Dogs and horror movies? They’ve got game. From the rabid St Bernard in Cujo and the faux-supernatural antics of The Hound of the Baskervilles, to the bitey segments of Man’s Best Friend (1993) and the heroics of Beauty and Beast in Wes Craven’s original The Hills Have Eyes films… There are just too many to mention. And their presence in these types of outings (and our fondness for them) is the main reason why the website “Does the Dog Die?” is even a thing. Mass murder of humans? Fine. Cute doggo gets shot or stabbed? Sacrilege!! No wonder John Wick went apeshit. Which brings us to Good Boy. Fun fact: Search IMDB for that title and get a staggering number of exact matches. Admittedly, most of these are shorts and TV episodes, but there are around six feature-length films with the same moniker, including a Stephen Graham drama being shown at the London Film Festival the same week as this release! This “Boy”, however, is an American supernatural horror film directed by Ben Leonberg in his feature directorial debut. It’s also co-written by him and stars Shane Jensen and Larry Fessenden. The titular character is portrayed by Leonberg's real-life dog (Indy) and is an ingenious riff on a paranormal tale (tail?), being told entirely from the perspective of our four-legged buddy. It went down pretty well at the SXSW festival in March 2025 and has done quite well theatrically in the United States on October 3 for such a niche indie (Indy?) project. Now getting a small theatrical release in UK cinemas before it finds a home on Shudder, does it deserve a treat or a muzzle?

 

The film has a short prequel in a New York apartment, with Indy (his real name, presumably to cut down on confusion during the shooting) faithfully sharing space with his unwell and unresponsive owner, Todd (Jensen). Having some kind of lung disease or cancer, Todd is taken into emergency care but is soon released to be reunited with the joyful Indy. Together they travel down to his late Grandfather’s remote cabin to move out of the city, as it was bequeathed to him. His protective sister (Arielle Friedman as Vera) worries about him, not only because of his health scare, but also because the cabin was rumoured to be haunted. Nonetheless, one man and his dog settle quickly into the property. Almost at once, Indy starts to sense something sinister and very wrong with the place. There are strange noises and fleeting glimpses of something unnatural. A shadowy presence lurks in all corners of the place, and his master seems to be becoming ill again, showing a distinct shift in character and intent towards that dark side. Living up to the title, Indy tries to confront the evil and stop his oblivious owner from coming to a bad end.

 

You can’t fault the ambition and innovation of Good Boy. Apart from perhaps Wes Craven (remember the infamous flashback memory from Beast in The Hills Have Eyes – Part 2 in 1985? Classic batshit), nobody has explored the potential of a dog’s perspective in a straightforward horror. For the most part, and this is a compliment, GB resembles a mash-up of a Lassie film (or whatever hero-dog franchise takes your fancy) and The Amityville Horror. And when we say, “dog’s perspective”, we literally mean that. The vast majority of the film is at knee-level, with interior and natural locations towering over the camera. Events and happenings are seen from this viewpoint, meaning that you learn about things only as much as Indy does, who is in practically every scene of this 72-minute film. But at least we are afforded a human interpretation of the circumstances. When he sees a text message on Todd’s phone saying “Has it come back again?”, unless Indy can read, we get an extra sense of unease that he won’t understand. When he sees a shadowy figure appear and disappear, we’ll tend to link this to the paranormal, while he’s just baffled by the weird apparitions and reacts accordingly.

 

Of course, none of this will work in any way if the dog gives a duff “performance”. Just pawing at actors and whining doesn’t cut the mustard anymore, and people have been spoiled (in more ways than one) by CGI animals. So, it comes as a huge surprise that Indy seems capable of showing genuine acting abilities. Not with a CG raised eyebrow. And definitely not with those hugely obvious moments where they're simply staring at their (offscreen) trainer and looking for an obvious cue, ignoring what’s happening in the scene otherwise. When there’s a noise or something suspicious, he’ll turn and track it or look quizzically for a source. He whines and barks in a totally realistic manner when shut in a room by Todd (or supernatural forces). Even his efforts to free himself from a chain or find an alternate route into a locked room seem feasible (and often adorable). In other words, Indy is worthy of the accolades he’s had, and it’s hard to think of any way that this element could be improved. It is worth noting that to get this element onscreen took 400 days of shooting over three long years. There must be hundreds of hours of footage and bloopers where Indy inevitably screwed up a take.

 

The care and attention that’s been afforded here basically explores the popular theory that dogs can detect things we can’t. Hence, much of the soundtrack consists of lots of quiet moments where the only noise is Indy sniffing at the ground or locked doors. Even with the relatively short running time, it means there are plenty of sequences of “slow-burn” tension where our hero pads around in search of something, only to be startled by a jump-scare (with an absolute cracker involving the underside of a bed) or a whiny realisation that his master is in trouble. It works for the most part very well and is bolstered by clever little touches, like seldom seeing the human faces and having the barely glimpsed entity personified as an oily shadow figure, with a clear dislike of dogs. Not to mention the fact that our valorous chum literally wets himself during one moment of terror.

 

With all this ingenuity, the film edges on the precipice of greatness, which makes all the praise for it totally understandable. But it doesn’t quite seal the deal in some respects. The source and reason for the “haunting” is very much left up in the air. You can argue that this is due to us experiencing everything from Indy’s perspective, but it still makes it a little frustrating in some respects. This leads to a denouement that feels a little muddled and unsatisfying. And without giving vent to spoilers, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions and ambiguous factors to the story. Does Todd have a physical/mental illness, or is it due to a family curse or possession? Why are all of Todd’s ancestors buried in nearby grounds? Can all dogs see spirits, and can they become “ghosts” themselves? Is the entity a malevolent spirit, a demon from hell, or the manifestation of death itself? Some of those questions may or may not be answered by the time the credits roll. And whilst there’s nothing wrong with a tease and some ambiguity, it actually calls into question just how much influence Indy can actually have on the proceedings. As for Indy’s fate himself, well, we won’t give that away. But there’s always the “Does the Dog Die” website…

 

The rough edges around the storyline and the insular (and sometimes repetitive) scope of the events are the only reasons why this hasn’t been marked higher. A lot of goodwill is afforded to the project simply by the strength of the concept, the execution of the plot, and the eeriness of the occurrences. Say what you like, but having a slow exploration of a darkened location with an undefined evil lurking in the blackness will never not be scary if it’s done with skill, and that’s certainly the case here. The fact that it’s an adorable pooch that’s in danger, and he’s just trying to do the right thing, makes it that much more attractive to the genre fan looking for something different. Although it has to be said that taking the camera into several doggy nightmares is probably pushing things a bit too far, when they’re obviously there for scare tactics.

 

Alongside Indy, Jensen is a linchpin for the story, as we constantly hear his voice and watch his lovable interactions with his dog. He does a fine job here, and it’s important to have as much empathy for him as Indy obviously has. It’s also nice to see the always watchable Fessenden in a cameo part, even if it is mostly consigned to flashbacks and video clips. Other humans are negligible, but that’s the point, really. All in all, this is a film that deserves a viewing if only for the sheer chutzpah of the plot and the wondrous thespian talents of Indy. It might fall short in some other areas, but it still provides a surprisingly creepy treat, especially with it being an original and low-level affair. Even if you don’t catch it on the big screen, keep an eye out for it on streaming. For once in horror, two legs are good, but four legs are genuinely better. Take that, George Orwell!