★☆☆☆☆
WAGGING its tail at the idea of talking animals as if Babe and Cats & Dogs never existed is this dog-eared crime comedy that stretches, mines and plunders its already thin premise for all its worth. And that ain’t much.
Will Arnett looks embarrassed to be there as Frank, a gruff New York City police detective who finds himself reluctantly teamed up with the station’s heroic, lone-wolf Rottweiler Max (voiced by rapper-turned-actor Ludacris) to investigate the theft and suspected black market sale of a rare panda.
As part of their escapades they have to go undercover in a glitzy dog show in Las Vegas – imagine Crufts by way of a Liberace show and you sort of get the idea. Will they learn life lessons? Will tough cop Frank and no-nonsense Max learn to get along after all? And, most importantly, will it ever reveal the point of why this exists in the first place?
The film is as good as the WTF premise suggests, you’ll be unsurprised to hear.
Even for the very young target audience at which it’s aimed, this is naff stuff. It goes about things with a glib smirk on its face – too self-aware by half and, perhaps, most importantly for that target audience, misses the all-important and genuine message of the bond that can exist between humans and dogs. Even the romantic subplot involving Frank and dog groomer Mattie (Natasha Lyonne) feels unnecessary and wholly unconvincing.
Everything is played for cheap laughs. That would be alright if they were, you know, actually funny. The jokes do arrive thick and fast but with an emphasis on the former, constantly lowering the tone with gags that are at best uncomfortable and at worst downright inappropriate. Particularly unsettling is a scene in which Arnett’s put-upon detective has to intimately inspect and style a dog’s nether regions before the big show (yes, really).
It’s a moment that encapsulates the lowest-common-denominator quality of the whole endeavour. Stanley Tucci’s French-accented pampered pooch Philippe puts it: “I cannot polish the turd but perhaps I can roll it in glitter.” There isn’t enough glitter in the whole world to make this one look good.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here