I have watched this film twice and would probably watch it again if it was on the tele or my friend had it on video. I definitely say that you should watch it once especially if you like punk and noisy new wave music ,which I do, because there is lots of it in this film. There is also a great bit when a girl explains sex to someone in a very frank way. It's more a film about growing up and friendship than about sex and punk music but it is quite gritty and real feeling which is good because it is like watching real life only much more exciting. There is also some drugs use in it and several lovely babes but it is really more of a serious film than a babefest and would appeal to women as well.
27 Reviews
Dogs in Space is a film I've never really liked
misen2312 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Dogs in Space is a film I've never really liked although it is a film I have seen numerous times over the years.
The film is, loosely, a vague series of Polaroid pictures of a Melbourne squat in the seventies and the punk band that lived there (who actually occupy less narrative significance than the happenstance jumble of non events that occur in and around the house). This zero narrative circumstantial drift is punctuated problematically by a mishandled attempt to bolt a 'narrative' on to fabricate a filmic climax in a dodgy jab at a narrative cinematic conclusion. It is in this attempted narrative where the film falls flat on its face as it reads as a contrived and clichéd commercial concession which is at odds with the deliberate non narrative structure of the rest of the film.
A little research and reading tells us that DOS is a more or less autobiographical film by pop promo director Richard Lowenstein about his time living in a house a Melbourne punk band whose lead singer Sam Sejavka would go on to front the Oz band Beargarden (like, god help them, a poor mans Inxs). Incidentally Lowenstein was so anally specific in his reminiscences that the actual house where the original events depicted in the film took place was rented and redressed at considerable expense (although oddly Lowenstein removes himself from the films house and attributes some of his own memories to the character of the other band member - Tim). To be fair the film does partially succeed in its shambolic rambling recreation of time and place although I do wonder how this may have been improved with a more competent and perhaps less personally involved director.
However running uncomfortably next to this is the films occasional 'narrative' about the handsome but dislikeable lead signer of the titular punk band (played by Michael Hutchence arguably well cast in that he plays a vainglorious nob, who, other than 3 minutes of brief interest first watching the pop video for THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED in the cinema, I've always thought of as a vainglorious nob) and his unfortunate girlfriend.
Their sketched relationship however never manages to draw enough focus to legitimate its status as the films 'narrative core' (their scenes are simply other fragmented events which occasionally occur throughout) yet becomes the crux of the films contrived conclusion when her death due to a heroin overdose marks the end of the times and the final eviction from the squat (I suspect that this is a fiction and in reality that they all just moved on or grew up). Her 'departure' scene is a dreadful pop video cliché distracting from the narrative tragedy of her death by making it seem all rainbows and smiles (it depicts her shiny happy dreamy smacked up death drift but the reality of her cold puke drooling into her nodding boyfriends hair would have been more honest). Worse still is Hutchence kneeling at her grave during the funeral, her family members seemingly tolerating his bad junkie boyfriend presence to permit some faux pop promo angst. Even worse is the pop video performance footage of Hutchence (in perhaps more overt commercial concessions) dressed in a nice suit with neat hair singing some lame ballad at the end. This at best might be interpreted as an ironic jab at former punk singer Sam Sejavka (a youtube search can find a clip of Beargarden similarly suited in the 80s performing on an Oz TV show) however this is probably speculative wishful thinking following research and reading into DOS and would therefore not be apparent to the films casual viewer.
The films other problem is that every moment is probably profound and significant for those who were in and around that house and generally thereabouts in that scene but the rest of the watching world are excluded from these specific gnomic remembrances as Lowenstein cannot seem to step away from his own material and review it from the removed position of his audience. Anyone and everyone left of the mainstream has colourful remembrances of running about as teenagers on the drugs of their choice listening to the music of their youth but these unmediated events can often only be shared significantly with people they were directly experienced with at the time and the nostalgic fragments of those misspent youths do not necessarily make sufficient material for a satisfying film.
In conclusion DOS is a deeply flawed film which sadly had the potential to be far better than it actually turned out to be. It is a shame that the films incidental kitchen sink 'reality', its only real strength, is jettisoned in the concluding scenes for a plasticized pop video fabrication. I feel that Lowenstein should have had the directorial balls to dump the commercial concessions (and the pop star) to make the narrative free film of random fragmented Punk squat memories he only partially made and unfortunately compromised.
