MovieChat Forums > Lawn Dogs (1998) Discussion > Pros and cons

Pros and cons

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8733)
2 replies | jump to latest

Another thread here asks the question "Brilliant or filth?" Well, "Lawn Dogs" is somewhere in between, but shoots for the former.

It's a drama with a satirical edge that has everything necessary for a great movie, but then fumbles a bit in execution. For instance, the key sequences where Trent (Rockwell) and Devon (Mischa) start to develop a friendship feel forced (I'm not talking about their initial meetings where Trent wisely encourages her to go away). The script needed tweaked with maybe some ad-libbing, but SOMETHING needed done to make these important scenes work better. As it is they’re at best serviceable and at worst unconvincing.

If you can get past that glaring flaw (and a couple cavils), there’s a lot of good here, even a little greatness. One critic -- Roger Ebert -- denounced the film on the grounds that it didn’t know what its message was. Really? It has about three main points and they come across loud and clear (don't read further if you haven't seen the movie):

1. A man and a girl can develop a genuine friendship in a brother/sister or father/daughter sense and there's nothing perverse about it.
2. But the adult has to use common sense so that their relationship isn't (1) misinterpreted or (2) slandered by enemies.
3. People can be materially wealthy and socially relevant, but morally bankrupt -- hypocritical, arrogant, fake, discriminatory, etc. People can also be impoverished and reclusive, but have hearts of gold.

There are of course additional gems to mine, noted in other threads, but these bits are linked to one of the three subtexts above, usually #3. For instance, the contrasting ways the inhabitants at Camelot Gardens regard Brett as opposed to Trent (Rockwell).

[–] stickman38 (3346) 3 years ago

I have to agree with the late Roger Ebert. This is not a good film. I mean, it's not total trash... it's got a few decent parts but I think you nailed it when you used to word "satirical" to describe it. It's borderline comical in the way it presents the characters. The dialogue leaves much to be desired too. Not very many memorable quotes in this one. In fact, I could make a decent argument that the dialogue is actually annoying. lol...

However, it kind of reminds me of other films with similar themes, "rich people bad"..."poor people good". I think it became somewhat fashionable for Hollywood to make films like this right around the time that movie The Outsiders came out. Of course, TO is based on a book but like LD, it has a similar theme, rich socials versus poor greasers. Although, TO is a much better film than this. Which brings me to your point #3. It could be reversed, you could be a rich person with a heart of gold or a poor person that's morally bankrupt. So, what was the purpose of this film exactly?

I'm not sure why Hollywood insists on making films with this theme when they are the rich suburban types that have people mowing their lawns. Its like making movies against your own kind. lol..

Anyhow, I'll give LD a 5.1 out of ten. It would be lower than this but it's at least tolerable, even though at times, I wanted to turn it off.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 3 years ago

It could be reversed, you could be a rich person with a heart of gold or a poor person that's morally bankrupt. So, what was the purpose of this film exactly?

It tries to entertain while getting across those three core themes. I agree that point #3 can be reversed, which is obvious, but it holds more impact than the reverse because it's assumed that if a person is materially well-off and socially successful they must also be morally and mentally advanced as well. The less well-to-do person naturally thinks: "How can your life be so screwed up when you're so blessed!"

I like it slightly more than you, but agree that it's a mixed affair. The problematic parts needed tweaked and the positive parts augmented, but that takes time, rewrites, reshoots and that means money, which the production evidently didn't have.