The Adventures of Milo and Otis

I originally looked up this movie on IMDB because something triggered my memory of this delightful movie. 25 now, I have not seen this movie in many years, so I was slightly surprised (Though I should not have been) when other viewers commented on the inhumane treatment of animals during the filming of this movie.

As an initial note- STOP COMPARING THESE ANIMALS TO STUNTMEN! Stuntmen and women have the free will and prerogative to perform in movies or not. Animals do not have the same choice. By virtue of the fact that animals can't drive themselves to auditions or to the movie set, it should be clear that OWNERS, not ANIMALS made the decisions to be in this and other movies. The comparison is inane.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as a young teen, but recognize now that the price undoubtedly paid by these animals was not worth 90 minutes of viewing enjoyment. If you choose to be entertained by a story of friendship between species, go to your local ASPCA and adopt a cat and a dog. The bond will be genuine, and the amusement value will last much longer than 90 minutes and you'll be promoting compassion to animals rather than abuse and mistreatment.

I enjoyed this film, it was really cute... but found that it was disturbing in the ways they filmed the animals. The animals were obviously frightened in some scenes and definitely did not belong in some of the situations; which include the cat being attacked by seagulls, being chased by a bear, and flying off of a sheer cliff into the ocean...someone had to have thrown him off the edge to make that convenient shot! This made me wonder if the ASPCA was involved in the making of the film, but then I realized that it was filmed in Japan. I loved this film as a child, but watching it yesterday on the Disney channel, I am not as sure.

"Not harmed" not writing in the end, bear crushed a dog with his leg, bids attacking a cat, curiously cut, no making-of for 4 years filming, not very much informations for a film very, very popular... That's much questions, it is not only. I think, unfortunately that we're blind, as somebody told in comment... We can do much of things with animals, but some evidence are to big somehimes...to real. I'm very sad to know the truth about this film, because I loved watch it, and hear the music of it... But with this conscience I can watch it anymore... the memory can be heavy. Very popular, the film is... The less we know, the more they gain. Make that it is not the case... if you think it's right.

Chatran has the only merit to show how far you can go to earn a fistful of miserable bucks. Sacrificing a dozen cats who never asked for anything does not represent my conception of bringing fantasy and entertainment to an audience. "Sure, let's throw the cat from the roof and put it on film, I'm sure the kids will love it!" I'm not saying that no animal was ever harmed on any other shooting that this one, but there's a difference between a horse with a broken leg and five cats thrown from a cliff until one survives and the sequence is wrapped up. (I'm not making this up.) Watching Chatran is like witnessing scientific experiments on animals with the medics laughing their heads off in the background. Except here, the only goal is to make money. The ultimate hypocrisy is that it's supposed to be a charming and moving story with big moral issues about life... To think that the director of this thing is one of the most talented and popular writers in Japan really has me wondering. A sickening experience of cinematographic lobotomy. Blindness is dangerous. Stay aware.

Sure, the end result was a very cute movie, but now that I am a parent I would never allow my son to see this film. Every scene includes some horrible thing done to the animal 'actors' in order to get a particular shot. Cats and dogs thrown off cliffs into ocean breakers, riding down whitewater rivers in a box, chased by predators, shaking and wet and caked in snow... it really is a nonstop montage of abusive scenes. The movie was filmed in Japan so it did NOT have the American standard of animal supervision, and it is interesting to note that the disclaimer at the end does NOT say that no animals were harmed.

I would never want my son to think that it was ok to treat animals this way, nor would I want to support the film industry in making films this way. The animals in this movie had no idea that it was all "just pretend" nor did they give consent. They probably thought they were about to die any number of times during the filming, and that is assuming that none did die, which I'm not too sure of.

I think it is important to consider the moral ramifications before viewing this movie or showing it to children.