Little Fish, Strange Pond (2009) User Reviews

EVIL BEGATS EVIL

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 17 December 2018]

If you are a big fan of indie films steep in symbolism and Milton; one that makes you say WTF at the end of the movie, you might try this slow mover with tons of dialogue and f-bombs. Jack and Stephen are friends and while polar opposites they seem to know each other extremely well. Jack, who is filled with positive karma, although not all good, is always situated on the right side of Stephen who is filled with negative energy. Zach Galifanakis plays an adult store owner who deals to children and also sells drugs. There are two subplots that run through the story also. Tommy, the cop is investigating the disappearance of a girl and talk show host Dennis River (Jerry Springer type) somehow has a kid on stage who has admitted killing his parents. They all eventually come together. Much of the story is conversation between Jack and Stephen. The adult book store robbery was comical, but after that the comedy dies. The symbolism on the box is somewhat of a plot spoiler as Jack is made to look like the devil and Stephen the angel. There is a difference between being bad and acting bad, as the movie attempts to point out. At one point Jack almost quotes a Rolling Stone line, "Please to meet you, guess my name" from Sympathy for the Devil. Jack is a nickname for Satan. While attempting to figure out evil, Stephen Sweet asks Jack "Is masturbation evil?" Jack answers, "According to my mother, yes. Thank God she is dead."

After watching this movie I didn't know if I loved it or hated it. But I do know I won't be able to sit through it again to find out.

I didn't find any laughs or anything else

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 20 July 2014]

Mr. Jack (Matthew Modine) and Sweet Stephen (Callum Blue) travel the streets of L.A. pontificating on various subjects. They go to Bucky (Zach Galifianakis)'s porn shop to buy something special. The first one is free. Philly comes (Paul Adelstein) in to rob the porn store. Police detective Tommy (Adam Baldwin) shoots him in the head and rescues everybody. In his investigation, Tommy meets Norma (Liza Weil). Meanwhile the guys keep traveling.

Everybody is acting crazy. How crazy? Zach may be the least crazy one in the movie. It's all very wacky, random, and tiresome. In the only thing that truly matters, this is not funny. Quite frankly, the movie loses all the drive after it leaves the porn shop and Zach. If it stayed in the shop, I could see some interesting wacky things happening instead of the boring wacky things in this movie. Directed by Gregory Dark and written by Robert Dean Klein, I don't know anything about either guy and I don't see anything here to suggest anything good can be expected. This does try to be profound in the end but it's too little too late.

Never judge a film by it's cover

[ajaykarwal · 3/10 · 5 December 2011]

I bought this DVD based on Zach G in Hangover and Due Date, and the fact that the blurb on the cover said it is a "dark comedy".

It's ridiculous that Z.G. is so prominent on the cover and listed as one of the main roles... he's in the movie for 1 scene.. around 10 mins in total.

This is a strange movie.. takes a while for the story to develop, and when it does it leaves you feeling a little strange.

It's not until the very last scene that it all comes together and you actually realise what is going on.

Worth watching, but DO NOT expect any comedy, DO NOT expect Due Date or Hangover.

film about the good and bad in the world and why it should be so

[chrisroberts33 · 2 September 2011]

I will start this article by conceding some points. yes the film cover is very misleading both in showing what kind of film it is and who the main stars are. Yes the film is made by a porn director who has little experience outside that field although he has directed several episodes of OZ!

Every review I have read has hated this film. I think maybe people's opinion may be clouded because it was not the movie they expected when they purchased the DVD. This movie is full of original characters and clever story telling. The dialogue (although not as good) is very much in the Cohen brothers/ Tarantino style of talk for the sake of thought rather than plot development and although the story is quite interesting the film is more about getting you thinking or talking about the issues it raises. IE - what is wrong and what is right and why do these 2 opposing forces exist in the human psyche. This is an original film and should be viewed not as a comedy but as a chance to spend and hour and 10 minutes enjoying some unique characters and discuss a subject which is part of the make up for all our psyches and not as a slapstick comedy that will make you chuckle twice if your lucky. Enter this film with the correct expectations and you are in for a real treat.

