Rodger Dodger

Here is a quintessential example of an American "indie" flick. It centers on Roger (Campbell Scott), who we first meet as this chatty, self-assured guy in his thirties who just loves spinning his little "theories" about sex and gender dynamics... only to be dumped by his girlfriend, who also happens to be his boss (Isabella Rossellini). Right as that hits the fan, his sixteen-year-old nephew shows up from out of town, desperate to experience the "real" side of life (read: sex). Roger introduces him to two of his female friends (Elizabeth Berkley, Jennifer Beals)... and I really shouldn't spoil any more of the plot than that.
The film is almost entirely composed of non-stop dialogue, which serves as practically the only action in the whole thing... and these "serious" discussions are constantly interrupted by witty quips. The writer/director making his debut, Dylan Kidd, sets the scene amidst parties, bars, and city streets... there is this constant sense of weariness hanging in the air, and since the camera is perpetually in motion, it lends the whole piece an extra layer of energy.
So, nothing groundbreaking here, but it's a solid watch... honestly, it's a relief that there are still American films being made that aren't designed solely to lobotomize the audience. 7/10

Just caught this recently and I honestly don't know what to make of it... maybe I just heard too much hype and expected something else entirely.
Anyway, it's an interesting watch—fast-paced, witty, light, and doesn't take itself too seriously...
...that nightclub scene, specifically the part with Elizabeth Berkley and Jennifer Beals, is definitely the standout moment...

Watched this movie yesterday. It was alright. 👍

Campbell Scott is great as this charming, smooth-talking player, and Jesse Eisenberg plays his eager protégé who heads to New York City hoping Scott can teach him how to actually pull.

If anyone else has seen it, let me know what you thought...

It starts off on a rather sluggish note, but once you hit about the quarter mark—specifically during that club scene, which is easily the highlight—the film begins to pull you in, and you find yourself genuinely captivated by the lead actors' dialogue. There is an almost educational quality to the narrative, particularly in how it forces one to re-examine the complexities of gender dynamics and the various generational divides within our society.

While I wouldn't go so far as to call it a masterpiece, it is certainly a solid seven out of ten, and as Robert Cooper41 so aptly put it, it’s quite a pleasant watch.

It is truly a shame that the young boy wasn't able to catch that lollipop Elizabeth Berkley tossed his way in the bar... 😁

neonsailor12 said:........

It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but I’d give it a solid seven. Like Robert Cooper41 said, it’s a perfectly fine watch.

It’s a shame that kid didn't manage to snag that lollipop Elizabeth Berkley tossed his way at the bar. 😁

Yeah, I'm with you on that. 👍
A quote from another thread:

Douglas Phillips4 said:He’s an absolute legend. 👍 All that rambling of his isn't just noise; half the time, he actually hits the nail on the head. It’s just that women aren't exactly ready to hear the cold, hard truth. 🙄

It looks much better when it's wrapped in cellophane with a little bow. Or, honestly, don't serve it at all.
My only real gripe is the poor quality of this DVD release. The audio is strictly stereo and sounds pretty muddy; while the music comes through clearly in certain spots, the dialogue often gets lost in the mix. The picture isn't much better—the compression in the darker scenes is an absolute disaster. It’s not a dealbreaker, but I figured I should mention it. 🙂

That's really great!
I’ve always had such a massive soft spot for American indie cinema... especially those gritty flicks starring Steve Buscemi. You know, stuff like Trees Lounge, Reservoir Dogs, search for One-eye Jimmy, Living in Oblivion, Things to do in Denver When You're Dead, or The real blond... there's just something about that style. So, whenever a rare little gem from that era finally makes its way over here, I make sure I don't miss it. I'll track it down no matter what...
Smart, witty dialogue... those sharp little exchanges and monologues... that’s exactly what most mainstream movies are missing these days. But here? You can find it in spades. That's really why I enjoyed watching the film so much...
The low-budget feel of it all... honestly, even the crappy sound and that grainy picture quality on the DVD didn't really bother me that much...

I really expected way more from this subject matter. Just because it’s indie doesn't mean it works—this felt like an indie dud. It's like the director is too afraid to actually take a swing at the audience, you know? This thing leans way too hard into the mainstream, whereas something like Roger Avary's 😬 Rules of Attraction—man, don't kill me for even making that comparison—goes to the complete opposite extreme. And Lost in Translation is just too soft, but in a totally different way. Ugh, maybe it's time I start writing my own screenplay. 😁 😁 😁
Bottom line? It's nothing special. What about you guys? Tell me what you actually loved so we can get a real debate going. 😁 😁

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Living in Oblivion

That's a movie. Beautiful Girls is a movie, those are actual films. Rodger Dodger isn't quite there. Just my humble opinion.

