It has often been commented by reviewers that one of the most difficult kind of film to review is a good comedy. Comedy films are judged almost exclusively based on how funny they are, so the difficulty in explaining success at humor is partially due to humor's inherently abstract nature, and partially due to the critic's desire not to spoil the movie they are reviewing. Neither of these factors are an issue in assesing Cats and Dogs, leading me to conclude that another, equally difficult kind of film to review is a really really really bad comedy.
The difficulty in describing the reason behind Cats and Dogs 2's abject horribleness is that very little on display in the film is terrible in an overtly obvious way. The animals are cute, some of the jokes are passable enough to garner a giggle or two, and the plot, while stupid in the way that comedy plots are generally allowed to be, keeps things moving quickly enough that no one will be terribly bored. In many ways, it's the sort of movie this summer has been teaching us to expect: something to get you and the kids out of the house and into another air conditioned building with a bunch of over priced snacks in your lap; nothing too horrible to endure, but nothing so amazing that you will be forced to think about it.
If you do have the sheer gall to think about it however, you will be discover that you have somehow found yourself seated before the worst movie of the year. This is the case for various reasons, the most notable of which is a single character: the pidgeon known as Seamus, voiced by Katt Williams. First off, he's horribly racist in a way this is not instantly apparent, since a pidgeon is not exactly a common figure of black stereotyping, but put simply, compare Seamus's "ghetto speak" to the vocal mannerisms of the crows from Disney's Dumbo, then take a moment to reflect on just how much growing up hollywood's been doing these days. Just to add insult to injury, this character, who gets an unfortunately large helping of screen time, isn't in the least bit amusing even if you can somehow set aside everything that makes him offensive. His purpose in the film is to make obvious, over-used, and poorly timed quips when not pretending to be relevent to what the film claims qualifies as a plot.
Comedy plots tend to get something of a free ride, being often allowed to contain as much depth, heart, and story as a 20-or-so minute sit-com episode stretched out to feature length. Because a comedy promises, and hopefully keeps the promise to keep an audience laughing at a steady rate for an hour and a half, a complex story is pretty well not required for entertainment needs to be met. However, the plot of Cats and Dogs is not just stretched, not just contrived, not even just plain stupid, but impossible to follow. The devices and macguffins come and go with no coherence, and you will be so utterly confused and bored as you sit there trying to make sense of it all that any enjoyment you could possibly have immagined was present in the jokes will be drained out like the life blood from the still living bodies of the careers of all involved with this film's production.
A lot of this criticism may sound generic and vague, the tell-tale signs of a bitter critic eagerly bashing a film that does not cater directly to his tastes as a means of self-gratification. While that is not (entirely) the case, I will admit that Cats and Dogs is not the kind of film that will violently rob your children of their capacity for higher thinking, but this movie rubbed me in several wrong ways and I have deemed it worthy of death, so I'll close on this note:
Do you remember the first Cats and Dogs? Vaguely? Yeah, I kind of did. Do you remember anything that actually happened in that movie beyond "doggy and kitty fall down go boom?" Didn't think so. This film never deserved to exist and the people making it clearly understood that. You should too.
No comments:
Post a Comment