Dopamine (2003) User Reviews

Has a feel of Requiem for a Dream with more pleasant content.

[Lfiata · 7/10 · 11 October 2003]

People are giving this movie unfair ratings. It was both analytic, which we all feel compelled to be, and sensitive. The soundtrack was amazing, and the camera work done with the high speed film perfectly conveyed the mood of the film at the appropriate moments. If you don't like this movie, perhaps you're missing at heart because it certainly pulled at mine.

We are only perfect when we're born

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 1 October 2003]

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.

Idealized story of life in BikeMessangerLand

[jeff-892 · 7/10 · 3 May 2005]

If you have a soft spot in your heart for those who live and work, for however short period of their young lives, in inner city BikeMessangerLand and can relate to how they feel alive as much because they get to dress down everyday of their lives and feed their senses --- this sweet movie conveys the sense of their world. It also is a bit of a fairy tale view, real lives in this world and typically a lot more messy and complex. But like the movie 'Whale Rider', it's a nice touchstone tale of a subculture, in this case the thriving creative community in S.F. at turn of this past century.

If you are not into this world, are an suburbanite or professional or military or any other profession or life style that is not destined, for better or worse, for a creative life, you may resent or even love to hate these people and their world. My view -- if this movie turns you off, you may have found the area of yourself that you need to work on in terms of tolerance and appreciation of how no one lifestyle fits all. The bigger picture in this film shows how in this creative community, like all communities, people struggle and on occasion win, occasion lose. The difference is just what they struggle with, and in this world, it is with ideas as much as relationships. It reveals how many dead-ends there are in both, as well as breakthroughs. At times the way this is revealed is a bit fake, but if you look at the film through the prism of fable -- it's visually artful and a uplifting human story.

A sweet exploration of the questions of love in the scientifically aware post-modern era.

[ryanbartongrimley · 12 February 2003]

I saw Dopamine at Sundance and I loved it. It was the first movie, to my knowlege that delved into how all humans are chemically programmed from birth, and how awareness of this can take the magic out of life and of love. The question is: Can we overcome our programming. Should we even try? The pitfall for this kind of topic, is usually the story gets bogged down with details and science, but that is not the case here. The characters are all extremely believable. You care for them and they make you laugh as well. Mark Decena did a wonderful job of creating a very good cast to deal with the script and the production value is very good. I was really blown away by the use of the High Definition video format because it looked beautiful. There are no explosions, no huge crane shots, just a tight, unique story that poses new questions about a classic topic, love. Ryan

Not what it seems to be.....

[deathcube-1 · 6/10 · 18 January 2005]

I thought this film was going to be a drama about a guy who makes a women in his computer and falls in love with her. It's not. However it's not a bad movie either.

Dopamine is actually about a guy who is developing a 3D interactive pet for computers. When the investors want to test 'koy koy' the pet out, it gets tested at a local daycare.

Sabrina Lloyd (of sliders fame) plays one of the daycare teachers, and the love interest for the emotionally over analysing Rand (John Livingston).

What follows is 79 mins of pretentiousness.

While I still enjoyed the movie, it definitely has a small audience. I imagine that women between the ages of 18 and 25 will love this movie.

As I always say you should never trust a reviewer because they only review based on taste and everyone has different tastes.

Good movie, solid performances, check it out for yourself.

so so..

[xstatix · 6/10 · 8 February 2004]

I had expected so much more from this movie. I felt that the trailer was good and left me wanting more. I was intrigued by the trailer which led me to actually go and watch the movie.

I was disappointed though after seeing it. It didn't so much focus on the theme of the movie about chemicals or casual sex as I had expected but rather alot of other little details (the guy's work, etc). I felt that the movie had good potential though. I felt like alot of elements were there to make it good but it didn't fall through or they left things hanging. Could have expounded more on how sex is just hormones or what not. Up to this day, I'm not sure exactly what can make the movie better. I just knows it lacks something. Have yet to figure out what.

Okay, but didn't live up to the hype

[ArizWldcat · 3/10 · 11 February 2003]

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.

Great experience

[breitbap · 8/10 · 29 April 2004]

I really enjoyed the unfolding of these characters, all of which have their own challenges.

The interplay between the programmers is especially witty. Bruno Campos is very funny and Grundy plays a great straight man.

Great visual portrayal of San Francisco.

Sarah has a genuineness about her that reflects reality, not stereotypes or cliches.

I look forward to future works by Decena and Breitbach and they continue to evolve as filmakers.

The Sundance process is one that needs to be supported and I hope to see the Sundance Film Series be a regular thing.

Post-modern love story

[Imdbidia · 7/10 · 22 February 2011]

Dopamine is an original independent post-modern love story that reflects on traditional/modern views on love in the contemporary world, and on the difficulties of human connection in a world that is every day more virtual.

The main characters are Rand -a computer animator working on a project of a virtual pet- and Sarah -a schoolteacher-, who are convincingly played by John Livingston and Sabrina Lloyd. They really have great chemistry on camera.