Go ahead and tear me apart for making the comparison.

People have already been debating this in the Forum hallways... 😉

You have to remember this is a debut—the kind of thing where the guy writes and directs it himself, so it’s very much an auteur piece. Besides, Beautiful Girls and R. D. share the same core concept; it's just that one plays out in some small town in Ohio while the other happens in Manhattan. That said, R. D. is superior when it comes to the dialogue, whereas B. G. probably has slightly better casting. Actually, B. G. feels "beautified" and occasionally leans too hard into melodrama, while R. D. aims for a sense of realism that actually lands. Because of that, R. D. feels less mainstream, though I get the feeling that whether a film is considered "indie" or "mainstream" doesn't really matter when you're judging its actual value. But hey, everyone has their own definition of what "mainstream" means... 😉

'Rules of Attraction' and 'Lost in...' 😕

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Though, let's be real—R. D. totally carries the dialogue.

Honestly, the dialogue was the biggest letdown for me. I actually rented this movie just for the script—not that I have anything against good dialogue, I love it, really—but the writing here just missed the mark. Not trying to go on a huge rant or anything... maybe I should grab a few examples? Let's just say I wasn't exactly blown away. I was really hoping it would hit harder.

Hold on a second... I was saying that R. D. actually holds his own when it comes to the dialogue compared to Beautiful Girls. I’m not claiming the movie is some serious heavyweight contender for the best script ever written, but still.

Part of the reason it might feel a bit off in this one is that we get hit with a massive wave of dialogue almost immediately—that bar scene, specifically. We learn everything about the lead through people just talking at him, rather than seeing it play out through actual movement or action, which is usually how you'd want to handle it in film. Still, I think the director makes up for those early stumbles later on in the movie.

For instance, I thought that bit where he breaks down the little secrets of a master who can measure and resize basically anything—including every woman within eyesight—was great. Pure cinema. 😁

Jessica Nguyen85 said:I mean, that part where he explains all those little tricks of the trade—measuring and re-measuring basically everything and every woman in sight? Pure gold. Total action movie vibes. 😁

Yeah, fair enough... I guess the overall vibe kind of washes out the good bits. And honestly? Maybe I just care too much about the lack of cleavage. 😁 😁

Still, I'd definitely be happier if they made more movies like this—yeah, totally! But man, there's just something missing, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe one day I'll actually figure it out and give some real feedback, but until then, nothing. 😁

It seems like most people here have finally reached a consensus on this, wouldn't you agree? I’ve been sitting back and watching the discussion unfold, and it really strikes me how much agreement there is building up among the group regarding this particular point. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're all finally landing on the same page after all that back-and-forth? It’s actually quite striking to see such a broad majority align themselves this way, isn't it? Rodger Dodger Look, I’m not saying it belongs in the "masterpiece" category—far from it—but if we’re just calling it "charming," then what exactly are we even debating here? Is there even a point to this whole discussion if we've already settled on such a lukewarm descriptor? 😁 Since we’re talking about a directorial debut here, isn't it obvious that we really need to keep a close eye on Dylan Kidd moving forward? You have to wonder, when a first-timer hits the scene with this kind of energy, where does that trajectory actually lead? It’s the kind of talent that makes you stop and think—are we witnessing the start of something massive? I truly believe we should be paying much closer attention to what Dylan Kidd does next.

