Hotel for Dogs

The title summs it up pretty much, the dialouge, the characters are generic and uninteresting so is the story but the dogs are interesting the ending is cheesy, generic and sweet. Is the movie a bad time? No, i am pretty sure most kids would enjoy it and still its a good time

I am shocked to come to IMDb and see this movie with a rating under 5/10. Certainly the film is not art, but it a nice family film, a fun film, a good time film. Kids (and adults) will enjoy Bruce's contraptions, and the film solidly encourages kids to do the right thing and stand up for what they believe in. Best of all, they do not clutter the movie with useless subplots. Any romance between the characters is a minor strand, there are no false arguments to heighten tension. The plot stays focused and the kids (and even adults) will have a good time.

I *HATE* dogs, and I liked this movie. That has to say something.

Hotel for Dogs plays it very safe and sticks to a tried-and-true children's movie formula. For a great many viewers the best thing about the film will be the cute and cuddly dogs that perform various tricks – their training is easily more impressive than the humdrum story, based on a hopefully more consequential Lois Duncan book. The dialogue lacks flair, the acting is expectedly simple, and the characters provide only modest entertainment in comparison to their canine costars. Adults will probably find it difficult to withstand the sickeningly sweet conclusion or the impossibly artificial mechanics behind the inner workings of the dog hotel, but the target audience is likely to be pleased.

16-year-old Andi (Emma Roberts) and her 11-year-old brother Bruce (Jake Austin) have bounced back and forth between orphanages and foster parents (five in the last three years) without finding comfort or satisfaction. Bernie (Don Cheadle), the kindly social worker who governs their placements tries to reason with the children, who aren't content with their newest family of quiver-inducing wannabe rock stars (Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon) who conduct obnoxious band practice in their apartment nonstop, and compulsively lock up the cupboards and cabinets in their home. The brother and sister team have also been secretly keeping a pet dog, Friday, who uses automated gadgets constructed by the mechanically inclined Bruce to get food and to remain hidden.

Before school starts up, the trouble making duo (they get money for dog food by pawning fraudulent goods) comes across an abandoned hotel with several canine occupants. Deciding to look after their newfound family of dogs, Andi and Bruce join forces with two employees from the nearby pet store (Johnny Simmons and Kyla Pratt) along with nosey Mark (Troy Gentile), to build an elaborate self-maintained shelter for unwanted, abandoned and stray dogs. Initially it seems they've bitten off more than they can chew, especially when cruel dog pound troops, nagging foster parents and pesky cops begin to take notice of the incredibly large gathering of dogs at the dilapidated old building.

The target audience probably won't be asking the questions that popped into my mind: How can an 11-year-old kid build such intricate mechanical contraptions? Is it really that easy to train dozens of dogs to use said electrical gadgets? Is it simply luck that none of the dogs need medical attention? Is it really okay for children to commit crimes such as breaking and entering, trespassing, and even assault, as long as it's done with the intent of saving stray animals? Clearly this film wasn't designed for me, but the trite dialogue (Kevin Dillon mutters the stale line, "We're in deep doo doo," after falling into an enormous animal waste bin), the predictability of Bernie's role, the sappy ending and the Kill Bill music montage (Tomoyasu Hotei's instantly recognizable "Battle Without Honor or Humanity") are huge distractions – especially when one just wants to see some adorable dogs running amok.Evren Buyruk,Tx

I saw a preview of this film with kids 6, 7 and 12. We are a dog-loving family, so perhaps we were biased to enjoy the film. That said, we were split on our review. The adults and 12 year old were bored; the two youngsters were thrilled! Hence the score of 6.

Overall, this was a harmless movie featuring a few humans and many trained dogs. It was sugary and nice - there was no real threat anywhere in the film of something bad happening (thus it is kid-safe for very young kids). And they've reduced the idea of foster homes down to a concocted McNugget of a concept. My younger kids didn't even follow that theme at all.

What they did follow, and what I found most redeeming, were the numerous cutesy dog tricks and toys. The creators of the film did a nice job inventing clever ways to mechanize the caring for dogs (think the breakfast scene in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). That was fun. And the dogs were cute.

For me the drawbacks were these: Slow start, unfunny 'comic' characters - like the foster parents and dog catchers, and a lame plot.

But ultimately - we had a nice outing, and you will too. And you will emerge from the film MORE likely to go get a dog of your own.

So I'm finna be real -

Hotel for Dogs kinda not bad.

Like it's clearly not good. The script is awful. The acting isn't that good. The music both generic and out of place.

BUT the director genuinely makes an effort to be creative here and I'm shocked by it. For a kid's movie, Thor Freudenthal does way more than he had to. Part of that is probably because of the source material, I'm sure all of the wacky dog contraptions come straight out of the kid's book, but part of it has to do with the surprisingly interesting shots and editing.

Now I'm not saying this movie is a masterpiece - again, it's got really bad writing. I'm just saying, as a kid's movie, it's more entertaining than I thought it would be.

Plus doggos pretty cute ngl.