Few years after the first film, Dr. Dolittle is tasked to help protect a forest by getting an endangered species of bear to mate. However, one of the bears was raised in captivity and has no idea how to adapt in the forest. Dolittle has to make do with a short deadline and a greedy, logging magnate, while balancing his family life. The first film was very messy with balancing the story, and while the sequel does have more focus on the main story and keeps the pace natural, the subplot with Dolittle's family proves to be cluttered. That subplot is mainly about Dolittle and his rebelling, teenage daughter, who realizes that she can also talk to animals. The issue is that not only is there not much time with the subplot, but the conflict with his wife appears and disappears. On top of that, you also got the villain who just wants to cut down the forest for money, which is just unnecessary. The main story alone honestly works fine, but the filmmakers keep adding more filler to make the film bloated despite the short runtime. The uneven balancing of the story is also reflected on to the tone and humour. To be fair, the humour is better than the first film, given the reduced pop-culture gags. However, there's jokes going straight for either the adult crowd or toddlers. You of course got your toilet humour and butt jokes that kids just love, but then you got sex jokes and awkward allegories such as the interspecies joke between Dolittle and the female bear. It's more uncomfortable than funny. I will say that the humour and tone isn't not as bad as "My Spy" though.
Eddie Murphy returns as Dr. Dolittle and acts much better than before. The issue with the first film was the character's personality conflicting with the story and pacing. Here, Murphy is more casual as the doctor who takes care of the animals and has a wise-cracking attitude towards his family. Considering a lot of his scenes is just him acting at nothing, he gives a lot of dedication to the role. Steve Zahn as Archie the bear is honestly great casting. The actor voices the lazy, pampered bear perfectly, though Archie himself isn't really funny or too engaging. Sometimes, he can get some cringe moments. The audience only roots for him in order to have the forest be saved, not because Archie is a loveable character. Outside of these characters, everyone else from the animals to the humans fit your cliched roles such as the annoyed, teenaged daughter, the supportive yet disgruntled wife, the stubborn and villainous, logging magnate, and the animals fitting the roles of comic relief. Much like the first film, there's not much character in the majority of the cast. They act fine and do their role, but you wouldn't remember them at all. Once again, Murphy is left attempting to save the movie himself by charisma alone, which is a hard task for any actor.
Steve Carr takes charge of directing and it's still very average and flat. Honestly, it makes Betty Thomas's directing look so much better in comparison. At least with the last film, the location of San Fransisco and the sets looked good. This film mainly takes place in the forest and you can tell that a good chunk of the scenes are a set and not very natural to the point of pleasing the audience. Like, your gut will just tell you that there's something off with the forest setting. It just feels like a much cheaper film, even though it has the same amount of budget that the first film had. The cinematography is actually even worse, mainly by the increased back to forth shots of Murphy and the animals. I know that's because Murphy doesn't like working with animals around him, but it's no excuse to get lazy because of it. The score by David Newman is so generic family fluff that the bubbly comedic music only reaches your memory, which itself is so borrowed from other generic family comedies. The soundtrack though is very bizarre, using a lot of R&B songs at any chance possible. The songs aren't bad, but they just don't fit in this movie at all. The visual effects at least did get better. It still uses green-screen and digital editing, but it's much more convincing. Considering that Archie is in the film a lot, I'm glad to see that they tried their best in making him share the same space as Murphy, which there are a few cases where the effect perfectly works. For the most part though, you can tell that he's not real or inhabiting the screen, but you acknowledge that it was the best they could do. However, the editing once again ruins the film. While not as destructive as the previous film with all of the subplots, the editing still cuts scenes far too quickly, whether they are part of a gag or not. I honestly feel that in retrospect, all of the "Dr. Dolittle" films, from the original to the Robert Downey remake, suffer primarily from the editing. What is with this franchise and terrible editing choices?
Dr. Dolittle 2 does actually improve on the original, surprisingly. From the better premise and humour, Murphy's dedication to the role being more prominent, and the digital effects being improved, you can't deny that it does make the film better than the first. However, the sequel is still just as bad. From the cluttered subplot, unbalanced tone of the humour, the majority of the characters (animal or human) once again assume the same roles that they were given, bland directing from Carr, very flat cinematography, another forgettable score, a bizarre soundtrack attached to a family film, and the editing yet again practically ruining the enjoyment and function of the movie. Once again, it might be entertaining enough to grab your kid's attention, but outside of the very adult jokes that are more awkward than funny, you might as well give up on finding a good Dr. Dolittle film.
Verdict: 4/10. Improvements don't escape the awfulness of this film. Pick your poison for what you prefer, the original or the sequel.
No comments:
Post a Comment