The film does have a religious undertone but I do not feel it was trying to use religion as anything other than a means to discuss the way we battle with "right and wrong" in our own minds

Waste of Time and money

[ricd-954-18400 · 1/10 · 19 January 2011]

Plain and simply Awful:

I rented this movie for a $1.07 and feel I've been robed. I don't usually do reviews but took the time to warn you: Do NOT, I repeat DO NOT watch this movie; if you value yourself and your time.

Bad dialogue pointless or almost non existing theme, it's not some sort of new art it's just a really bad movie with actors you may have seen before (agents should be punished literally like physical or standing in a corner for two weeks or something more creative than the movie itself and then fired for getting them these parts). It has nothing to do with being intellectual or understanding anything. It's just a really bad movie maybe good for a seminar on art school of what not to do as a director, writer, producer, camera operator, gaffer, grip etc....

I voted 1 because 0 is not an option. You've been warned...

False Advertising

[peoplescritic · 2/10 · 8 January 2011]

AKA Frenemy. Whoever put Zach G.'s picture on the front of this owes him and anyone who watches this movie an apology. It's clear that someone was blatantly trying to exploit Zach Galifianakis's fame to dupe people into renting this waste of time. Not only that, but there were so few comedic moments there is no way it should be called a comedy. Dark, yes, I'll give them that but it was as random as watching Family Guy but completely devoid of humor. The only reason that I gave it two stars is because the main cast and most of the acting was pretty solid. It's kind of like the "abstract art" that nobody really gets but so-called "deep thinking" critics say they love just to make you think that they know something that you don't. It was less than an hour an a half long and it still seemed to go on forever. I want my dollar and my 80 minutes back!

As they already said before, avoid this at any cost... Awful movie.

[lucasmouraobr · 1/10 · 8 May 2011]

It's so frustrating ... you rent this movie because Zack is on the cover and you think that this is a fun movie like "The Hangover"and "Due Date".They used the Zack image as a decoy to attract the more hardcore fans just to get more money. This movie is a trap!! Not funny at all! Move away from that! I am very disappointed by Zack agreed to take part in this crap ... Do not watch this. It is a trap from which you will bitterly regret if you fall...

I rented this thing after I watched "due date" which was really fun and I just wanted to have more. I love Zack G. and I really expected I could enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the previous one. But there's no how to compare one thing with the other. Some people may say that they had fun watching this "thing" but I doubt. If regret could kill, I would be dead by now.

Dishonest advertising aside, a poorly made film

[MasterGuns2077 · 2/10 · 20 May 2011]

Yes, this film jumped on the ZG bandwagon and that's probably the only reason anyone honestly watched this film. It's also the only reason anyone got to see an interesting idea get completely butchered by terrible writing and equally awful directing. Perhaps it's because the budget was so low, perhaps its because the writers and director were simply talentless. The concept, without spoiling it for you (but really, don't bother) is a discussion of violence and what is evil, what is addiction, and what is human nature. Interesting, right? Yeah. Toss in some relatively talented and interesting actors and its all up to the writing and directing to bring this film together. Those two cogs fail miserably, and we're left with a film that features a superb ZG doing what he does best for about fifteen minutes. After that, you're left to fumble around the film on your own. Good luck, but don't bother. This film was a failure. A good idea, but poorly executed.

No Wonder the Name of the Movie was changed it stinks!

[pigalig · 1/10 · 30 December 2010]

Now I understand why the name of this movie was changed! This is not an intellectual dark comedy, this is a waste of time. The fake accent is annoying, the dialog is stupid, and quite frankly to say this is a dark comedy is a misnomer. There is nothing in the this script that is redeemable. I assume like others that the plot of the movie was to copy the Pulp Fiction genre however, after watching 30 minutes of the unending stupid, meaningless, and ridiculous dialog I gave up. Thank goodness I rented it from a Red Box or I might have been "Philly" at the video store! Shame on the marketer's who utilized Zach Galifiankias to bait people into renting this movie. Do not waste your time, I just lost 30 minutes of my life that I will never regain:( Oh and by the way I am not amateur movie viewer, at 50 years old my movie library is eclectic and vast, starting with classic Charlie Chaplin to Tyler Perry's movies, this time I agree with the critics the movie stinks!!!!!!