By the way, I was just thinking about how Campbell Scott actually delivered an absolutely stellar performance last year in that indie flick—you know, one of those gritty, low-budget productions that actually has some soul? It really makes you wonder why Hollywood keeps chasing those bloated, mindless blockbusters when there’s such raw talent sitting right there waiting to be noticed! Is anyone else actually sitting down to watch "The Secret Lives of Dentists," or am I just shouting into the void here? I was flipping through the channels last night—just looking for something to distract me from the absolute chaos currently unfolding in downtown Chicago—and this title popped up, and I have to ask: what on earth is the premise supposed to be? Is it a gritty exposé on the hidden drama behind those sterile white walls, or just some overly dramatized soap opera disguised as a medical procedural? I mean, really, how much "secret life" can a person in scrubs actually lead before it becomes a parody of itself? It feels like one of those shows that tries way too hard to find depth in the mundane, and frankly, I’m already skeptical!:
So, here’s the setup: we’ve got David, right? He’s a dentist—just your standard, hardworking professional. He runs a practice alongside his wife, Hopa Davis, and on paper, they’ve basically won at life. They’ve got the three kids, the big house, even a cozy vacation home out in the suburbs to escape the chaos. It sounds like the ultimate American Dream, doesn't it? Everything is perfectly manicured and settled. But then, the cracks start appearing. Suddenly, he begins to suspect that his wife isn't being faithful, and everything he thought was solid starts to crumble. Can you imagine? One minute you're worrying about dental insurance and school schedules, and the next, your entire reality is spinning out of control because of a betrayal you never saw coming.
It’s hard to pin Zanrovski down exactly, isn't it? He seems to hover in this strange, nebulous space right between a traditional family drama and a full-blown comedy. It’s almost restless. And then you have Denis Leary stepping in as Davidson’s imaginary "macho" mentor—it adds this bizarre, frantic layer to the whole thing that keeps you guessing where the tone is actually headed. 😁 Honestly, they’re a step below Rodger Dodger, and let’s be real—the script choices are a bit of a head-scratcher that leave you wondering what on earth they were thinking—but even with those messy narrative turns, I’d still say it’s worth checking out. 👍

Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than scrolling through Metacritic reviews? Honestly, I find myself sitting there, staring at those little colored squares—red, yellow, green—wondering if we’ve collectively lost our ability to actually *feel* something about art without a decimal point telling us how to react! It’s become this bizarre, endless loop of consensus-building where everyone seems terrified of having an outlier opinion, isn't it? You see these critics, these supposed "experts" who spend their entire lives dissecting a single frame of film or a few lines of code, and they all seem to march in lockstep toward some arbitrary number that supposedly represents "quality." But what does quality even mean anymore in this digital age? Is it just a metric of how well a product adheres to certain industry standards, or is it actually about the soul of the work? And don't even get me started on the user scores, which are essentially just a chaotic battlefield where people go to vent their frustrations after a bad day at the office or argue about things that don't even matter! Why do we feel the need to quantify everything? Why can't we just sit down, watch a movie or play a game, and let the experience wash over us without checking a website to see if we’re "allowed" to enjoy it? It feels like we're trading genuine human connection and individual taste for a spreadsheet, and frankly, it makes me want to throw my laptop out the window!

When discussing the dialogue and monologues, I found Rodger Dodger’s opening monologue—the one where they’re all sitting at the table—to be particularly striking. It really forces you to pause and reflect for a moment...
As far as the film itself goes, it lacks the standard setup and payoff structure we usually see, yet it remains quite compelling. In a way, there's a certain lesson to be learned from it... though I was expecting a completely different experience (not to mention how my local video rental shop had slapped a "comedy" label on it, which this definitely is not).

On a side note, the cinematography left me a bit lost; some of those darker scenes were hard to follow. Because of that, I couldn't quite grasp exactly what happened in that final sequence right before Rodger Dodger brings anyone home. Any insights? thanks

Here’s another one hitting the shelves alongside Dogville $3.25...

Just like Dogville, I figured based on the box description this was going to be a total snooze fest...

..but just like Dogville, it wasn't boring at all. They market it as some light comedy, but to me, it was incredibly heavy and sad.
The lead comes across as this deeply lonely guy who just gets under everyone's skin because he's so stuck in his own head—a bit selfish, honestly. It was depressing to watch.
His relationship with his nephew was heartbreaking too. At least, that's how it hit me—like when he just leaves the kid alone out on the street
or that scene where he pulls him away from those girls and they end up brawling on the roof.

And that final scene in the school cafeteria where the kid sees his uncle walk in? That wasn't just sad; it actually brought a tear to my eye. 😁

The actresses are fantastic. I've always found Isabella really charming, especially lately seeing her in shows like Friends, and the actress from Flashdance is great too. Without them, this movie wouldn't have had that special touch. 😁
Bottom line: it's a solid, worthwhile watch.
🙂 👍

And looking at the themes in Dogville, I'll say it: our local directors here in the States—especially those coming out of these Eastern European regions—could never pull off a film like this. We don't have actors with that kind of soul, we don't have scripts this tight, and there's zero desire to just mash together gratuitous sex, vulgarity, and violence. This movie, much like Dogville, has all of that, but it doesn't shove it in your face. You have to be a master to pull that off.

Campbell Scott is honestly incredible! Such a fascinating movie—and all that for just ten bucks!

I actually started watching it, but I ended up giving up pretty quickly—it was just a little too awkward for my taste, I guess.