Sarah believes in love, from heart to heart, and in a committed relationship. Rand, is very influenced by his father's teachings on human biology and chemistry, according to which most human emotions - love included- are just the result of biochemical reactions in our body. Love, in that regard, is directly connected to a high production of Dopamine in the brain. However, Sarah is rough and edgy, unpredictable, while Rand is a sweet sensitive guy.

The movie is very engaging and believable. The acting is good and the main actors have chemistry. The characters are all well-drawn and grounded - believable. The dialogs are great, fresh and thought- provoking.

The story is never straightforward or simplistic, and shows the difficulties surrounding men-women relationships from a new perspective.

However, The pace of the movie is too slow. The music is forgettable. I don't even remember it! The colors, cinematography and texture of the film used for the movie are not visually engaging or attractive, which is a pity as the movie was shot in the colorful bright San Francisco. The end is predictable.

The movie won won the Alfred P. Sloan Prize at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival.

Sux

[=G= · 4/10 · 7 August 2004]

"Dopamine" is one of those all to many little one man band indie start-up flicks sorely lacking in resources...financial, creative, etc. The flick wanders around the lives of three guys who are into creating a virtual computer character while focusing on one (Livingston) and his romantic involvements with a teacher (Lloyd). A bleak exercise in pseudo intellectualism, this flick delivers a big dose of the cold and clammies where the warm and fuzzies should be as it ploddingly and boringly meanders drunkenly into a variety of issues. Obviously contrived, clumsily written, stiff and awkward with characters it's difficult to care about and horrible music, "Dopamine" is a good flick to miss. (C-)

Really Enjoyed It

[hprevan2 · 10/10 · 20 October 2003]

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.

Eh.

[peterhoffman · 7/10 · 7 February 2003]

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?

Mediocre chick flick...

[eggartrealty · 1/10 · 6 October 2003]

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.

A failed chemistry experiment

[tprofumo · 12 October 2003]

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.

pretty film with sweet, sweet "chemistry"

[olive-oyl · 8/10 · 4 March 2003]

Though the premise could've been enough to make Dopamine seem cold and heartless.. the "chemistry" between the romantic leads saved the day.. Sarah & Rand seemed wonderfully suited to one another. I thoroughly enjoyed this sweet film.. it was beautifully shot, the juxtaposition between the natural, human & computer worlds gave the premise a wonderful tableau to set upon.. I would've liked to have seen more of Rand's father and less of Rand's partners but otherwise, I thought this was a wonderful first from Decena and look forward to seeing what's next.

Thought provoking

[oystergirl · 9/10 · 3 October 2004]

Not your typical romantic comedy. It's thought provoking and full of wit instead of the same old, same old. Perfect for anyone looking for something different... a romnatic comedy that is well directed, well filmed, well written, and, most of all, well acted. Dopamine is a film worth watching. The cast is real. The story is interesting. The characters deserve your attention and you'll remember them all. They all have different levels of depth and that's something missing from most films. It's not just a cute little romantic comedy that'll make you sigh and giggle. It's full of truth and will make you think and rethink chemistry and the chemicals that create attraction.

Not entirely successful, but promising (**1/2)

[Ronin47 · 8/10 · 6 December 2003]

Dopamine is the chemical emitted by the brain that creates pleasure when we're in love. So is that all love is? A chemical in our brain that makes us want to procreate? Or is there something more to it, something in our "hearts"?

These are the issues at the center of "Dopamine", a likeable but insubstantial indie comedy/drama from new director Mark Decena.

Set in San Francisco, it's about a computer programmer named Rand (John Livingston), who is working with 2 other guys on an interactive children's program called Koy Koy, named after the cute little digital bird that the kids are supposed to talk to. In shopping the program around, he meets Sarah (Sabrina Lloyd, from TV's great, cancelled "Sports Night"), a complicated kindergarten teacher, and they begin dating.

The relationship is tense because Rand is emotionally withdrawn having not yet fully dealt with his mother's tragic Alzheimer's, and has become convinced that love is nothing but a chemically-induced illusion in our brains (dopamine), after hearing his father's bitter diatribes on the subject.

One of the movie's very good qualities is that it takes time to ponder this issue, whether love is only a chemical reaction or if it's something more. It doesn't offer any concrete answers, but how could it? Also, the acting is mostly very good (particularly by Sabrina Lloyd), and the San Francisco cinematography is excellent and atmospheric.

On the minus side, though, there's just not very much to it. It's working from a unique angle, but otherwise it's pretty much like every other mopey, arsty indie love story. And even at an extremely short 79 minutes, it feels a little padded.

I saw "Dopamine" at a screening where director Mark Decena and executive producer Eric Koivisto spoke afterwards and did a Q & A. They are young, friendly and talented guys, and even though THIS movie is not entirely successful, it's promising and full of potential. I wish them the best.