The film is, loosely, a vague series of Polaroid pictures of a Melbourne squat in the seventies and the punk band that lived there (who actually occupy less narrative significance than the happenstance jumble of non events that occur in and around the house). This zero narrative circumstantial drift is punctuated problematically by a mishandled attempt to bolt a 'narrative' on to fabricate a filmic climax in a dodgy jab at a narrative cinematic conclusion. It is in this attempted narrative where the film falls flat on its face as it reads as a contrived and clichéd commercial concession which is at odds with the deliberate non narrative structure of the rest of the film.
A little research and reading tells us that DOS is a more or less autobiographical film by pop promo director Richard Lowenstein about his time living in a house a Melbourne punk band whose lead singer Sam Sejavka would go on to front the Oz band Beargarden (like, god help them, a poor mans Inxs). Incidentally Lowenstein was so anally specific in his reminiscences that the actual house where the original events depicted in the film took place was rented and redressed at considerable expense (although oddly Lowenstein removes himself from the films house and attributes some of his own memories to the character of the other band member - Tim). To be fair the film does partially succeed in its shambolic rambling recreation of time and place although I do wonder how this may have been improved with a more competent and perhaps less personally involved director.
However running uncomfortably next to this is the films occasional 'narrative' about the handsome but dislikeable lead signer of the titular punk band (played by Michael Hutchence arguably well cast in that he plays a vainglorious nob, who, other than 3 minutes of brief interest first watching the pop video for THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED in the cinema, I've always thought of as a vainglorious nob) and his unfortunate girlfriend.
Their sketched relationship however never manages to draw enough focus to legitimate its status as the films 'narrative core' (their scenes are simply other fragmented events which occasionally occur throughout) yet becomes the crux of the films contrived conclusion when her death due to a heroin overdose marks the end of the times and the final eviction from the squat (I suspect that this is a fiction and in reality that they all just moved on or grew up). Her 'departure' scene is a dreadful pop video cliché distracting from the narrative tragedy of her death by making it seem all rainbows and smiles (it depicts her shiny happy dreamy smacked up death drift but the reality of her cold puke drooling into her nodding boyfriends hair would have been more honest). Worse still is Hutchence kneeling at her grave during the funeral, her family members seemingly tolerating his bad junkie boyfriend presence to permit some faux pop promo angst. Even worse is the pop video performance footage of Hutchence (in perhaps more overt commercial concessions) dressed in a nice suit with neat hair singing some lame ballad at the end. This at best might be interpreted as an ironic jab at former punk singer Sam Sejavka (a youtube search can find a clip of Beargarden similarly suited in the 80s performing on an Oz TV show) however this is probably speculative wishful thinking following research and reading into DOS and would therefore not be apparent to the films casual viewer.
The films other problem is that every moment is probably profound and significant for those who were in and around that house and generally thereabouts in that scene but the rest of the watching world are excluded from these specific gnomic remembrances as Lowenstein cannot seem to step away from his own material and review it from the removed position of his audience. Anyone and everyone left of the mainstream has colourful remembrances of running about as teenagers on the drugs of their choice listening to the music of their youth but these unmediated events can often only be shared significantly with people they were directly experienced with at the time and the nostalgic fragments of those misspent youths do not necessarily make sufficient material for a satisfying film.
In conclusion DOS is a deeply flawed film which sadly had the potential to be far better than it actually turned out to be. It is a shame that the films incidental kitchen sink 'reality', its only real strength, is jettisoned in the concluding scenes for a plasticized pop video fabrication. I feel that Lowenstein should have had the directorial balls to dump the commercial concessions (and the pop star) to make the narrative free film of random fragmented Punk squat memories he only partially made and unfortunately compromised.
a celebration of punk rock
triple827 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The way, I figure it, Dogs in Space is less a movie with an ultimate resolution to the story, and more a celebration of a lifestyle and time period, many lived and loved. I am not sure(don't quite remember) how I came to see this but I think I rented it which just shows it was findable, at that time anyway.
