watching a film like this, as I always look at the houses & tower blocks & think how much deserving natural working class talent is spurned & not given a chance, yet somehow things like this get made. Saying that, I personally wouldn't know where to start when making a film & for that reason alone I give 'Wiener-Dog' 3 stars....for effort, for trying.

dachshund|deadpan humor|deadpan comedy|killing a dog|intermission|animatronic|art exhibition|6 months later|blood|dog killed by a truck|killed by a truck|dream sequence|little girl|ostrich egg|egg|gift|check|grandmother|old woman|fbi|explosive|dog wearing clothing|hitchhiker|reference to facebook|euthanasia|death|diarrhea|dog feces|child home alone|home alone|slow motion|veterinarian|child cancer|child with cancer|cancer|ill child|playing flute|flute|mother son relationship|father son relationship|cage|barking dog|dog|dog shelter|pickup truck|title spoken by character|

AKAs Titles:


Certifications:
Canada:PG (British Columbia) / Germany:12 / UK:15 / USA:R (certificate #50315)