ilovedawko I really enjoyed this movie.The plot is darkly funny, with elements of Kill Bill and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but all with an absurdist twist.The main characters are both strangely believable, in amongst all the insanity of the plot. Their emotional connection is plausible and well done. Cartoon violence is interspersed with some relatively poignant and deep dialogue. If you have seen Llewyn Davis then one side of the dialogue will seem vaguely familiar - the same actor brings his brooding, terse delivery to this movie with good effect.Overall, I would definitely recommend watching this. Ideally late at night after a few drinks for authenticity...

timlundberg I have lost a lot of respect for a bunch of actors who should know better. A terrible film by spoilt Hollywood idiots taken with the idea that it is OK and hilarious for poor disenfranchised commoners to shoot each other to bits for no reason. I guess the star and writer and all the others who indulged in this morally bankrupt attempt at comedy couldn't see that it is idiotic with no redeeming factors, terrible script, awful acting. Pointlessly violent and attempting to play to some misconceived idea of hip, this film has no heart, no humanity and there is nothing to learn or see here. Stay away from this drivel and don't indulge the idea that there is some kind of black humour at work here, there isn't.

OJT This is the feature film debut of Chadd Harbold, after six short films (of which one is free to watch here on IMDb), with a script by main role man Brian Petsos, which here is Harry and really what we could say is a dog's worst friend.The film appears to be a black comedy with a great cast, but is not as funny as you think if is.The first 15 minutes seems OK, but then we understand this isn't a black comedy. It seems like Harbold wants to make a Tarantino-flick, though it's quite far from it. The plot has a good idea, and this film could have been great. The problem is that it isn't very funny, just violent. It's so not funny, that I wonder if it's supposed to be funny at all.It's about two low life (or no life) drinking buddies which goes on a killer rampage to revenge the killing of a small dog, Jolly. They're completely unsafe and insane, played by Brian Petsos and Oscar Isaak.What is always great, is small supporting Rolex by know actors, and there's a bunch of them here, like Elijah Wood, Kirsten Wiig, David Rasche, Ryan Phillippe, Adam Brody, Garret Dillahunt, Kevin Corrigan, Stephen Payne, Gillian Jacobs, Amy Seimetz, Helen Rogers, Bobby Moynihan, John Di Benedetto, Brian Donahue and so on...The wedding scene is the most violent since the Kill Bill parody "Kill Buljo", a strange mix of provoked killings and mercy killings confuses a bit. Such a shame the potent cast didn't get a better script to work with. The film ends without being fulfilled, neither do we as an audience. Obviously some talent here, stylish, and some great use of music, but it falls flat to the ground, I'm afraid. An premature unfinished film, which any remake would be better.

napierslogs "Revenge for Jolly" is a crime drama masquerading as a dark comedy. It starts out very serious. Harry (Brian Petsos) is a good guy who has done bad things and is in over his head. But then bad guys kill his dog and he and his cousin, Cecil (Oscar Isaac), are out for revenge. And then with another bad decision Harry kills a guy. Ha ha ha, isn't that hilarious?Seriously. At that moment the film decides to take a dark crime drama and turn it into a comedy. Follow up a murder with witty repartee which should only be attempted by good writers. These are not good writers. The entire beginning of the movie was told by narration, the rest of the movie was one-off scenes with good actors. Some of which were mildly funny, most of which were extremely violent, none of which were cohesive.This is one of the worst attempts I have ever seen at a dark comedy. The actors played it all so seriously (and frequently it was very serious) but then there would be a number of ridiculously violent acts and then they would have a ridiculous nonsense conversation to be played for laughs. I get the juxtaposition, but none of it worked together.The lead actor couldn't play subtle at all. Isaac does a great job of playing a bad guy who isn't so bad (he can also throw in some subtle comedy) but his character was terrible. Cecil was supposedly a good guy with a bad cousin but he was just bad with no redeeming qualities. I think the writers thought that since he wasn't as vicious as Harry, the audience would like him. As for Harry, extreme pet fanatics would understand him. But has no one ever heard of moderation?A number of good actors come in for one scene. Most of their comedy was non-sequitors, and most really weren't funny. I did laugh at Adam Brody and Bobby Moynihan playing unscrupulous lawyers, but that was just the beginning of one scene. Most of the comedy was to come from the dialogue, but it was terrible dialogue and shouldn't be uttered by any actor no matter what the skill level. I do at least understand why all of the big name actors agreed to be in it. What's the one type of scene that all actors love? Well, they all get to do it. I don't think that's a good reason to be in a movie, but that's for a different discussion. The problem with "Revenge for Jolly" is that it couldn't get across what kind of movie it was. Is it a crime drama? Or a dark comedy? How about a satire of a crime drama? Or is it a satire of a dark comedy? There was crimes and there was comedy but they didn't go together.