Not a review so much

[stopthesunshine · 6/10 · 25 February 2011]

Just a few words. First, the movie was above average. I like that the director was trying to do something different, but I think he didn't take his weirdness far enough. I'd like to have seen more stylistic camera work, and perhaps better written dialog at times.

I mainly signed up to post this: Am I the only one tired of these anti-intellectual pricks coming on here just to say OH I GUESS I'M NOT ARTSY ENOUGH TO GET THIS MOVIE or OH THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIKE THIS MOVIE THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR.

How insecure are people who post comments like that? How much of an inferiority complex do you have to have to watch a movie you don't enjoy and then automatically assume that everyone who enjoys it imagines themselves as superior to you? I think my previous sentence might be a bit too long for such people to follow. Translation: YOU INSECURE. OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MOVIE. THAT ALL. GO BED. BETTER YET EAT CHEETO. A LOT CHEETO.

Some people enjoy movies (or don't enjoy them (I'm not sure the type of people I'm addressing can understand the concept of digressive parenthetical remarks--particularly parentheses within parentheses--not to mention the double dashes which serve as further parenthetical-type remarks--no doubt this type thinks parentheses are optional and thus when happening upon that first curvy line skips immediately to the last curvy line--thus this type won't know I'm insulting them right here, right now)) without thinking about whether they appear intelligent to others for enjoying said movies.

In other words, if you think other people think they are smarter than you because they like a movie---they are probably smarter than you. But not for that reason.

Sadly lacking what it was trying to achieve

[iamdraggin · 1/10 · 17 December 2010]

The overall idea of this particular movie seemed to try to be the verbal sword thrusts of Taritino's Pulp Fiction. The only problem is that the acting is nothing in comparison to the wonders that are created by Jackson and Travolta. Most annoying is the EXTREMELY obvious fake accent. Which though stated as much, is more annoying than it is believable. Then even worse, the banter running between them seems to be something that might be semi understandable, but unfortunately does not really touch on anything intelligent. Then even worse, the whole time the movie pushes that Mr. Jack is an alter ego to Steven, but then through out the movie of course you deal with all the COMPLETE impossibilities that the character creates. Confusion with little to no real plot leads the whole cinematic experience. I watch a lot of movies and this has been one of the most unfortunate experiences I have ever bothered to finish. I truly hope that you chose NOT to watch.

Dark and compassionate

[Schpadoinkle2000 · 9/10 · 24 February 2013]

The name Frenemy provoked a giggle out of a friend when I recommended her this title. Agreed, it seems suggestive of a potential feel-good, teenage, Lindsay Lohan something- or-other. Rather, Frenemy can best be described as a dark and compassionate independent film.

Well acted, the characters, while capable of committing acts of depravity of American Psycho proportions, are relatable. Ultimately, this movie is about an overriding, self- sustaining, predetermined balance of good and evil. There is something to be gained each time I watch this movie.

In the end, I'm left craving a sequel to see what becomes of Mr. Jack.

Art?

[casarino · 6/10 · 9 March 2012]

"Little Fish, Strange Pond" (which is a title about 14 times better than "Frenemy") wants to be...something. It wants it so bad that you're willing to bend your standards a bit for it. But the parts don't add up to much, I'm afraid.

You know from the first ten minutes there's really no chance of this being "good." Director Dark seems desperate to prove his indie cred, but there's little sense that he knows what the hell he's doing (indeed, some of his porn titles are more assured). There's lots of shock, some comedy, some horror, some satire, lots of artsy cuts and edits, a bit of surrealism, and lead characters with no redeeming qualities. I can get behind all this, and there are moments, particularly after the clumsy setup, where the philosophical ramblings and dark, aimless story really holds your interest. The music helps too - it bridges the gaps in radically uneven scenes and adds some much-needed charm to the proceedings.

