Dopamine (2003)

Wonderful character development!

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Rare independent film about the nature of love, is love and feelings all chemistry or are humans blessed with something special that no other animal has? Well produced and with an excellent cast this film is carries along softly and yet never boring. Everything feels real and interesting. The director is a born filmmaker, unfortunately I don't see any other films-to his credit. We should see more of this very talented cast in the future. Checkout Nicole Wilder as Machiko, you can't play cute and sensual any better than that. Hope to see more films from this director and cast. If you are tired of watching the same crap over and over again, get yourself some Dopamine.

This is a nice, well intentioned indie film, the kind that I like to support because it tries to examine the lives of real people, and not the cardboard cut outs Hollywood usually fashions its films around.Unfortunately, Mark Decena's "Dopamine" falls victim to many of the same cliches and off-the-shelf plot devices found in countless main stream Hollywood films.The plot has a couple of computer whiz types visiting a San Francisco bar where their paths cross with a girl artist/pre school teacher. The hero, Rand, and the girl, Sara, are immediately attracted to one another, but Rand is too laid back and too cautious to make his move and so his cocky, arrogant buddy Winston (Winston?) winds up going home with the girl for a one night stand. It ends badly and Winston thinks that's the end of it.From there we find out all about the boys, who are in the middle of developing a computer generated pet, a sort of chia pet in cyberspace that you don't even get to water. But some Japanese businessmen are hot for the idea and have been bankrolling them for the past three years.The plot thickens when they wind up having to give it a test run in a pre-school class where guess who just happens to be one of the teachers? Sara's skeptical about the idea, but she likes Rand and the two of them start dating.One can't go too much farther without giving away the plot. But this is where this picture falls down. First because, unlike a lot of current American films that have a plot, but no subplot, this picture is almost equally divided between the Sara and Rand romance and the development of this animated Tweedy bird. It's too much balance. It needed far less Tweedy bird and more human characterization. But the confusion doesn't stop there, for an even silly subplot is the idea that human emotions are really sparked by chemical changes or excretions, thus the title of the film. So occasionally, as if this somehow is funny, we zoom inside people's bodies for a look at their nerve endings excreting the proper chemical at the proper time.Once would have been cute. More than once was not and never did it come off as entertaining.Anyway, Sara and Rand wind up facing some relationship roadblocks and that's where this really sort of sags. Rand, it turns out, is building Tweedy bird, a pet that will never leave you, because he has abandonment issues. Sara is occasionally promiscuous because -- well I can't tell you without a spoiler alert. But I shouldn't have to. Sara has a deep dark secret, but the thing is, its the same secret that has propelled every day time soap opera and Lifetime made-for-TV movie for the past 30 years.Beyond the script, however, the film goes pretty well. The direction is fine and the photography adequate for a low budget indie, although a little too artsy at times, especially on its transition scenes, some of which seem rather unnecessary.The acting is uniformly good, although the hero, played by John Livingston, a sort of Ben Affleck look alike, is a little too laid back to be really believable.But high marks go to Sabrina Lloyd as Sara. She rings about everything you could ring out of the role. She is really very believable when finally fessing up about her dark secret, making you want to comfort her, even as you want to strangle the script writers for this over used plot twist.Lloyd, although perhaps lacking the stunning good looks for mainstream stardom, could be the next Indie queen. Nice piece of work on her part.Overall, though, the picture gets a low 7 out of 10.

I got to see this film at a special "Sundance" presentation in San Francisco last week. I would rate it a "6 out of 10."John Livingston, a poor-man's Ben Affleck, does a good job in the lead role of a San Francisco-based computer animator looking for Ms. Right. The screenplay was pretty good for a typical "guy searching for perfect mate" type of film.However, what ruined the film for me was lead actress, Sabrina Lloyd. She is one of the worst, and most annoying, actresses to be working anywhere. She has an irritating look and presentation.The movie would have been much better with any other lead actress. I do think both men and women would agree on this film since both lead characters are examined for both their flaws and good attributes.

Greetings again from the darkness. Saw the Dallas premiere this evening and co-writer Tim Breitbach and lead actor John Livingston were in attendance and held a Q&A after the showing. Really liked the premise of the movie ... the whole science vs. nature/feelings thing. Thought John Livingston was excellent in his role as Rand, the computer genius who struggles with his feelings in real life. Livingston reminds of a less egotistical, more talented Ben Affleck. He is a true actor. Sabrina Lloyd (veteran of many TV shows) displays the darkness and vulnerability and toughness necessary for her role. Her very expressive eyes go along way towards silent conversation. You can almost taste her pain. Just a little disappointed with some of the stereotypes and weak dialog in parts. Other parts were brilliant and I can understand why it was selected for Sundance Film Festival. Would have enjoyed just a bit more of the three man creative process that was displayed in hyper speed to keep the audience from being bored. After 3 years on the same project, I was very interested in the group dynamics. Overall worth seeing, with some excellent parts, as well as some inconsistencies in quality of scenes.