I can't, if I am being honest say I loved this movie but I will say it had a strong pull and I have no trouble seeing why someone else would love it. Anyone who has lived through and loved the Punk movement should probably see this(if they can find it.) I cannot say everyone will love it but it is a movie that will appeal to those, who have the ability to relate to it.
One of my Main problems with Dogs in Space isn't the lack of structure or plot, it is the fact that despite the positives, I was bored when Michael Hutchence wasn't on the screen. He was so good that he overshadowed everything else. That's the way it was for me anyway.
I do wish that movies like this were still made(perhaps they are and I just can't find them.) I can appreciate movies that may reach few, but will deeply affect those they do reach. The 80's were a wonderful time period, and many interesting obscure films came out from then. This movie seems to have somewhat of a following which is nice, though I didn't love it, I can appreciate it and if one were to view it now, it probably would make someone wonder, where are these types of movies now? My vote is 6.5 out of 10 for the movie and 10 for certain elements such as atmosphere and certain performances. A must see for any punk rockers, fan of Inxs, or people with a taste for the offbeat.
I can't, if I am being honest say I loved this movie but I will say it had a strong pull and I have no trouble seeing why someone else would love it. Anyone who has lived through and loved the Punk movement should probably see this(if they can find it.) I cannot say everyone will love it but it is a movie that will appeal to those, who have the ability to relate to it.
One of my Main problems with Dogs in Space isn't the lack of structure or plot, it is the fact that despite the positives, I was bored when Michael Hutchence wasn't on the screen. He was so good that he overshadowed everything else. That's the way it was for me anyway.
I do wish that movies like this were still made(perhaps they are and I just can't find them.) I can appreciate movies that may reach few, but will deeply affect those they do reach. The 80's were a wonderful time period, and many interesting obscure films came out from then. This movie seems to have somewhat of a following which is nice, though I didn't love it, I can appreciate it and if one were to view it now, it probably would make someone wonder, where are these types of movies now? My vote is 6.5 out of 10 for the movie and 10 for certain elements such as atmosphere and certain performances. A must see for any punk rockers, fan of Inxs, or people with a taste for the offbeat.
Interesting document of a forgotten era.
Infofreak4 July 2001
I had fond memories of this movie for years, but on a recent re-viewing I was put off by the obnoxiousness of many of the characters here. They all seem shallow and self-obsessed, but that is probably an accurate portrayal of this period in Melbourne music history, and my reaction most likely has a lot to do with getting older, and being less sympathetic to the follies of youth.
'Dogs In Space' documents a fairly obscure but important period of Australian music history - the "little bands" scene, when punk turned weirder, artier, and generally more electronic. No other music scene in the world was EXACTLY the same, but the New York 'No Wave' era is the closest equivalent. Out of this melee came cult heroes The Birthday Party, but also many other acts that were hardly recorded, if recorded at all. This movie attempts to redress that. Director Richard Lowenstein lived in the house that inspired this story and hung out with the real band that is fictionalized here.
While not perfect, this movie has a lot of energy, some great music on the soundtrack (Iggy, Boys Next Door, Eno, Gang Of Four, Marching Girls), and there's enough of interest going on to make it highly recommended to anyone curious about late 70s/early 80s music. The late Michael Hutchence (INXS) may have rough acting chops, but he exudes enough charisma to make you wonder what might have been movie-wise for him.
By the way, keep an eye open for an early appearance of Noah Taylor now seen in more mainstream Hollywood fare like Tomb Raider!
'Dogs In Space' documents a fairly obscure but important period of Australian music history - the "little bands" scene, when punk turned weirder, artier, and generally more electronic. No other music scene in the world was EXACTLY the same, but the New York 'No Wave' era is the closest equivalent. Out of this melee came cult heroes The Birthday Party, but also many other acts that were hardly recorded, if recorded at all. This movie attempts to redress that. Director Richard Lowenstein lived in the house that inspired this story and hung out with the real band that is fictionalized here.
While not perfect, this movie has a lot of energy, some great music on the soundtrack (Iggy, Boys Next Door, Eno, Gang Of Four, Marching Girls), and there's enough of interest going on to make it highly recommended to anyone curious about late 70s/early 80s music. The late Michael Hutchence (INXS) may have rough acting chops, but he exudes enough charisma to make you wonder what might have been movie-wise for him.