But too often, writer Klein and Dark push too hard. They want to be NOTICED, so they allow the actors (particularly Modine) to over-indulge in "quirks," creating a cinematic artificiality that the movie cannot recover from. They're play-acting, and a movie like this needs gritty realism. Then again, given the over-written script (which is chock-full of underdeveloped ideas), the movie never really had a prayer.

It's a mess. It doesn't work. Modine overdoes it. It's full of crap philosophy and the direction and story are self-consciously "edgy." But damned if it doesn't linger, giving you images and ideas to ponder for a long time. If you're in the right frame of mind, it's worth seeing, if only because you have to admire Dark for trying something new.

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, Frenemy is raping everyone in this piece.

[broodwichwmayo · 1/10 · 17 December 2010]

I remember when I was a kid severely spraining my ankle and it hurt. It took so long to heal. Watching 20 minutes of Frenemy caused a sprain in my mind that will take months, if not years to heal. I was excited to see Zack G on the cover and thought for sure this may be a good, funny flick. I brought home the movie for my husband and I to enjoy tonight. I figure let's ring in the weekend right...WRONG! Shame on me for not reading reviews first. If I had to walk on broken glass or watch Frenemy, I'd choose to walk on the glass. If I had to choose between a severe case of food poisoning and Frenemy, I'd take the food poisoning option. I paid $1.07 to rent to movie and feel that I was scammed and taken advantage of. Why would this movie ever be burned onto a DVD and burned into our memories. Why did you have to do this to us innocent citizens? Use this at Gitmo Bay, or better yet add this as an option for the death penalty (someone will actually kill themselves a few minutes into this).

total nonsense

[brianmurray43 · 25 July 2011]

watched this at the weekend at a mates house and he had bought it as it had ZG on the cover and its 18 rating for violence etc was appealing. Unfotunately that what a serious mistake, as it was a complete pile of nonsense and i don't really understand why this was ever made. found the whole thing a bit confusing, pointless and irritating at points.

i can't remember the last time i seen anything this bad and was a complete waste of my time.

i am amazed that Zach agreed to appear in such nonsense considering his current fame from other successful movies. i just didn't see the point in it all to be honest and could not recommend it to anyone.

#1 or #2 worst movie we've ever seen

[meatmachineman · 1/10 · 21 January 2011]

Bad bad bad! So bad, I finally signed up to give a review! I suppose my wife and I are not artsy enough to fully appreciate such a grand production. We rented it because of Zach Galifanakianifianaisakilaificas. HE WAS PROMINATELY DISPLAYED ON THE COVER. Add to that the movie being listed as "comedy" and we thought we might have a winner on our hands. If one can get past the disappointment of Zach Whatshisname being in one scene, and one devoid of humor at that, they might try to find something redeeming in the movie. We found nothing. The mindless and random ramblings seemed endless. 80 minutes felt like days.

If you like movies that no one else does and get a sense of superiority because you heard of and were a fan of Zach G prior to The Hangover, this movie might be right up you alley. If you're like the rest of us who laughed yourself silly at his roll in The Hangover, SKIP Frenemy or Little Fish, Strange Pond or whatever other name they have to change the movie to in order to not scare people away.

The movie had two redeeming qualities, despite my disdain for it... 1) It ends 2) We were able to take it back to Redbox. The fact that I wasted a meager dollar for it still irks me, though.

Really Terrible

[brill-690-296587 · 1/10 · 20 May 2013]

One of the worst movies I've seen.

Amateurish editing, annoying soundtrack, and gratuitous violence -- used in an attempt to cover up the boredom and pointlessness of the story.

Pretentious and shallow filmmaking .

This is really torturous to watch. Callum Blue gives a particularly poor performance. Adam Baldwin is a close second worst. Modine's fake pretentious English accent becomes very grating and has no reason. Repetitive backgrounds become jarring. Terrible soundtrack.

Just really, really bad.

