Wonderfully offbeat film!

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Let's be realistic.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It's a wonderful movie. The premise is clever. All of the acting is well done. The character, Sarah (Sabrina Lloyd) really caries this movie, as Rand (John Livingston) is a likable underdog type that you instantly root for, but Sarah, while likable, has a darker side and if the audience doesn't care about her then the movie falls apart. A less charismatic and talented actress could not have pulled this part off, but Sabrina Lloyd seems to handle it with a natural charm that makes it look easy. I have no doubt that she will have many opportunities thrown her way based upon her work here.This is a great movie, however a few minor details could have made it better. At just over 80 minutes, they really could have filled out the movie a little more. I can't help but feel that there is a lot of story left untold and some of the scenes feel a little disjointed. With it being an independent feature, I'm sure a lot of this has to do with budget and time (trying to get into Sundance.) I also would have enjoyed a few more light moments between characters.I think one of the reasons some people haven't taken to it is the mistaken idea that it is a romantic comedy. It really isn't. There are a few light moments (don't know if I would even call them comedic moments), but this is definitely a drama. The issues and material are serious, so anyone waiting for Sandra Bullock type goofiness, Meg Ryan over sentiment or Three's Company sexual innuendo miscommunication are going to be disappointed.

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 was so excited to have some coveted tickets to this movie at Sundance. The story was just okay. The director was so sweet when he got up to talk about his film before the showing. His voice cracked a bit when he talked about how lucky he was to have found his wife and to have loved her for 15 years. Awwwwww. So I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't see any chemistry between the two main characters. I didn't dislike the movie, but it's not one that I will see again.

I would tend to agree with creamygreen on the predictability and stock archetypes used to fulfill the writers premise. But the more interesting thing about this film is the premise itself. Can love be boiled down to just science? Can the build up of dopamine make me want to cuddle? Science is always struggling against the nature of human beings with such things as religion and human emotion. Such intangibles make the separation between what you feel and what you can prove the cornerstone of any good debate. The premise for this movie was a good one, it's the execution in the writing and scene development that fell apart. I would love to see the writer do something different with this premise and see whether or not it will draw all of us in. After all aren't we all familiar with something we just "know" but can't prove?