http://en.wikipedia.org/ said that critics gave good reviews, but you never heard about this movie?
I agree that is (One Of)the most underrated movie of all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluke_%28movie%29
It is far from underrated, it has gained as much success as it deserves. Actually, more than it deserves if you ask me. I can't believe how positive the reviews are on IMDB for this abortion.
COCK-A COCK-A CAW!
Reception
Reviews of Fluke were mostly negative, with film review website Rotten Tomatoes tallying only 33% of its collected reviews as positive, giving the film a label of "Rotten". In conjunction with negative reviews, Fluke also underperformed at the box office, generating just under $4 million dollars in the American box office[1]. Despite both critical and commercial failure, Fluke was nominated in 1996 by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Fantasy Film and Best Performance by a Younger Actor for Max Pomeranc
because it's a pretentious, annoying, humorless piece of crap.
shareThe reason for the positive reviews is that it's a rather better film than you'd expect. The script is flat and the acting uninspired, but the director's affection for the material comes through. It also appeals to our desire to believe that death is not the end of existance.
shareI think it's terribly underrated. I'll admit, though, that I didn't see it in theaters; it was originally given to me as a gift on video, and I've been in love with it since. I bought a copy on DVD.
Revenge is a dish best served .
I think it's terribly underrated. I'll admit, though, that I didn't see it in theaters; it was originally given to me as a gift on video, and I've been in love with it since. I bought a copy on DVD.
I would say probably the way it was promoted and marketed had more to do with it than anything else. As many times as I've watched it, it just doesn't seem like a kids' movie, to me -- too many serious topics being dealt with in here. It's like they couldn't decide who they wanted as their main target audience, based their advertising promotional too broadly; and as the saying goes...if you aim at nothing, you're likely to hit it.
shareWow, you actually watched this more than once?
Obviously, there are people who like this movie. I don't want to be disrespectful to people who like "Fluke", but... MY GOD! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
In my opinion, it wasn't sad so much as depressing and humorless. A good drama needs to have a sense of humor. Ever see "Steel Magnolias"? "The Big Chill"? "Terms of Endearment"? A fantasy-drama about A GUY COMING BACK AS A DOG needs it all the more. It pisses me off to be so emotionally manipulated by an artificial situation that never actually happened, without any sense of being playful. For me the whole thing is summed up by the scene where Nancy Travis looks at drawing that was supposed to be done by her child. I can't explain exactly why, but clearly, it wasn't a child's drawing. It was an obvious attempt by an adult to "fake" a child's artwork. That's the kind of smarmy fakiness that prevails throughout this dreary exercise in smarmy fakiness.
Part of the reason why I hate this movie so much was that I was forced to sit through it. My date hated it even more than I did, but she refused to leave. I said elsewhere that it was to punish me for suggesting the movie, and it really seemed like it at the time, but I think it was really because she thought that I only wanted to leave because she hated it so much, and not because I hated it, too. So we both sat there to the bitter end. It was the closest thing to being strapped into the Clockwork Orange Chair that I have ever experienced. She wept loudly and uncontrollaby next to me for an hour of the film's running time, and yelled at me all the way home.
Why do I think it failed at the Box office? Good Lord, what a question!
>"A fantasy-drama about A GUY COMING BACK AS A DOG needs it [a sense of humor] all the more. It pisses me off to be so emotionally manipulated by an artificial situation that never actually happened, without any sense of being playful...."
I don't think you quite got it. It was never meant to be humorous. The whole "coming back" thing wasn't the point. Reincarnation is the biggest spiritual hoax ever invented by mankind, in my view; but what makes this movie is the way the main canine character is portrayed as having such deep thoughts, feelings and emotions, of sorrow, hope, fear, love and joy. I understand the book (although I haven't yet read it, I hope to someday soon) goes into even further detail.
If someone can watch this and not be moved with compassion for companion animals -- those who have been abandoned, mistreated, neglected, abused, left alone and sad in kill shelters waiting to be put to death -- well, I just don't know. People relinquish their pets for really stupid reasons nowadays. I think the "reincarnation" theme was more of a literary device to illustrate the range of intelligence and emotions that dogs and cats (in particular) are capable of; and how our lives as human beings can be enriched by recognizing, receiving and reciprocating the unconditional love they freely offer us.
I think probably the ending (where Fluke leaves) is the saddest of all, because it reinforces the false impression that pets can live on their own, that having human guardians to take care of them is optional. Countless dogs and cats who for whatever reason are no longer wanted by their families are dropped off and abandoned "out in the country" due to this popular fantasy.
I think you're right, bad promotion and marketing -- because those fools didn't have a clue what it was.
Having just watched it on satellite TV, no idea what it was, I was blown away at something 'outside the box'. I'm guessing it was pushed as a kids/family movie when it really is an adult movie. That's why the ending makes complete sense.
One has wonder about the professional film critics, though ... were they hidebound expecting cliches?
Think you hit the nail right on the head, there. Such a shame! I can't understand what was wrong with the pros either, to have missed the chance to praise such a gem and help clarify just what type of film experience it truly is...
I do typically see it being sold as a children's movie--simply because there's a cute puppy in boots on the cover, no doubt. Yes, I loved it as a child, but it's so much more than what many people might think of as a "kiddie movie." Other children might not appreciate it as much as I did; it is quite "mature"/adult-oriented.
It's like they couldn't decide who they wanted as their main target audience, based their advertising promotional too broadly; and as the saying goes...if you aim at nothing, you're likely to hit it.
I loved this movie. Whenever I was sick and had to stay home from school, my mom would rent me this movie. I hadn't scene it in years, and all of a sudden it popped up in front of me on DVD. I bought it, and I always smile, laugh, and cry in this movie. I absolutely love this movie.
Dean: I guess I'm big game, you know? My ass is too sweet to let out of sight.
It is a good movie. I think it is highly under-rated. It's obvious why it failed at the box office. It didn't make enough money!!
Last movie watched: Spider-man 3 = 8/10
[deleted]
It failed because the marketing department mis-marketed the movie towards children when this is clearly not a child's movie. Everyone sees talking animals and assumes its suitable for kids but this film deals with many deep topics and emotions.
As I posted before, There was an early release with additional scenes and even a different cover geared towards adults.
I wonder which version was shown in theaters.
[deleted]
I didn't take my kids to see it 18 years ago because I thought it would just be another "Bengi" ripoff.
We're gonna need a bigger boat.