The worst movie I ever saw in my life

[cmte_felippe · 1/10 · 12 September 2021]

That's simply it... the worst movie I ever saw in my life. 1h20min of wasted time.

Horrible horrible movie! Stay away.

[collin-wicker · 1/10 · 19 July 2013]

I love Zach Galafinakis and thus rented this movie. Only made it about 10 minutes into the movie due to the horrible dialogue, bad acting, and hailstorm of cliché topics the movie threw at the viewer. What a stupid!

Zach, I am disappointed in you sir.

And to the writer and director of this movie. Good try bud, maybe you'd do better as a short order fry cook. The dialogue was so bad I couldn't take it. The issues were thrown in the viewers face so abruptly and with so little tact I couldn't believe it. Boooooo.

If you're going to write about things like life and death and all that, that's great, but you have to do it in a way that you don't just come out and say, "hey guys, what's it all about?" In short, terrible writing made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Philosophically Speaking

[Urantia · 1/10 · 28 January 2012]

This movie appeared to me to be a strange combination of a devilishly dark comedy blended with the bloody gore of cheap horror flicks but with minute sprinklings of philosophy on top. The end result was an incoherent display of cinematic chaos that was disappointing to say the least. The philosophical elements touched upon the controversial subject of predestination where it would not matter what we choose in the realm of Good versus Evil because that is what was supposed to happen no matter what as though such choosing was already determined in advance by Fate as opposed to us being boldly empowered by our Infinite Creator with the unconditional gift of free-will whereby at least as far as our eternal destinies are concerned, WE decide the finality of our fate by our final decisions (preferably based on the experiential wisdom of cosmic enlightenment learned in part from the previous selection of unwise choices that are the inevitable result of being born in the cradle of imperfection), choosing either to forever EMBRACE or forever REJECT Truth, Beauty and Goodness (more gifts from God, the Giver of all Life) thereby surviving our trial trip in the flesh to continue our adventurous journey towards God by progressively becoming more like Him. I perceive the plan of Paradise ascension as having been preordained (God thought about it first and then had His Architects draw up the blueprints for The Plan) but our personal participation in this plan is NOT preordained (even if God should foreknow the freewill acts of His children, such foreknowledge does not in the least abrogate our freedom to choose). As you can probably tell by now, I reject the false teaching that we have no say in the matter when it comes to choosing Good over Evil and faithfully believing in the spiritual reality of God instead of the lifeless theories of a mechanistic materialism that are filled with dead notions that deny and then lie by seeing only with one blinded eye.

Enemy Friends.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 6/10 · 1 September 2018]

For the ending of the ICM 2000's Challenge,I got in the mood of viewing a flick that would be short and sweet. Looking down a DVD shelf,I found a flick I don't even remember picking up! Which led to me getting set to meet my frenemy.

View on the film:

Making one final thrust after this with An Evening with Stephen Lynch before retiring, former "Adult" film director Gregory Dark and future American Horror Story cinematographer Gavin Kelly show a skill at making the most on very small budget, with wide-shots at the back of the video shop display how confined the location is. Whilst the Jerry Springer references were already dated at the time, Dark freshens the movie up with weird turns into gory murder and a park bench in heaven.

Keeping the first half low-key, the Black Comedy from Robert Dean Klein's script flows best when in the limited surroundings of the video store,thanks to the macabre one-liners of Mr. Jack being used to make the situation worse. Losing the setting for the second half, Klein becomes unfocused over where to take the dark comedy, with the incise in madness from Jack & Stephen Miller appearing in sudden bursts. Only appearing in half the movie, Zach Galifianakis gives the stand out performance as Bucky, with his awkward,dead-pan manner setting Jack and Miller on the path of becoming frenemy's

I liked it!

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 21 January 2022]

Made as Little Fish, Big Pond, this is the last movie that Gregory Dark has made other than the documentary An Evening with Stephen Lynch. It follows the wanderings of Mr. Jack (Matthew Modine) and Sweet Stephen (Callum Blue) as they make their way through Los Angeles and discuss the nature of life.

And if you look at the cover and wonder, is Zach Galifianakis in this any more than five minutes?

