Skip to main content

Mind your business, turkey. I’m having a moment.

The Secret Life of Pets 2
(2019)

(SPOILERS) It says something regarding the misplaced confidence Illumination had in this would-be second franchise that they included Minions and Pets in the animated logo preceding The Secret Life of Pets 2. While this sequel took a not-to-be-sneezed-at $433m, it was rather shockingly (not least to Universal) less than half the original’s global gross. Tellingly, no third instalment has been announced. It shouldn’t be a surprise, as this movie, following a decent but unremarkable predecessor, is patchy at best. Or patchwork, more accurately, attempting to juggle three separate plotlines and rather rudely mash them together for a breakneck but unengaging finale.

Of course, one might put the sequel’s failure down to the absence of lead actor and prodigious masturbator Louis CK as the voice of Max, replaced by the much more loveable and less prone to exposing himself Patton Oswalt. Who knew Louis had so many fans, vowing to boycott their favourite animated film’s follow up? The inconspicuous change does, at least to my ears, rather illustrate the fallacy of casting name performers in animated fare. Particularly so when the lead dogs of Pets (which includes Duke, much less prominent this time) are so lacking in charm. More interesting supporting characters isn’t unusual in an animation, but in an anthropomorphic animation there’s nevertheless less excuse.

The Secret Life of Pets 2 hasn’t so much been split into three as returning writer Brian Lynch has failed to come up with a plot that stretches to ninety minutes. So he sends Max and Duke off to the farm, following a false alarm that Illumination would take a dump into Pixar territory with the addition of a child to the family unit. There’s a moral to this, expounded at the end (“Everything changes, nothing stays the same for long… run for it, or run at it”) as Max, in substitute parental responsibility mode, gives himself a nervous disorder (scratching) due to his incessant worrying over the welfare of the little family urchin.

It takes the wisdom of Harrison Ford’s Welsh Sheepdog Rooster to set him straight, the former’s tough-talking (borderline reactionary?), ways of nature turn enabling Max to discover his hero within. Ford’s really good, actually. Maybe it’s just that Rooster’s an old grump, but it might be his most convincing performance since Presumed Innocent. And as a CGI dog (I’m sure there’s a Call of the Wild joke here somewhere, since he’ll be acting against one in that).

This storyline is only so-so, though, which is at least more agreeable than the desperate and lazy one featuring Kevin Hart’s super bunny Snowball, who contrives to aid Tiffany Haddish’ Shih Tzu Daisy in rescuing a white tiger cub from a circus owned by an evil Eastern European (Nick Kroll). Only to be pursued by wolves, which is where everyone’s paths converge for the redundant train chase climax.

The thread that does work, however, involves Jenny Slate’s Pomeranian Gidget. Persuaded by Max to look after his toy bumblebee, and seeing it as a romantic gesture on his part, she promptly loses it in an apartment full of cats and must masquerade as one in order to retrieve it. The sequence shows Illumination at their best when indulging the overtly cartoonish rather than more tied-down character work, and there’s a decent extended gag involving a laser dot.

Other elements in The Secret Life of Pets 2 also raise a smile. Lake Bell as obese tabby Chloe, purposefully knocking ornaments to the floor. A sequence at the vet, where Max witnesses a variety of ailments (“I bring her a dead mouse – right in the garbage!”) But Dana Carvey’s Basset Hound training pups to upset humans (pooping where they shouldn’t) stretches the joke too far. Chris Renaud is Illumination’s co-mastermind, and co-directs here with Jonathan del Val, but one rather gets the feeling they’re running short on the inspiration that once made them stand out. They only have more Minions and another Sing on their upcoming slate, which is the kind of hole DreamWorks dug for themselves.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.