By the way, keep an eye open for an early appearance of Noah Taylor now seen in more mainstream Hollywood fare like Tomb Raider!
Good
Groverdox31 March 2019
"Dogs in Space" purports to take you inside the "little band" scene of Melbourne in the late 1970s, but really feels more like a gritty and realistic portrait of share house living in the '80s, where it was filmed.
There's not much of an attempt to make you think it's the '70s. There are numerous anachronisms, but you'll have to check the "Goofs" section for those.
It does feel very realistic, however, and it's watchable in spite of a lack of storyline, or characters who aren't very interesting, mostly due to that realism.
There's not much of an attempt to make you think it's the '70s. There are numerous anachronisms, but you'll have to check the "Goofs" section for those.
It does feel very realistic, however, and it's watchable in spite of a lack of storyline, or characters who aren't very interesting, mostly due to that realism.
Punk rawk! Raw and real.
il_matto26 November 1998
This is for when you're feeling like you need some company, but you don't feel like venturing past your doorstep. It's a good example of "slice of life" cinema, taking us through the dirty, drug-addled day-to-day life of a punk commune in 1978 Melbourne. The late Michael Hutchence was the best choice to play Sam; though the film is a true story, it seems as if the role were written for Hutchence. Several of the parts were cast with non-actors, people that director Richard Lowenstein found in public, and that only adds to the gritty realism of the film. It's almost enough to make me wish I had been there. The strong performances by Nique Needles (as Tim, a friend and bandmate of Sam's) and Saskia Post (as Sam's girlfriend) are icing on the cake. As a bonus, you won't find a much better soundtrack - Iggy Pop, The Boys Next Door (later the Birthday Party), Brian Eno, Gang of Four, Dogs In Space (Hutchence and other actors/musicians from the film) and Melbourne locals of the day.
A snap-shot of the moment between youth and reality.
catgrin5 March 2004
This is one of my favorite movies, but for personal - not cinematic - reasons.
During high school I lived without parents, and frequently my house resembled the house in the pic. It was filled with teens and early twenty-somethings who were trying to either get the hang of standing alone as adults or ignoring the fact that they'd passed childhood up altogether.
Most people may not realize that the movie gives a fairly accurate description of that (sur)reality. It may seem shallow or pretentious, and it may lack in "deep" plot twists and turns. The thing is, at that age, and in that type of life you live without worrying about the next day because it's just too big a concern to deal with. Most will never live, or think/feel this way.
On the cinematic side: the movie is not for someone sitting down to "view a good book." It's more a chance to turn off higher functions and experience another side of the world (not just Australia, but the time period and lifestyle). It's also important to note that this is not a Hollywood "teen" or "young adult" comedy - it's a drama with a lot of nonsense included, because that's what life is like.
It really is a shame that the movie isn't more widely available. I still own it from the original release, and only one of the rental stores (family owned) in my area has a copy. I'm sure it would more than meet the price to release to DVD. (I'm certain that a double disk including the original soundtrack would actually sell quite well!)
If you find it, watch it.
During high school I lived without parents, and frequently my house resembled the house in the pic. It was filled with teens and early twenty-somethings who were trying to either get the hang of standing alone as adults or ignoring the fact that they'd passed childhood up altogether.
Most people may not realize that the movie gives a fairly accurate description of that (sur)reality. It may seem shallow or pretentious, and it may lack in "deep" plot twists and turns. The thing is, at that age, and in that type of life you live without worrying about the next day because it's just too big a concern to deal with. Most will never live, or think/feel this way.
On the cinematic side: the movie is not for someone sitting down to "view a good book." It's more a chance to turn off higher functions and experience another side of the world (not just Australia, but the time period and lifestyle). It's also important to note that this is not a Hollywood "teen" or "young adult" comedy - it's a drama with a lot of nonsense included, because that's what life is like.
It really is a shame that the movie isn't more widely available. I still own it from the original release, and only one of the rental stores (family owned) in my area has a copy. I'm sure it would more than meet the price to release to DVD. (I'm certain that a double disk including the original soundtrack would actually sell quite well!)
If you find it, watch it.
Dogs Ain't The Word for It.
Chrismandu-14 October 2006
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
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
The film mirrors their lives.
melwyn25 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Disappointing
humanresistor29 May 2000
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".
One of the great films about modern youth
LewisJForce5 July 2004
'Dogs in Space' pretty much seems to have disappeared over the years. My widescreen copy was taped off Channel 4 in the early 90's, and I'm pretty sure this was the last British terrestrial screening. Which is a real shame, because its a fantastic film. Written and directed by Richard Lowenstein, maker of the excellent 'Strikebound' and promos for INXS and U2, its an apparently semi-autobiographical piece about the various dwellers of, and visitors to, a rather decrepit squat in late 70's Melbourne.
For those who might be put off by Lowenstein's corporate rock pedigree, fear not. The film avoids modish stylisation in favour of a rather free-wheeling, Altmanesque approach to construction and character development. The viewer is left to decipher dialogue and make connections for themselves.
The piece is beautifully photographed and edited, and makes wonderful use of the 'steadicam' camera mount. Only at the very end does Lowenstein indulge himself in promo-style picture-making to sell the tie-in single 'Rooms for the memory'. And presumably give his otherwise pretty uncompromising vision some commercial lustre.
As with Altman's best work, the guiding hand is detached but compassionate. The characters are all fiercely idiosyncratic individuals, often infuriating and shallow. But they are never mocked. Instead we see that their silliness is often merely a result of an attempt to either forge uniqueness or merely belong, and as such it often attains a strange nobility.
At the films heart, though, lies a discernible disillusionment with, and subtle but pointed criticism of, the reality of the 'punk revolution'. Its most voluble proponents are shown to be either mouthpiece middle class drop-outs or confused, neglected teenagers. And its socio-political effect negligible.
Michael Hutchence's presence (again, presumably largely a commercial consideration) is rather subversively integrated into this schema. He is cast as a pretty but vain, self-obsessed and generally unlikeable singer Sam, whose outwardly anarchistic stance barely conceals a ruthless careerism. Sam is also witty illustration of the fact that punk inevitably existed off the graces of the bourgeois. He has his mother turn up at the squat with a freshly cooked meal and clean clothes while all the other residents are out. Again, though, the effect is wry rather than bile-drenched.
'Dogs' is well-acted by a cast of mostly never-heard-from-agains. The ubiquitous but brilliant Chris Haywood appears briefly to deliver a heartfelt eulogy to a chainsaw. It employs an excellent soundtrack, and special note should be made of the remarkable sound-mix.
It's an evocative, atmospheric snapshot of a sub-culture founded on both vainglorious naivete and admirable, rebellious individuality.
Deserves a deluxe, restored, fully stereophonic, all-bells-and-whistles DVD at the very least.
For those who might be put off by Lowenstein's corporate rock pedigree, fear not. The film avoids modish stylisation in favour of a rather free-wheeling, Altmanesque approach to construction and character development. The viewer is left to decipher dialogue and make connections for themselves.
The piece is beautifully photographed and edited, and makes wonderful use of the 'steadicam' camera mount. Only at the very end does Lowenstein indulge himself in promo-style picture-making to sell the tie-in single 'Rooms for the memory'. And presumably give his otherwise pretty uncompromising vision some commercial lustre.
As with Altman's best work, the guiding hand is detached but compassionate. The characters are all fiercely idiosyncratic individuals, often infuriating and shallow. But they are never mocked. Instead we see that their silliness is often merely a result of an attempt to either forge uniqueness or merely belong, and as such it often attains a strange nobility.
At the films heart, though, lies a discernible disillusionment with, and subtle but pointed criticism of, the reality of the 'punk revolution'. Its most voluble proponents are shown to be either mouthpiece middle class drop-outs or confused, neglected teenagers. And its socio-political effect negligible.
Michael Hutchence's presence (again, presumably largely a commercial consideration) is rather subversively integrated into this schema. He is cast as a pretty but vain, self-obsessed and generally unlikeable singer Sam, whose outwardly anarchistic stance barely conceals a ruthless careerism. Sam is also witty illustration of the fact that punk inevitably existed off the graces of the bourgeois. He has his mother turn up at the squat with a freshly cooked meal and clean clothes while all the other residents are out. Again, though, the effect is wry rather than bile-drenched.
