Las aventuras de Chatran

"The Adventures of Milo and Otis" is a wonderful film about a pair of cute animals, an orange cat named Milo and a pug named Otis, who have been separated from each other and their home. Milo and Otis, best friends since birth, grow up on a small farm and lightheartedly enjoy their youth together, having fun with the other animals and playing games, their favorite being hide-and-seek. One day, Milo finds the perfect hiding spot in a box tied to a pier on the river, but the game turns serious when the box starts to float downriver away from the farm. Otis, loyal friend that he is, runs alongside the box, trying to help Milo, but eventually, the two animals are separated and lost from home. The movie follows the two animals on their quest to reunite and find their way home, as they tumble through exciting adventures and close calls.

Directed by Masanori Hata, "Koneko monogatari," to cite the film's original title, was produced and released in Japan in 1986, achieving box office success in the Asian country. The film made its way to the United States and was released in 1989 by Columbia Pictures. The American edition is 76 minutes long, 14 minutes shorter than the Japanese version's 90 minutes. The American version is narrated with charm and enthusiasm by Dudley Moore, who creates distinct characters using nothing more than his voice.

The film works on nearly all levels. Although some heard-hearted adult viewers may find its plot simplistic and its humor childish, we must not forget that the film is, after all, a fable made for children. That the movie speaks to an adult audience with respect and profundity is to its credit and an indication of its brilliance. The cinematography by Hideo Fujii and Shinji Tomita captures the Japanese countryside beautifully, and the filmmakers show themselves to be masters of color and composition, depicting moments of true beauty such as the gentle trickling of water from a stalactite in a cave. The film features a gentle instrumental score by Ryuichi Sakamoto that nicely complements the action. The song "Gonna Take a Walk Outside today" by Michael Boddicker bookends the American version.

Often compared to and, unfortunately, confused with the Disney film "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey," "The Adventures of Milo and Otis" is by far the superior film. The Disney film also features animals (in this instance, two dogs and a cat) trying to make their way home. The film surrounds this adventure home with an inane subplot involving the animals' owners (a family led by Robert Hays), who are searching for their lost pets. The Disney film lacks any subtlety or charm, dragging its animal heroes (voiced by Sally Field, Michael J. Fox, and Don Ameche) through sappy moments of forced sentimentality and contrived plot developments. Whereas "Homeward Bound" features plain cinematography and lacks the ambition to speak to an older audience or comment on real issues, "The Adventures of Milo and Otis" strongly addresses topics like loyalty and friendship. Never pandering to its audience, the film even depicts the tension and jealousy that can arise between friends who become distanced when a love interest develops for one of them. Although the Disney film was released with greater publicity and fanfare, "The Adventures of Milo and Otis," a hidden gem, is far better.

"The Adventures of Milo and Otis" is a simple fable and its characters exist in a magical world that seems untouched by human civilization. Although Milo and Otis live on a farm, their masters are never referred to or seen, nor is there any sign at all of humankind. A locomotive that nearly runs Milo down represents the only existence of humanity in the film, a possible comment on the lethal power of technology and the destructive side of human nature. By depicting cooperation and friendship between animals (some of which are natural enemies), the film seems to set their interaction as an example to us quarrelsome humans. However, let us not drift from the film's central theme. Above all, "The Adventures of Milo and Otis" is a wonderful film about the enduring qualities of loyalty and friendship and, as such, is entertaining for younger and older viewers alike.

"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.

This is a movie about a great friendship of a kitten and a pug who are going on an adventure and try to make their way back to their home farm. It was filmed for 4 years an came out in 1986 in Japan.

This is mainly a movie for children, but anyone who loves animals will enjoy some scenes in it that have animal cuteness overload. I say "some scenes" because there is a huge number that are very disturbing. Now, I can't prove if indeed multiple cats and pugs were killed. It wouldn't surprise me considering the time it was filmed, animal rights were far less of an interest back then, and certain scenes like the kitten falling off a cliff sure seem to be life endangering. At the same time I heard the guy who produced this film was an animal lover who had an island that was a sort of sanctuary for animals. This of course doesn't prove much, we do know stories of animal support organizations that were guilty of killing animals or not giving them enough care, but it does give one some hope that animals didn't get killed. Still, even if we assume those are just rumors there are too many scenes where animals are in obvious distress. The one where the cat is attacked by seagulls is a great example. This ruined a movie a lot for me. I sure hope there has been a greater progress with animal treatment on the movie set. One ca make cute movies without doing this to animals and it is not worth the entertainment (it only ruins it).

But yes some adorable scenes such as the kitty with the piglets are in this movie as well.

I hate when people review a film without making any researches about it. In the 80s, there was basically no laws to protect animals. A lot of newspapers at the time reported the atrocities that the animals had to endure during this shooting, well,the ones who could survive. About 30 kittens were killed during the shooting and the most terrible thing is that most of them were killed deliberately. The famous scene when Chartran (Milo or Otis, in french the kitten name is Chartran) falls from a high cliff needed many kittens, one for each take...there's also all those terrible stuff about the little bear and the dog. The Columbia refused at that time to put in the credits that no animals were harmed during the shooting. A lot of viewers were in shock after the screening cause obviously, a film like that without any FX could had not been shot without cruelty. Chartran was not a kitten but tens of them... Boycott that piece of s...! It's not a cute film for all ages, it's a snuff for kids, a HUGE mass grave that should be remembered only for all the atrocities it has done to those unwilling animals.

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.