How to Kill Your Neighbor's Dog

Artistic License | Release Date: February 22, 2002

6.8	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 6 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

elenac.Jan 2, 2006

Brilliant.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BittyR.Jul 30, 2006

Supurb acting and amazing horror. great twists and great director. well done, well lit and really smart plot. instant classic.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

DawdlingPoetNov 22, 2021

This has some surprisingly witty, dry humour - its quite a 'black' movie in terms of the comedy (I don't mean like films of the 1980s where it seemed no-one switched the lights on and you can barely see who's on screen - which, by the way,This has some surprisingly witty, dry humour - its quite a 'black' movie in terms of the comedy (I don't mean like films of the 1980s where it seemed no-one switched the lights on and you can barely see who's on screen - which, by the way, used to drive me nuts!), featuring the distant playwright slowly, hesitating to open up and show an interest in the neighbours child (that sounds wrong...I don't mean in a sinister way, honest (lol)) - I thought this was quite nice to see, how it was portrayed was good, it wasn't overly cheesy and it features a decent cast including Kenneth Brannagh as Peter and Robin Penn Wright as his wife, Melanie. I did, however, feel that the sub plots were a little confusing or muddled at times, for instance there's a slightly random sub plot involving Peter discovering a stalker who claims to be himself, who he calls his Dopplerganger although he takes offence to this as he claims to not be evil. I was left feeling like that story hadn't entirely played itself out perhaps but then there possibly was more of a poignant message behind it that I hadn't entirely 'twigged'. By the way, I had scribbled some notes about the movie after it finished that night I saw it over a week ago but otherwise this is all going by memory, so I apologise if its not as thorough as previous reviews but most of this I had noted down before I forgot to make it easier to review once back home like I am now. One quite amusing set of scenes involves Peter being interviewed by a local cable TV reporter - lets just say he gives her a hard time with his responses to her typical questions that he's tired of answering or doesn't feel really relates to him. It maybe doesn't sound that funny but I found it amusing to see her reactions and how they interacted - really its another case of (like in other movies) an Englishman in LA not particularly interested in fitting in and 'playing the game' and he is quite witty with his retorts, responding to the reporters questions by quoting another question and waiting for her response and suchlike. I have to say, I have always been quite keen on sarcastic characters, since I used to watch Friends and quite liked the character Chandler Bing lol, with their witty diaogue who challenge the perceived but yet who are painfully aware of their own downfalls and this applies to Peter. I think there's something I can relate to him in that he wants to be mostly left alone to get on with his job and live his life but of course things get in the way that prevent this. He's stressed out and not particularly keen on fame, or the 'Hollywood circuit' by any means, yet I wouldn't say he's really unlikeable either - there are probably alot of people who would feel much the same in his shoes, I'd imagine, me included. I can also admit that I also share his initial disinterest in children, the thought of having to look after little whining babies and clean up after them really doesn't appeal - if I had fancy sports cars like him, I reckon I'd rather be off driving those or soing other hobbies than that but that's just me and that will or may change in time...

The title of the movie may put you off and there is indeed a scene that depicts the title but its not gratuitously violent and at the end after some credits, they show you it was (of course) faked (by a very talented dog!). The movie title is the title to Peter's first book/play and its more about what I think you call 'urban networking', which is something mentioned in the movie, than it is about physically killing - when the scene occured, it took me by surprise.

I'm giving this movie a high rating on the basis its cheap entertainment with some laughs, I think its certainly good enough for the money but don't get me wrong, this isn't to say that its some amazing breakthrough feature length extravaganza either and like I say, the plot/sub-plots do become a little muddled - I feel for what it is, its pretty good and there are alot worse movies around but neither is it particularly worth spending alot of money on...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews