User reviews

I liked Bitch because the story unfolds from such a simple premise: When it all gets too much for a mother of four, she takes herself out of the equation. We don't know whether she is making a conscious choice or suffering from a rare disease of the mind. All we know is that her workaholic husband now has to do without her. It doesn't go well, at least not initially. Bitch is not the world's deepest movie, but it's an entertaining lesson about the effort it takes to keep a family together.

For a low budget indie film, it's not terrible.

It looks nice, considering its budget.

What is readily apparent, is that it's trying to be different just to be different.

It is bizarre, but not in an interesting way.

The pacing is not exactly great, and the writing seems random.

A really interesting concept, but not made exceptionally well. It seems a bit long, and doesn't really look at real case, affect and solution/outcome, so it all feels a bit pointless. Kind of funny in bits, but I wouldn't put comedy as its genre. The female lead acted really well, but other cast members were lacking a bit.

My apologies to Marianna Palka, but this is a terrible movie. I am fully able to accept the plot where a woman suffers a mental breakdown and takes on the personality of a dog. Yes, she literally thinks she is a dog, and not a friendly family dog, but a mean, aggressive one. She has a terrible and unfaithful husband who leaves all the stress of running a household and caring for 4 kids squarely on her shoulders. It appears she takes on the personality of a dog because dogs have no responsibilities.

What makes the story unbelievable are the characters. The dad is such a bad dad that he doesn't know the name of his kids' school. His four kids go to a private school so he is obviously paying several thousand dollars a year. I can understand a bad father being out of touch, but he is spending that kind of money and he doesn't know where his money is going? That's pretty hard to believe.

Then when the older kids get dropped off at middle school they ask for lunch money. He hands them a $100 bill and asks, "Is this enough?" Really? Is the writer trying to show the dad is that far out of touch? Or is she trying to show us how frantic the dad has become since mom's disappearance.

The two older kids are in middle school. Yet, when mom starts acting like a dog those two young teenage kids think it's funny. The way the scene is directed it is not funny, it is disturbing. Mom has been missing for a whole day. Dad and the mother's sister come into the home after frantically searching the neighborhood for her, and the kids are laughing doing kids things like playing video games. The kids happened to locate their mother. She is in the basement, stripped of all her clothing, covered in her own fecal matter, and literally acting exactly like a vicious dog. If this happened to my mom when I was 12 or 13 I would be incredibly upset and worried. I wouldn't be laughing at the situation.

He's also been married to his wife for a while as the oldest is 13 years old, yet he doesn't know the name of his sister in law's husband. His wife's sister does not live across the country. She lives in the same city, and the two sisters appear to be very close. Despite this the dad doesn't know the name of the man his sister in law has been married to for years? That's ridiculous.

When it becomes obvious the mom needs professional help, the family doctor is called in. He refers them to a professional who deals with these sorts of situations. It's not said in the movie, but this other professional must be a psychiatrist. A real general practitioner with an M.D. is not going to refer an obviously mentally disturbed person to a self-help guru. Additionally, this second professional can write prescriptions. After the examination the sister asks the psychiatrist for an official medical term for her condition. The doctor's answer? "Acting like a dog." Not funny, but stupid. No real psychiatrist is going to say that.

I love a good goofy movie. Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies have their place. In a good, silly movie the dad can be so bad as to not know the name of the kids' schools or their own brother in law. The silly psychiatrist in the silly movie may have an official diagnosis of "acting like a dog". However, this movie isn't directed like a silly movie. It's trying to be a realistic, dark comedy. Sadly, it cannot be said that the director didn't see the writer's vision and tried to turn a silly movie into a more realistic comedy because the director IS the writer.

This week Stephen Spielberg said movies on Netflix should not be eligible to win Oscsars. Don't worry Stephen, they're not going to win any Oscars.

Nervous breakdown anyone? I guess we can feel with the woman. If not you are as much of a jerk than her husband. And while Mr. Ritter is usually more of a nice guy on screen, he couldn't be further away with his role here. Actually he is so far off the cliff, that it starts hurting. Not just the viewer, but the movie as well.

Of course the main character has to have flaws he has to overcome so the audience will root for him in the end. But this is not just a 180 turn. This is like Exorcist like spinning when we arrive towards the end of the movie. So much spinning, that it's almost a surprise not all ended up crawling on the floor.

The thing is, for people to care, you have to walk a fine line. Something Ritter either isn't capable of (charisma-wise) and/or the script isn't giving him a chance. And that is before all the convenient stuff that happens (open doors, smelling only when needed for drama purposes and so forth).

Now every movie has logic issues if you really break them down, but the good ones have saving Graces. Why no one interferes, why the story (for "comedic purposes") just roles on like that ... it's obvious and you have to lower your bar quite a bit - to acknowledge the good intention of the movie and weigh them in a big way. If you can do that - well you probably have already voted dislike on my comment... but good for you and I mean that

Came across this on Netflix and thought the premise looked interesting. Actually thought it was going to be a cheesy horror flick, but was glad it turned out to be something totally unexpected. The acting, especially Ritter's is superb. Some of the dialog had me cracking up, which I think was intentional. Such an unbelievable premise was handled very realistically. There were some very touching moments in the film as well, and all of the characters had some degree of likability. Would definitely recommend for those who like the occasional offbeat film. I also felt the ending was appropriate, though folks who like things made more obvious might not.

Written , directed and produced by Palka and starring her boyfriend Jason Ritter and I think she over-reached herself.

Could have been interesting but was just one long borefest. Sure we can all appreciate the theme but it wasnt enough to carry a movie - Maybe a 15 minute short but not a movie.

Music was awful. Dialogue pitiful. Acting was ok! Full of feminist tropes and cliches. I did like the Video / poster but that is about it! DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS!!!

There are worse films like "THE BAD BATCH" with Keanu Reeves so it hasnt attained the unholy p1sspot of god awful movie making that that disaster has!

Shows very strong similarities to the 2002 film 'Bark' where a vet meets a man whose wife starts acting like a dog. Directed by Kasia Adamik, she also made another recent film about a crazed canine in 2017 titled 'Pokot'. To me I believe that a 'Bitch' used this story line, not very original.

The acting was good by some and terrible by one or two others, camera work, was just basic, the editing and color grading was ok/good, the jokes, sorry but they were pretty lame. There was so much depth this film could have achieved, millions of house mothers from around the world could have related to it but it just made a joke of a horrible situation.

I gave it a 4 and I believe that this is more than fare.

This turned out a bit different than I expected, but it kept my attention all the way. Some folks complained about the sound track being objectionable, but I absolutely loved it. I thought it added greatly to my enjoyment. Perhaps because I listen with headphones it comes across differently. Anyway, this is going onto my list of "remind me about it in a year or two" list to watch again sometime.

Read a review on the Guardian before watching this it said " a tame feminist satire lacks bite", although the review wasn't promising but still watched it because sometimes all of us like to watch something different sadly by the end i found saying to myself the review was spot on, although the movie deals with a very important issue but i found the execution lacking for the most part, the only thing to watch is Marianna palka who has written the screenplay acted and directed the movie but the rest of the cast is completely unconvincing and for the most part look uninterested as well, maybe after a while it looks like except the protagonist no else believes in this story anymore

Have you ever sat and wondered "what would my life be like if I had 4 screaming children and a useless husband who weren't capable of pouring themselves a glass of water?" If so, Bitch is the movie for you. From an underwhelming failed suicide attempt (seriously girl, it's a light fixture, shouldn't super mom know better) to a... I'm going to be honest with you, this pile of garbage isn't worth sitting through. The only thing that's made this movie even remotely bearable is the occasional dog onscreen. This entire movies budget would've been better used as a donation to the humane society.

This movie never should've been made. It was pathetic and disgusting. The allegory completely failed. The premise of a wife turning into a dog living in the basement covered in our own feces is such a horrible idea it is beyond description . The husband character was awful. The storyline was awful. The cinematography was awful. Everything about the movie was revolting and no one replaces any value on human decency should ever waste their time in watching this movie.

So strange but interesting and just a really unique idea

This is easily one of the top 5 worst movies I've ever watched. It is clearly written by a feminazi who has no idea how to write a movie. Basic premise is "man bad woman good". I ignored rotten tomatoes and wish I hadn't. I could've even got on board despite the agenda if it was written well. But it wasn't.

Cringeworthy over-the-top domestic terror comedy. Really bizarre, but a kick!