'Dogs' is well-acted by a cast of mostly never-heard-from-agains. The ubiquitous but brilliant Chris Haywood appears briefly to deliver a heartfelt eulogy to a chainsaw. It employs an excellent soundtrack, and special note should be made of the remarkable sound-mix.
It's an evocative, atmospheric snapshot of a sub-culture founded on both vainglorious naivete and admirable, rebellious individuality.
Deserves a deluxe, restored, fully stereophonic, all-bells-and-whistles DVD at the very least.
An artistic gem in a homogenized wasteland of creativity
samuellae6 September 2005
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.
Maybe one of the worst films ever made
belinda-969-9605767 August 2019
Long Days Gone--Don't Miss Them, Don't Regret Them.
eadaoin722 May 2013
After donkeys years of buzz, I finally got a copied-copy of this film that I was told was the Aussie Sid & Nancy. Well, aside from the problems with the copy of the movie I have (several scenes skipped out - I had to go to YouTube to see them!!), I have to agree and disagree.
I can see how some people could make that comparison, as they both deal with the punk era and the fact that both movies end with a white limo scene. But in truth, I find Dogs In Space a more enjoyable trip down memory lane than S&N, and with a few nods to Breaking Glass thrown in for good measure.
The loose story is about trying to make it through the late 70's via the musical medium. The central characters are Anna and Sammy, not exactly icon or groupie, who live in a house with about 7000 other people, or so it seems some days. Some are studious, some are lost. Some desperately want to be musically inclined but can't seem to be much good at anything, and some hang around just to judge. Some want to score. Some want to fade away. Some want to change the world but can't even succeed in changing a light bulb. In short, your usual gang of punks. And just like in those party days, you're taken along room to room, conversation to conversation, sex to drug trip, ducking puke, furniture and arguments over nothing. These were the scenes that brought it all back for me - it's as if I were wandering through a party I'd gone to back in the day.
Anna is tolerant of her house mates and of her boyfriend, and seems to be the only one with a job. She is gracious and giving to a fault, and it is because of this that things go sadly wrong for her. Sammy is the lead singer of the band, content to be a kept boy by family and everyone else. He flops around with the cocksure swagger that only comes from oblivion, whether youth or chemically inspired. Or both. They have moments in which they create their own world together in the midst of all the chaos, and it's in those moments where we can see who they really could be. Those moments are quite touching on the 2nd viewing. Saskia Post gave a very sweet performance as Anna. And I have to say that Michael Hutchence was damn good in his role. His having known the guy he was portraying, and his coming from the punk scene, certainly helped.
Someone mentioned that it can be chancy to cast a musician in an acting role, but I've always thought it was a good bet. Musicians have to put on a persona of "rock star" every time they step on stage. They're used to playing a role almost every night. Many musicians are pretty good actors, but not many are given the chance. However, Michael Hutchence showed great promise. He was aspiring to do further work before his tragic and very sad demise. He is missed by millions to this day.
I'm not sure that this is a movie for everyone (understatement). It will, however, be incredibly nostalgic for those who were part of the punk scene, either as a band or a "poseur" (hanger-on). There was something very special about that time, and punks. They were pi**ed off, but on the whole good people who felt that they couldn't be good...if that makes sense. If you were friends, you stuck together and helped each other out the best you knew how. It may seem as if they treated everyone like the enemy, but they were just embroiled and united against whatever they perceived to be authority. Because, authority had let them down. They had been told that those of power would take care of their concerns, but in the same breath many were subject to poverty, mental/physical/sexual abuse, neglect - they saw the hypocrisy, and it angered them (as it would anyone). Many tried to escape these conflicts and problems, and bonded together in music, drugs, scrounging, sex - whatever they could grasp. It didn't feel so desperate, though, when you're in a house with 20 other people in a shanty or a "felony flat", and maybe that's why the memories are not all terrible. The only thing that ends it is someone dying. Someone always dies in everyone's group of friends. Which forces the group to no longer be a group and go it alone, shocked into reality, sadder, and hopefully a little bit more wise...or at least cautious.