No. He isn't.

But hey, Adam Baldwin is pretty good as Tommy the cop and there's a really strange dialogue on the history of porn, especially when you consider that director Gregory Dark had finally left the world of adult behind, but it doesn't look down on anyone who needs pornography. But the mention of Traci Lords is interesting, seeing as how one of the movies damaged by her underage status was Dark's New Wave Hookers.

There's also the mystery of who chopped up a waitress, a Springer talk show with a child murderer, Mattew Modine tripping a child and singing a lot, a strange ending in limbo and a bum fight with a bottle stabbing. Not all of it holds up, but it definitely wasn't the kind of movie I expected and I enjoyed watching it. It's more of several actors all trying out characters, but it never gets too arty and indulgent.

Writer Robert Dean Klein has made a bunch of The Wrong... TV movies as well as a film we enjoyed last year, 6:45. Honestly, I'd love to speak to either him or Dark about this film and learn more, because I have so many questions. Maybe you catch watch it and ask some in the comments.

Fascinating

[jon-906-764389 · 10/10 · 18 December 2010]

Dishonest marketing aside, this is a fascinating film about life and death and fate.

Looking over the DVD box I can see why one might feel fooled. This is not Due Date. This is an independent film that is all about amazing acting performances and a great script.

Zach Galifinakis is in only one (though long and crucial) scene. It just seems more like a role his pre-Hangover fans would love.

It also has a reunion of Adam Baldwin and Matthew Modine who were last together in Full Metal Jacket.

At a manageable 80 minutes, this film is quite worth watching.

Tries to be more than what it is but it's somewhat watchable

[KineticSeoul · 5/10 · 30 January 2013]

This movie is basically a misleading, messy rubbish that tries to be cool and clever but fails. Sure it has a few interesting dialogues and outlook but when it comes down to it, it's just not integrated into this movie well. And just seems like a pointless movie where the makers of this movie sat down in the past had few conversations they thought was intellectual and mashed it into one movie. Like "okay these are some interesting stuff we are talking about, now lets think of a way to put it all together into a movie" kinda deal. During the beginning scenes with Zach Galifianakis in the porno store I thought this might be a intriguing movie but the movie starts to fall apart from there on. And although Galifianakis is in the front cover of the DVD he is barely in this movie at all. And just goes in a direction with two padantic psychopaths constantly talking about assumptions, intuition, faith, humanity, balance and good and evil. And also bunch of movie references. But just feels random all around and doesn't seem to connect all even if few of the characters symbolize something. And has some terrible acting to go along with it even if most of the characters are suppose to be weird and a bit off. I give this movie a 5.8 because even if the dialogues seem good but it just doesn't interconnect and comes off as a disguise. Like Kirk Vanderbeek,Real Detroit Weekly calls it "A David Lynch meets Kevin Smith style, with a dash of 'Tarantino'". And it does have that Kevin Smith and a bit of Tarantino vibe but fails on both areas. It's somewhat watchable though but it's a mess of a movie.

5.6/10

CHEAP, lame, pointless, and don't forget trying to trick people into seeing it

[gfrancis0 · 27 July 2011]

I guess you can't blame whomever whomever financed this cheap attempt at art for trying to trick people into paying for it, but everyone should KNOW exactly what they are trying to pull here. Two years after it is released, they take this pig, slap lipstick on it and try to get people to believe it's another funny Zach Galifianakis movie. It's not, he's in maybe 25% of the film, it's pointless, the black humor is not good either, makes little to no sense and just strings together scenes that are supposed to be deep or edgy and leaves you to fill in the rest. DO NOT WATCH IT UNLESS YOU THINK THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A MOVIE IS IF IT HAS GOOD ACTING AND NOTHING ELSE. I'm guessing the actors did it for free and the rest of the budget for this movie was probably about $200. Calling it Frenemy doesn't even make any sense, to give you another hint at how they are trying to trick the viewing public. Anyone who claims to like this is giving it WAY more credit than it is due. I saw it for free and they owe me 75 minutes of my life back.