Les Aventures de Chatran

"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.

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.

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.

"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.