If you made it through those days, this will be a tremendous flashback, complete with chainsaw and sheep but without the smell. What more could you ask from a punk film?
I can see how some people could make that comparison, as they both deal with the punk era and the fact that both movies end with a white limo scene. But in truth, I find Dogs In Space a more enjoyable trip down memory lane than S&N, and with a few nods to Breaking Glass thrown in for good measure.
The loose story is about trying to make it through the late 70's via the musical medium. The central characters are Anna and Sammy, not exactly icon or groupie, who live in a house with about 7000 other people, or so it seems some days. Some are studious, some are lost. Some desperately want to be musically inclined but can't seem to be much good at anything, and some hang around just to judge. Some want to score. Some want to fade away. Some want to change the world but can't even succeed in changing a light bulb. In short, your usual gang of punks. And just like in those party days, you're taken along room to room, conversation to conversation, sex to drug trip, ducking puke, furniture and arguments over nothing. These were the scenes that brought it all back for me - it's as if I were wandering through a party I'd gone to back in the day.
Anna is tolerant of her house mates and of her boyfriend, and seems to be the only one with a job. She is gracious and giving to a fault, and it is because of this that things go sadly wrong for her. Sammy is the lead singer of the band, content to be a kept boy by family and everyone else. He flops around with the cocksure swagger that only comes from oblivion, whether youth or chemically inspired. Or both. They have moments in which they create their own world together in the midst of all the chaos, and it's in those moments where we can see who they really could be. Those moments are quite touching on the 2nd viewing. Saskia Post gave a very sweet performance as Anna. And I have to say that Michael Hutchence was damn good in his role. His having known the guy he was portraying, and his coming from the punk scene, certainly helped.
Someone mentioned that it can be chancy to cast a musician in an acting role, but I've always thought it was a good bet. Musicians have to put on a persona of "rock star" every time they step on stage. They're used to playing a role almost every night. Many musicians are pretty good actors, but not many are given the chance. However, Michael Hutchence showed great promise. He was aspiring to do further work before his tragic and very sad demise. He is missed by millions to this day.
I'm not sure that this is a movie for everyone (understatement). It will, however, be incredibly nostalgic for those who were part of the punk scene, either as a band or a "poseur" (hanger-on). There was something very special about that time, and punks. They were pi**ed off, but on the whole good people who felt that they couldn't be good...if that makes sense. If you were friends, you stuck together and helped each other out the best you knew how. It may seem as if they treated everyone like the enemy, but they were just embroiled and united against whatever they perceived to be authority. Because, authority had let them down. They had been told that those of power would take care of their concerns, but in the same breath many were subject to poverty, mental/physical/sexual abuse, neglect - they saw the hypocrisy, and it angered them (as it would anyone). Many tried to escape these conflicts and problems, and bonded together in music, drugs, scrounging, sex - whatever they could grasp. It didn't feel so desperate, though, when you're in a house with 20 other people in a shanty or a "felony flat", and maybe that's why the memories are not all terrible. The only thing that ends it is someone dying. Someone always dies in everyone's group of friends. Which forces the group to no longer be a group and go it alone, shocked into reality, sadder, and hopefully a little bit more wise...or at least cautious.
If you made it through those days, this will be a tremendous flashback, complete with chainsaw and sheep but without the smell. What more could you ask from a punk film?
The worst movie ever created.
colebeckwilliams29 November 2018
Dogs in Space is easily one of the worst, if not the worst movie ever created. It is a disgrace to the "Dogs in Space" franchise. For starters, there are no dogs in space at all in the entire movie, which is incredibly misleading, and frankly the only reason why I purchased the movie in the first place. I have never hated anything more than this movie. It doesn't stay consistent to the brilliant manga that it was based upon, and instead focuses on a terrible story filled with terrible actors and terrible set pieces. Awful movie.
very cool
kgb_10122 April 2005
An interesting look at a house of drughead punks/homeless types in late 1970s/early 80s Australia (someone said Melbourne eh? That'd figure...certainly wasn't Brisbane! :-) ) Kinda like the Sid and Nancy of Oz, including the bittersweet ending. Although it's been years since I saw this film, and it's not available anywhere in the States (although I did see a copy in a Sydney video rental place...anyone wanna sell me one?) I distinctly recall Michael Hutchence's gloomy smackhead character experiencing THE most realistic acid trip at a party I've ever seen on film (and trust me, that's sayin something). Pretty plot less, yes, but worth it just for that scene.
