Perdido Pra Cachorro 2

They changed the actor/actress for the aunt, the niece, papis owner, and Chloe! That's 3/4 of the main characters and they act like nothing happened! The movie is a good movie still but i just couldn't get over the fact that all actors but one were changed

Fun - Silly - but fun

Just a silly movie about Chihuahua parents raising their pups to be honest citizens.

Not a movie to 'think' about but just the right level of fluff to keep human parents and children entertained for awhile.

Good guys & bad guys keep the story going.

There really isn't much a review can say about this type of flick -- you have to be the sort of person that likes movies with talking dogs on a sleuthing mission that turns out to be most positive.

Give it a look for very light weight entertainment!

Papi (voice of George Lopez), a chihuahua belonging to a gardener, and Chloe, who belongs to rich Beverly Hills businesswoman Aunt Viv (Susan Blakely) get married! This after they fell in love in BHC 1. Soon, they have a family of 5 darling little puppies, too. Meanwhile, Aunt Viv's niece and the gardener have also fallen in love but there may be complications. So, no ring yet. The gardener decides to take the whole family of chihuahua's to his parents' home in Mexico, so they can meet the pack and so he can get advice on affairs of the heart. While they are there, unhappy news arrives at once. The parents are going to lose their long-held family home unless they can pay the back mortgage payments. The pair got behind when the father was injured and unable to do his landscaping job. What are they going to do? In fact, before long, the whole caboodle are thrown out, due to the puppies creating havoc on the house and the loan officer. Everyone troops back to the USA and Aunt Viv's home to think. Fortunately, there is a dog show in Beverly Hills that week and the prize money would get back the Mexican house! Can Papi or Chloe win? Also, they once again meet up with Delgado, a friend from the first film, who needs the huahuas help as well. Will things work out? Of course! Bow Wow Wow, what a darling film! This viewer loved the first one and found this one equally fun. Some of the cast members have changed but, thankfully, Lopez is still here to do a great Papi. Also, French Stewart, Emily Osment, Morgan Fairchild and others lend their talents, too. The scenery is wonderful, as are the costumes, photography, script and sure direction. My advice? Turn any down-in-the-dumps-day into a great one by renting or buying this lovely film!

Cute story for kids. Personally I was glad Drew wasn't the voice of Chloe this time around. Also glad Delgado was back to be part of the story. Like a lot of sequels that aren't super big, most of the actors are not the same as the first movie. My daughter noticed but wasn't too disappointed. I felt like the actors in this one weren't great at all. The actor who plays Sam started out a little rough but got better as the movie went along. I guess for the kids though it's more about the animal actors which she thinks are pretty awesome. Heck I'm pretty impressed too. Overall though, the movie was pretty cute. Had some cute little one liners in there for everyone. I do enjoy that each movie has a mystery to it. Not many movies for little girls have much of a mystery to solve. The ending made me happy. Not dreading having to watch the 3rd one with her. Haha.

I mean, its garbage isn't it. You don't need me to tell you this. The low rent sequel to a film that was already pretty rubbish. . . But at least it's true to itself. There is no pretence to it.

Chloe (Odette Annable) and Papi (George Lopez) have married, because that's a thing, and have a litter of puppies. . . . that much of the plot I do remember. There is also some business about Sam's family losing their home as well and some nonsense about Delgado (Miguel Ferrer) having sent his kids away, because that's a thing too.

The plot is terrible, generally the actors (even the voice actors) from the original have left and been replaced by cheaper alternates, and the visual effects are poor. The story is inconsistent as to it's own logic regarding dogs and their owners. It's a bad film, is what I am saying to you, there is no getting around it. It exists purely because Disney had learned how to do this effect now (not well, but still) and because the original made a staggering amount of money.

But, like it's original, at least there's none of the vomit inducing earnestness that I'm getting from a lot of the "dog-based Disney films" I seem to be stuck watching at the moment. It knows that it's a cheap cash grab and just settles for that and you know what, I can almost respect it for it - almost, but not quite - because, as previously mentioned, it's a terrible, boring and unfunny time.