I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Miss Congeniality, but for dogs. Did we need this? We did not. Director Raja Gosnell has previously perpetrated two Smurfs movies and two Scooby-Doo movies, and I guess he felt that he needed to even out the ranks of his terrible talking-dog “comedies” since he only had the one, Beverly Hills Chihuahua. “Nobody makes talking dog movies anymore,” one of the talking dogs in this talking-dog movie explains. And yet here we are.
These are indeed dark times.
Show Dogs is the cinematic equivalent of stepping in dog shit. You know, for kids! Aggressive, disdainful Max (the voice of Chris “Ludacris” Bridges: The Fate of the Furious, New Year’s Eve) is a Rottweiler NYPD officer who teams up — reluctantly — with aggressive, disdainful FBI agent Frank Mosley (Will Arnett: The Lego Batman Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows) to hunt down an exotic-animal trafficking ring using a prestigious dog show in Las Vegas as cover. Frank is also reluctant, but not because he’s not trained to work with police dogs or because the FBI has its own canine officers thank-you-very-much or because Max, obvs, doesn’t have jurisdiction in Nevada. But because it’s allegedly funnier when the buddies in the buddy comedy are reluctant, even though they’re basically exactly alike and would be great friends if only they could take turns being the alpha dude. It’s like this movie was constructed via a hastily coded Robert McKee–Mad Libs algorithm.
There will be multiple references to Turner & Hooch.
The plan is for Frank and Max to go undercover as competitors at what is the most elite dog show on the planet, with no preparation, no experience, no knowledge, and no enthusiasm. We all know that such things are no longer required in 2018, when experts are suspect and truth is dead and everything is awful. So of course they fit in perfectly, with just a little bit of help from FBI consultant dog groomer Mattie Smith (Natasha Lyonne: Antibirth, Girl Most Likely) and a slew of fancy show dogs (the voices of Alan Cumming [Battle of the Sexes], Stanley Tucci [Submission], Shaquille O’Neal [Blended], and Gabriel Iglesias [Ferdinand]). Of course there is a token fancy girl dog, Daisy (the voice of Jordin Sparks), for Max to fall in love with. And Daisy even belongs to Mattie, so when Frank inevitably falls for Mattie, the happily-ever-after will be easy to manage. Isn’t it great when the universe just plops docile, adoring, willing females into the lives of useless idiot males?
Here are all the things you will discover in Show Dogs: embarrassingly bad CGI; pratfalls; a dog biting FBI butt; dog farts; testicle humor (multiple instances); a giant movie-long promo for a major hotel on the Vegas Strip that I won’t name because they didn’t pay me to promote them; denigration of cat ladies; horrible clichés and stereotypes. You know — *sob* — for kids!
I almost feel bad for Will Arnett, which in turn makes me uncomfortable: I don’t want to feel bad for him. He made this dog bed for himself, and he can lie in it. But still.
There is one tiny redeeming aspect to Show Dogs, which is that, in the end, Max realizes that, after being absolutely 100-percent awful to everyone around him, from the fancy dogs to Frank, everything actually works out better if you just listen to people who think differently than you do, that sometimes they just might know what they’re talking about. It’s too little too late, and I’m not sure that it will counter all the junk that has come before in the malleable little-kiddie brains this movie is intended for. But Show Dogs could have been worse. Not by much. But still.
I think I’ll watch Best in Show again. Better movie about dogs and their humans.
This movie sends an extremely dangerous message to kids and could be
harmful to children who have experienced abuse. One of the major
conflicts the hero dog “Max” has to overcome is being touched in his
private parts by his handler and the judges. It is a major part of the
story line towards the end of the movie. Max is taught by another dog to
go to a zen-like place to just get through the experience so he can win
the competition. This is the hero’s personal conflict to resolve. It’s
not just a simple “oops.” While it may be true that dogs go through
that for dog shows, when writers, directors, and producers humanize
dogs—they can talk, they can make decisions, they can have emotions—they
are no longer dogs. They are like humans and our children identify with
them as such. To promote the idea that someone should be allowed to
touch your private parts and you should just let it happen and find a
way to just get through it is a disastrous and irresponsible message to
send to any viewer, especially children, for whom this movie is
obviously marketed to. Not only is this movie in bad taste, it could be
harmful and triggering to a child or adult who may have experienced
abuse.
This had not occurred to me, but you’re absolutely right.
Thank you for this comment.
Thanks for this. Apparently enough people have raised concerns about it that the studio is actually re-cutting the film.
http://deadline.com/2018/05/show-dogs-sex-abuse-controversy-film-edit-and-rereleased-1202396809/
I just posted about this (before I saw your comment).
https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2018/05/curated-show-dogs-gets-recut-following-complaints-helps-pedophiles.html
No comments about the child grooming subtext?
As I noted in reply to another commenter here, I didn’t see that. Now that it has been pointed out to me, I certainly do. But how can I include something in my review that did not occur to me until after I wrote that review?
The same way every other media outlet on the internet handles it… with an edit.
You edit reviews to correct factual errors. You don’t edit them to put in brand-new opinions that you thought of after the fact. If MAJ feels the need to say anything new about the film, she can put up a new post. Or, it can be adequately discussed in the comments section below the film, which is exactly what’s happening.
There’s no rule that says you can’t provide a section at the bottom that says: “May 23 Update: After reading comments…”, in fact it’s quite common to update articles as new information comes in. Why are you defending this? Seems like a strange hill to die on.
And why are you insisting on it, when she’s not inclined to do it and it’s being adequately mentioned in the comments? Seems like a strange hill for YOU to die on.
I just asked why she didn’t mention it. I’m not insisting on it. You said there’s no precedent for it to which I debunked. Nice try with the misdirection, but it didn’t work.
But now you’re suggesting she SHOULDN’T just edit her article based on comments, because aliens. So which is it, take comments into account, or not? Or do you just have to win, no matter what you have to say to do so? And again, why is this such a big deal for you? Have fun dying on your hill.
Why are *you* making such a big deal out of this?
I don’t edit my reviews to change the content. The issue is mentioned in the comments. That covers it.
The comments could have also mentioned aliens. Are you accepting those as official canon for your article as well?
What the hell are you talking about? If you’re suggesting that I have implied that anything mentioned in comments is “canon” (what “canon”?!), then that’s ridiculous. I acknowledged and replied to the comment in question. What is wrong with you?
I suggest you let this drop. You’re starting to border on trollish.