Dumb
sisterhazel-177554 March 2021
a very real depiction of that kind of life
eeza2324 September 2007
I was obsessed with this movie when it came out. Firstly, I was the age of the characters and into that scene, that music, etc. Secondly, being from Melbourne, it was all very real. Also, Sam Sejavka, who the film is based on, came to my school in the mid-eighties and used some of my friends in a video-clip for his band, Beargarden. My sister's best friend, Deanna, played 'the girl' in the movie.
So we went and saw the movie underaged and followed it with that cult-like devotion, for a while it seemed every afflicted night would end with us trying to or finding the house, etc etc. There was so much to the movie we could identify with. Much later I went and saw 3 or 4 plays that Sejavka had written or directed. On the whole they were brilliant, particularly 'In Angel Gear', and most had the same feel of Dogs In Space. Saskia Post was in one of them.
This is probably no use to those who haven't seen it. But in concurrence with most who have written - it was so, so real.
So we went and saw the movie underaged and followed it with that cult-like devotion, for a while it seemed every afflicted night would end with us trying to or finding the house, etc etc. There was so much to the movie we could identify with. Much later I went and saw 3 or 4 plays that Sejavka had written or directed. On the whole they were brilliant, particularly 'In Angel Gear', and most had the same feel of Dogs In Space. Saskia Post was in one of them.
This is probably no use to those who haven't seen it. But in concurrence with most who have written - it was so, so real.
Truly an ensemble piece
tokinae24 September 2004
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.
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.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat film!!
christiangorey9 January 2007
Do not be fooled by all of the naysayers out there.....this is one hell of a movie....especially if you are a fan of Michael Hutchence(inxs).
I own this movie on VHS and have been waiting a long time for a much deserved DVD release..the acting is superb and you really feel as though you are spending time with old friends every time you watch this masterpiece. Definitely one of the best Australian movies ever made.
This movie has it all, sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and laughs upon laughs upon laughs. I cannot emphasize enough that everyone who loves comedy/drama involving young hip 20 something outcasts should run out and rent/buy this film.Trust me. 10/10 *****
I own this movie on VHS and have been waiting a long time for a much deserved DVD release..the acting is superb and you really feel as though you are spending time with old friends every time you watch this masterpiece. Definitely one of the best Australian movies ever made.
This movie has it all, sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and laughs upon laughs upon laughs. I cannot emphasize enough that everyone who loves comedy/drama involving young hip 20 something outcasts should run out and rent/buy this film.Trust me. 10/10 *****
An Aussie icon that's a gem, oi oi oi
videorama-759-8593914 March 2014
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.
Authentic
michelle-halloway3 December 2011
I lived in Melbourne in this time frame. In share houses and went to lots of parties. Very much catches the ambiance, feel, human desires and dilemmas of being a youth in this era. Unless you lived there and know it you can't really appreciate the truth of this life. So many perished from overdoses. Many went on to live happy lives. But if you have been to these times for me they were the most free and some of the happiest times of my life because no one judged you, people encouraged individuality and a freedom of mind. There was a loyalty. Qualities in humanity that are not around today. People are emotionless now and do not discern right from wrong. The world is too dangerous. This was a cherished time.
Layer after layer of amazement.
mrskunk10 May 1999
The big Cousin of Romper Stomper
fionaroberts-3576815 April 2020
Dogs in Space to me seems like the older cousin of Romper Stomper partially because it was filmed near the same locations but also it has the same destructive critique of Australian, and Melbourne sub culture. I don't think you can say there's anything nice about the movie or even pleasant to watch but it had a powerful impact on me when I first came across it. Michael's role was just as it should have been and the music was so fitting to the genre. I could see parallels to Trainspotting as the third connection especially in its concept of addiction and death. I think this film made me have an interest in miserable movies. I just loved how it made me feel, skin crawling and tense moments of 'what did I just watch?' Just how good cinema should be. For me that is.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
