| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
A+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
Anyone that believes animals could have been......
by (movies profile)
Mar 16, 2006
2
of
2 people found this review helpful
....killed in this film is a retard, that thing about 20 cats being killed is a rumour that was bred by paranoia and ignorance. I can say that this film is amazing in what they accomplished with these animals and Dudley Moore is awesome as the narrator, but the editing was kind of awkward which is understandable when you are piecing fragments of non-cohesive shots. I am a filmmaker and i watched this becuase it is a remarkable achievement as a film. but really, everything that you see in the film is a very basic camera trick made to allude that it was more "dangerous" than it realy was. first off, the japanese man who made this owns a farm and is a devote animal lover so I strongly doubt he would have allowed an animal to be killed. Also, its a trivia fact that ONLY 4 cats were used this film and that was only to show an age progression. really, their was no assembly line of death in this movie. So lets break down the "stunts" in the film.
1. the scene where the pug and bear "fight". The bear in this film was obviously domesticated and was really only playing rough with the dog because by nature, bears play rough. the dog was only slapped on his hind by the bear and not even scratched because it was not an attack, it was play that was meant to look like one with the magic of editing. He did get dunked in the water a few times though which was kind of funny.
2. the box scene where the cat drops off a waterfall. the cat coudnt have been injured. the fall was made to look bigger than it really was with the use of the camera and really coudnt have been more than five feet, and cats are very limber and can sustain a much greater fall than that on solid ground.
3. Seagulls pecking the cat? I didnt see a single seagull even touch the cat. the cat was just running around all erratic to make the situation look really distressing.
4. Now the big one, the cliff drop. If you look at the actual shot, you will notice the cat really only fell about a quarter of the way into the ocean but was filmed in a way to suggest that he had fallen from the top.
5. heres a funny one, one person actually believed that the fish really bit the cats tail which is really laughable. the fish that you saw being dragged by the cat was a dead fish prop attached to the cats tail, and then was replaced with a live fish flopping on the ground in the next shot. this film must have been exhausting to make.
6. oh yeah, the crab that pinched the cats cheek. well...ok, that was real. you got me that time. one point for PETA. even though that crab was smaller than a baby kitten and could not have broken through his skin.
7. Were they psychologically harmed? doubtful. the average cat or dog owner does far more psychologically damaging things to their pet.
If there are any more that i missed, you could probobly figure them out for yourself if you stop watching it in such an emotional state and look at it like a film. I suppose the reason they did not include the message "no animals were harmed...." is becuase that was not the standard in 1980's Japan at the time, and instead the message "all animals were treated under the care of supervisors with regard to their safety...etc." was used instead. trust me, i watched the entire film with every allegation that people have made about it in mind and would be surprised if any animal was even injured in the making of this film. |
My Public Profile 
