Too bad there's a length limit on comments, because I could write volumes about how incredibly awful this movie is. To those who saw this as some sort of commercial for PETA, I'd suggest you go back and watch it again (but I wouldn't suggest anyone watch this garbage even once, let alone twice). Did you not notice that the two characters who cared anything about animals were severely damaged goods? Far from being a pro-PETA piece, this movie strongly implies that the only reason anyone cares deeply about animals is because they are incapable - for one reason or another - of functioning in human society. To those who thought this movie was "warm" or "funny" - if your idea of warm or funny is to watch a slightly introverted but otherwise competent woman sink inexorably into a downward spiral of psychotic madness replete with larceny, child abuse, animal abuse, vandalism, betrayal, and attempted murder - then this movie may be just your cup of tea. And to those who identified with the main character - I implore you to get professional help as soon as possible.
I've read many of the other comments and want to correct a few points that I believe are misperceptions: 1. Peggy was not a sociopath at the beginning of the movie - she was a fairly introverted but otherwise normal person. The fact that she could deal competently with an obviously paranoid boss, maintain a normal, healthy friendship with a coworker, remain friends with a thoroughly unlikeable brother and sister-in-law and engender the affection of her spoiled niece all indicated that her initial problems ran no deeper than being a rather homely wallflower who had compensated for her lack of an intimate human relationship by being closely - but not pathologically - attached to her dog.
2. Newt was not gay. If you paid attention to what he said, you discovered that he was abused terribly in childhood - and the most probable reason that he was unable to have an intimate relationship with either a woman or a man was a not-too-subtle suggestion that this abuse produced a physiological rather than psychological incapacity (mutilation? castration?).
3. Peggy is not headed toward some sort of happy ending at the end of the movie, but rather has retreated fully into psychosis. The crimes to which her delusions have led her are not crimes she will be able to walk away from - and her fully psychotic state will only lead her to commit more in her deranged desire to protect animals.
4. Many commenters claimed that the people around Peggy didn't care about her loss of Pencil. On the contrary, each character she came into contact with expressed their sympathy and at least tried in some way to comfort her. That some of their methods were crass or counter-productive does not diminish their underlying empathy.
The movie's primary detestable assumptions are that a) anyone who has a close bond to animals only comes to that bond because they are incapable - for one reason or another - of forming healthy bonds with other people, and b) that people so bonded to animals are hopelessly blind to reason. About midway through, the movie abandoned any pretext of being an exploration of feelings and emotions and became nothing more than a sick, twisted attack on animal lovers. One of the principle evidences of this transformation was when, discovering that the German Shepherd had killed the disabled dog, Peggy rushes to the pound to try to save the German Shepherd. PETA or not, no animal lover in possession of their senses would contend that a dog that attacks and kills another pet (let alone a person) should not immediately be put down. And no animal pound in existence would entrust another fifteen dogs to the care of such a person, no matter what credentials they claimed.
I suggest that the writer of this awful, awful piece of work has some deep issues with animals - and is completely incapable of understanding that love and empathy are not the sole province of human-to-human relationships, but rightfully - and healthily - should extend to a genuine care for all creatures - great and small.
I could list many, many other ways in which this movie's portrayal of people who care about animals was screamingly unrealistic. And yes, I "get" dark comedy...but there was nothing comic about this. It was nothing more than a myopic, mean-spirited portrayal of dementia - and I'm afraid I can find nothing either entertaining or funny in that.
I've read many of the other comments and want to correct a few points that I believe are misperceptions: 1. Peggy was not a sociopath at the beginning of the movie - she was a fairly introverted but otherwise normal person. The fact that she could deal competently with an obviously paranoid boss, maintain a normal, healthy friendship with a coworker, remain friends with a thoroughly unlikeable brother and sister-in-law and engender the affection of her spoiled niece all indicated that her initial problems ran no deeper than being a rather homely wallflower who had compensated for her lack of an intimate human relationship by being closely - but not pathologically - attached to her dog.
2. Newt was not gay. If you paid attention to what he said, you discovered that he was abused terribly in childhood - and the most probable reason that he was unable to have an intimate relationship with either a woman or a man was a not-too-subtle suggestion that this abuse produced a physiological rather than psychological incapacity (mutilation? castration?).
3. Peggy is not headed toward some sort of happy ending at the end of the movie, but rather has retreated fully into psychosis. The crimes to which her delusions have led her are not crimes she will be able to walk away from - and her fully psychotic state will only lead her to commit more in her deranged desire to protect animals.
4. Many commenters claimed that the people around Peggy didn't care about her loss of Pencil. On the contrary, each character she came into contact with expressed their sympathy and at least tried in some way to comfort her. That some of their methods were crass or counter-productive does not diminish their underlying empathy.
The movie's primary detestable assumptions are that a) anyone who has a close bond to animals only comes to that bond because they are incapable - for one reason or another - of forming healthy bonds with other people, and b) that people so bonded to animals are hopelessly blind to reason. About midway through, the movie abandoned any pretext of being an exploration of feelings and emotions and became nothing more than a sick, twisted attack on animal lovers. One of the principle evidences of this transformation was when, discovering that the German Shepherd had killed the disabled dog, Peggy rushes to the pound to try to save the German Shepherd. PETA or not, no animal lover in possession of their senses would contend that a dog that attacks and kills another pet (let alone a person) should not immediately be put down. And no animal pound in existence would entrust another fifteen dogs to the care of such a person, no matter what credentials they claimed.
I suggest that the writer of this awful, awful piece of work has some deep issues with animals - and is completely incapable of understanding that love and empathy are not the sole province of human-to-human relationships, but rightfully - and healthily - should extend to a genuine care for all creatures - great and small.
I could list many, many other ways in which this movie's portrayal of people who care about animals was screamingly unrealistic. And yes, I "get" dark comedy...but there was nothing comic about this. It was nothing more than a myopic, mean-spirited portrayal of dementia - and I'm afraid I can find nothing either entertaining or funny in that.