All the characters with the exception of the woman the husband was having the affair with were unlikable. The kids were bizarre and creepy. The father was just flat or falling down. I did not care what happened to any of them! The wife or bitch's character was just weird and stupid.

I haven't seen a genuinely emotional, smart, realistic, heart- felt family movie in a loooong time. Marianna Palka did an amazing job as a director. The film centres on a Mother/wife/human who always cares and do everything about her family but she never get what she deserve. I dont wanna do any spoiler so please just watch this movie and decide yourself.

So, let's start off by stating what a lot of reviewers have failed to credit this screenplay author/director/actress with... This was an EXTREMELY ambitious movie to make. It's a comedy dealing with an extreme, almost farcical case of mental illness, but it has a serious message relying heavily on raw emotion and brutal drama, not an easy balancing act to pull off by any means, so naturally many elements are hit or miss with a lot of people. I tend to agree with a lot of other reviews saying that the weakest aspect probably comes down to the fact that the father, basically the real protagonist of the movie, comes across as so much of a cartoonish cardboard cutout caricature of what a lowlife good-for-nothing husband/father would be. This plays into the comedy side of the movie, but it definitely hurts the drama side, and to my opinion, at the greater expense of the movie as a whole. Does this single aspect destroy the film's credibility? My answer is no it does not, as it just wasn't all that hard for me to relate to the notion of growing up with an almost completely disinterested parent.

Another question, how credible is the mental disorder angle? My answer to this is, as far fetched as this angle may come across to some people, you'd be surprised at what's lurking out there in the realm of real world psychosis. To me it's believable. The issue here, once again, comes back to how is the main protagonist, the father, handling it. Is his reaction believable? Again, he's a caricature, completely disconnected from reality and the world he lives in, so he builds up a wall around him, obsessed with maintaining his preconceived traditionalist worldview. That's the whole essence of the movie really, so, is his pseudo "straight-man" reaction to the absurd dog woman, a strong enough counterbalance? Hotly debatable, and I would argue that if you're looking at it from that angle, maybe that's he wrong way to look at it, because there's a much more poignant dichotomy being explored here.

There's a reference made to the Scottish Psychiatrist R. D. Laing. The director being of Scottish origin, I would Imagine Laing was fairly talked about in Scotland in his day. Basically, his approach to psychiatry was to indulge the delusions of the patient, a REVOLUTIONARY approach at the time. In 1970 he came out with a film named "Asylum" to show EXACTLY what he was doing. The idea is that is that the patient never really "gets better," so the intent is to make them feel happy, and normal. From what I've seen, in practice this works better on people who aren't all that messed up to begin with. There was one man in particular in his film who was so incapable of any type of even-keeled socialization, that all he was doing was causing distress to the other patients. The director here I think was actually trying to juxtapose both approaches to mental illness: traditional heavy confinement + prolonged isolation, vs. Indulging the fantasy. The whole plot progression is basically the father shifting from one approach to the other, eventually behaving like a dog himself, and saying "you be whatever you want to be," to his wife, after initially having locked her in the basement.

R. D. Laing's approach, as we all know has been HEAVILY adopted in regards to gender related body dysphoria, and you literally hear the same turn of phrase being used everywhere you go. "Call them whatever they prefer to be called." The interesting thing about the WAY this free-reigns form of psychiatry has been adopted, is that it's been made virtually compulsory across all of society. People have already done jail time for "misgendering," or even TALKING about the issue itself. As a result, you're seeing more and more people being victim to a hypocritically authoritarian approach to free-reigns psychiatry, people who received the WRONG form of treatment which did them harm, misdiagnosed as having gender dysphoria, and in the end, the numbers are going to be so straggering that they won't be able to be repressed anymore, and will represent another colossal ABOMINATION in psychiatric history, similar to lobotomies. In my view, the one lesson we can derive from psychiatric history, is that attempting to provide a one size fits all cookie cutter answer to mental health, in and of itself is the core problem, and I think R. D. Laing would have probably agreed with this, whether we're talking about a free reigns approach, or the traditionalist approach, which seeks to "cure" the condition rather than normalize it. A lot of reviewers seem to have found it difficult to accept this 180 degree change from the father, so I think maybe a little more emphasis should have been placed on this juxtaposition of psychiatric method. If that's what the director was going for, and I don't really think she was intending so in any more than a very peripheral way, there's a 2005 Czech film by Jan Swankmajer named "Sileni," which does a better job showcasing that angle of the psychiatric question in particular.