Finally, a film that is real and speaks from the heart

[pfm65 · 9/10 · 28 February 2003]

Chemistry or chemical ? Haven't you ever wondered why we connect with certain people or sometimes why we don't ? Dacena (apparently a first time director) and his team have done an amazing job telling a story about the question that moves us all ... where does love come from ? Dopamine tells us of the very real and emotional journey of its characters through smart dialog, humor and a unique story against a backdrop of the post-dot.com Bay Area (filmed with great shots that are not the typically canned footage of San Fran). A great film that knows the audience isn't stupid. I can't wait for the next work by this team.

A true find, all felling, no BS

[surfandski · 8/10 · 8 January 2006]

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.

chemicals................

[PIST-OFF · 8/10 · 1 November 2005]

this movie plays a decent straight man to adaptation's more frantic meditations on this phenomena love. there are those that walk through life and prefer ugly truths and those that prefer poetic lies, generally those that claim to live for the former reveal themselves as the latter. this movie starts out in the territory occupied by the former. the idea that the crazy little thing called love is nothing more than the delusion applied to a vast web of chemical reactions and pre-programmed responses. that love does not exist but is completely fictional in our mind to explain the power of said chemicals. note that i do not use the word "merely" when referring to chemicals, as i do not underestimate the power of them. as the movie and story unravel it drifts into the territory of denial. the beautiful lie as bukowski put it. it's alright though. the fact that the movie has the courage to explore the concepts in the first place is enough to make me like it.

so what have i said about the movie? well acted, adequately filmed, and all the usual jazz that you should of course expect from professionals filming a movie. what really takes this movie off is that the characters seem really fleshed out from their first moments on the screen. the writers don't seem inclined to want to insult their audience. these could be people you know, or once knew. even some of the more minor characters you feel could be fueling their own movie. it might be interesting to have a set of movies centered on other characters and have the thrust of this movie as viewed through their background narrative. the actors themselves manage to capture their characters and embody them with subtlety. these are intelligent characters the likes of which are rarely found in romantic comedies. there is both romance and comedy in this. the comedy being a more off the cuff indirect manner that is less written and more observed by the simple act of acting as real people tend to act. as for the romance it seems messy, intellectualized, complex, difficult, and moving. all in all it seems believable excellent job 9 out of 10

Great Down to Earth Movie

[metalarmr · 8/10 · 4 January 2011]

This is a movie I rewatch from time to time. Its a really good story in general.

These characters/actors act very normal. None of that big Hollywood over dramatic acting. Its regular people in everyday situations that deal with love, trust and the unknown. Sure, its a love story of sort, but it attacks it from a different angle than the "blindly in love, romeo and juliet" scenario that has been beaten to death.

I must admit I have a crush on the lead actress (Sabrina Lloyd). Her relationship with Rand ( John Livingston ) is heartwarming but not on steady ground. All in all, its one of my favorite movies in my ever expanding movie growth.

Hmmm...

[darienwerfhorst · 2 August 2004]

I think this movie was trying to be like Chasing Amy (minus the Lesbian love interest) and it didn't work that well....the story at base was OK, but some of the dialogue was really stilted and there were more stereotypes that you can shake a talking stick at.

Plus I counted six (six!) gratuitous "Golden Gate Bridge in Fog" shots...and that isn't a good sign.

I think the intention was good, but it got bogged down in a lot of details, navel gazing and side stories that detracted from the center. The characters talked the way 18 year olds talk in cafes when they think other people are listening...but the folks in this movie were much older than that, so I didn't buy it.

A predictable, slick, televisionism.

[creamygreen · 22 January 2003]

Inappropriately videographed in an self-conscious style reminiscent of the "hip and cool" B-grade TV action series Silk Stalkings, this film offers little in the way of human insight, original characters or surprise. Despite co-starring Sabrina Lloyd, who was winsome in Sports Night and Ed, the film makes you want to leave unseen before the credits roll. Unfortunately I didn't. I just saw it at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival where I saw another film about love by Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yuan. It is called I Love You and never has the discrepancy between TV weaned pablum and cinematic poetry been made so sharply evident to me. If the conceit of Dopamine's main character designing a cuddly interactive computer character as a replacement for his own emotional connection wasn't obvious enough, the dialog will lay it out for you time and time again. The bland predictability of the story, the stock characters (sensitive lead, womanizing buddy, token black friend) make you feel bad that someone had spent so much time on the impressive effects used to make the "emotionally responsive" Koy Koy computer character that the young hip technology guys are toiling over for the big client. Also impressive were the "Brain Chemistry" computer effects used in the out-of-place opening credit sequence and which were needlessly invoked again every time the main character fell further "in love". When John Livingston's character Rand finally sheds the inevitable tear, it is so discomforting and phony that even a generous Sundance audience could be moved to groan. Other characters, like Rand's parents, are merely expository devices. The film's ruminations on love and contemporary relationships were dealt with years ago by Oprah. Despite its desperate efforts to do so, this is a film that takes few risks. A huge misapplication of craftsmanship.