1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

PETS

Max has four legs and lives in New York with Katie, the lively young mistress who has ‘adopted’ and ripped the road. Expansive and loyal, spends the day waiting for her because like every other human being every morning Katie puts the door and leaves. Do what you are asking questions on which Max and his condominium friends: cats, dogs, hamsters, parrots, canaries, raptors. Katie falls one evening accompanied by Duke, a huge hairy dog ​​who decided to give affection and asylum. But Max does not seem to feel the same way. The rivalry to win the heart of Katie literally leads them into a dead end, hounded by a gang of animals loose led by a sociopath bunny. But there, on the upper floors of the building, someone loves him and launches fearless (and chic) ​​to its research.
What do pets when the owners come out to attend to life? They watch the telenovela, refrigerators plunder, organized techno parties, at least for the Illumination Mac Guff that promises a chimp. That promise is spending in the first (hilarious) minutes but unfortunately does not progress and what was supposed to serve as a common thread, the behavioral deviance of our puppies as soon as we turn our backs on them, out in the trailer to its potential.
Pets – Life from animals then remains within the confines of the safest adventure comedy without exploring the possibilities in the game: The study of tics, habits and psychological quirks of anthropomorphized species. No bravery in short, in matters of emotion Pets remains hopelessly modest, but the young studio created in 2011 confirms its fluid and elastic animation, challenging the laws of physics, catching the spirit of old cartoons and comedy based on the rhythm and the ‘ action silent. A true science of always moving fun that accumulates animated curls cascade and gags without pause, evading moralizing steps required. A divertissement probably appreciated by the young audience but undecided on the audience reference. The best part about Pets, thinner, alludes to the fashions of the New York urban life ( “these days everyone goes to Brooklyn”) and depicts the profile of a satirical New York bobo to animal height (the decadent party in the apartment old dog Pops), evidently less accessible to children, the first recipients of the film. Consider by contrast universal imagery of Paris Ratatouille. Returning with their feet on the ground, the famous Franco-American study, which produced Despicable Me and yellow dungarees in derivatives (Minions), can not dub to enthusiasm its flagship product, despite the success of wildlife and cinephile references scattered along the way (Grease, Rear window, Lady and the tramp). Instead of groped the originality card, Chris Renaud capitalizes on a tried and tested recipe, which was the first success of Pixar (Toy Story), replacing the toys with pets.
But the formula does not always work and Pets never finds the discomfort of Jesse abandoned in Toy Story 2, the nostalgia of classic animation or the dramatic force of the storm scene at the municipal kennel van in Lady and the Tramp. Not a soul is above all, to humanize, not anthropomorphize, his subjects. Behind the door only confirms the agonizing wait of dogs and cats deliberate indifference.



  • Leave a reply