The issue that ends up being evermore prevailing in this film, VERY unfortunately in my opinion, is the man v.s. Woman angle, which by far is an angle of lesser value, as usual has being catapulted into the forefront of the discussion by gender based ideological zealotry in the form of feminist theory, which I'm seeing echoed in many other reviews, references to the PATRIARCHY etc., which frankly, the film doesn't attempt to deal with at all. Despite being absolutely hands off around this issue, the film definitely gives off feministy vibes, again, simply by virtue of what a caricature the father is. The bottom line, however, is if you're JUST looking at it from that point of view, it definitely comes across as stale. I mean for Christ sake... Challenging the concept of traditional marriage roles. What is this, 1970? THAT'S when that subject matter might have resonated on some level. That being said, does the film NEED to be a socially relevant film to still work? Nope. Absolutely not, regardless of whether it showcases the psychiatric issue, or the gender issue. I think it's a mistake for the viewer to dwell on either issue, and I tend to look at it as follows. Why can't you just have a male character who just happens to be a stereotypical ass, and why can't he be the embodiment of an outdated social structure just for its own sake?

It's very easy to try and take from a film, a bigger issue than the film itself realistically encompasses. For example, you could allow yourself to get annoyed over the angle that the father represents an unrealistic uncharitable representation of men and fathers as a whole. In reality, the film never comes across as preachy. I don't like being talked down to by know-it-all ideologues. I didn't get that from this film, and to that extent, the absurdist angle was a huge benefit. This is the type of film that works best if you just take it for what it is, an absurdist take on the very serious and common issue of familial discord, revolving around unfulfilled expectations, and in that respect, the actors did their best to deliver. Jaime King, who I never really thought much of before, was actually really good in this, in my opinion. You probably shouldn't take this film as anything more than a portrait of mental chaos, one which delivers the understandably unsatisfying diagnosis, that there is no real "cure," not just to a particular form of psychosis, but to the human condition itself.

To me this film does succeed in a major way that a lot of comedic films fail, and that is staying grounded in realism. The comedic elements are often absurd and goofy, but the element of drama is portrayed in a very raw and brutal way. Marrying the two is something you don't often see in a film, and I think a lot of people tend to feel uncomfortable combining the two. Someone who wants to go let loose to a comedy doesn't necessarily want to feel distraught and uncomfortable in the same breadth of time. Ultimately, I don't think you could sell this film as a comedy. You could definitely sell it as a drama though, and to me that's why it was successful; it maintained enough focus to pull together a resonant portrayal of hardship in a way that's not as foreign as the subject itself.

Why are the kids monsters? Seriously, so uber tiger mom goes bonkers to teach her family a lesson. But why do they need a lesson if she's half Oprah and half Hillary Clinton to start with? I get the whole angry feminist diatribe thing. I get the whole 'without me me me me you will all die' thing. I get the white upper middle class suburban mom and the agony that comes with it thing. No, really. That's where suicide bombers come from. Maybe she should have done that instead. Just murdered her family.

There's really not much mystery to it. Or much to it at all. From the first few moments of the movie you see that Jill is having a mental break down and you see that her husband is a nightmare. By the end of the movie they try and make it a revelation that we finally have figured it all out... the husband is a nightmare. When we've known this from the very start and all the way through.

How is any guy this bad? He acts like a little child who used his wife as a slave. He's the most selfish man I've ever seen in a character. And he can't even see it. Why would anyone put up with that for over sixteen years? It's very infuriated to watch it.

She turns into a vicious dog? Thats whats written on the summery of the film. They show very little images of her as a dog. You mostly hear her, not see her. They refuse to show us how on earth she ran so fast on all fours. And covering herself in human poo is not something a dog does. Further more that is down right abuse to leave someone like that. She would start to rot and get serious illnesses. They have some plot holes with this. The movie is more so directed at the husband and how he reacts, not so much Jill being dog like.

The movie is not funny. There's no mystery. It's mostly all filmed in the colors blue and white. They try and make it fast paced with fast conversations and loud annoying music. It does flow nicely and it keeps interest as you're hoping there will be more to it, unfortunately there's not. It does wrap itself up very nicely. But almost too quickly. It goes from one degree to the next on a dime.