Babe 2: Pig in the City
The original _Babe_ was my favorite movie of 1995, a sleeper hit that transcended its target audience. Being a surprise commercial and critical success, it had no marketing tie-ins, which limited its final take. Thus, Babe 2 arrives, with a budget greater than the money made in Babe 1. Plush dolls, vending machines hawking t-shirts, and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Balloons arrive for holiday money-grubbing.
Too late.
This is a sad review to write, because Babe 2 not only does _not_ live up to the original, but it doesn't even come to a fraction of it. I shouldn't expect that sequels to modern fairy tales to match their predecessors' magic, but this film tries too hard, and loses its charm. Consider a driver applying the accelerator with great intensity, unaware that his car is in neutral.
Imagine with me, if you will, _Scream_'s Jamie Kennedy, explaining the "rules" for sequels like Babe 2.
(1) There must be _more_ talking animals. (2) There must be _more_ slapstick comedy. (3) There must be _more_ songs for those mice to sing: that's cute. (4) Keep the story cards to break up the action: that's cute too, even though "The Pig Gets Wise" made no sense, given the context of that story partition. (5) There must be action, however illogical, that will conjure up pivotal scenes from the original: the trademark song that nobody remembers the words to, the Baa-Ram-Ewe secret code, the "That'll do, pig. That'll do."
Now throw in the limitations: (A) James Cromwell, now a hot commodity, has limited time on the set (or maybe he didn't approve of the script). (B) Christine Cavanaugh, the voice of the original Babe, demands more money ($200,000--paltry considering the $80 million budget). Out. E.G. Daily comes in with noticable results. (C) George Miller, the director, is more well-known for his dark futuristic Mad Max films and his Twilight Zone segment, NOT for kiddie fare (and no, he didn't direct that _Andre_ film in '94). (D) The special effects are impressive, _but limited_. Babe talks, but most of the time from a single shot, repeated over and over again. (Babe is center screen, looking straight into the camera, with a happy smirk--regardless of whether he's happy, or scared, or tired).
Season now with the "original" elements, which, as we will find out, are straight from the screenwriting-is-hell bin.
(i) Change the venue into "the big city". This has been praised as wildly original. Excuse me: didn't _Home Alone_ do this several years ago? How about the Muppets? Even _The Bad News Bears_ travelled to Tokyo. Sorry. No dice.
Side note: to give the city a fairy-tale look, George Miller crafted a fantastical fantasyland that merges the landmarks of the world's great cities, and yes, it _is_ impressive. But this too is over-used, repeating the same view over and again on multiple occasions. And, for the most part, Babe _remains in the hotel_.
(ii) Given the limitations of Cromwell, the human element is taken over by "the boss' wife" played by Magda Szubanski. S-t-r-e-t-c-h. She's not a lead actress-type, she's not funny enough in her physical comedy, and she's simply embarrassing in some of her pratfalls. (Have her arrested falsely on drug charges! Have her accidentally incite a riot with biker dudes and scantily clad babes! Have her bounce around on a bungee cord at a prestigious benefit dinner!) I was hoping for a little smirk during these scenes, but I felt sorry for the embarrassment that she put herself in.
I am restraining myself from talking about the dark nature of the film, the violence, the scene where a pit bull dangles from the bridge, head submerged underwater. Even the best fairy tales have a bit of the macabre in it, as the Brothers Grimm have demonstrated.
No... my problem is with the story, or lack thereof. _Babe_ is sent out to save the Hoggett farm, but once in the city, that story is forgotten. Being a good-natured pig in the midst of the cynicism of his environs is nice, but, other than rescue that aforementioned pit bull, what did Babe actually _do_? Without giving the ending away, the farm is saved from a left-field quirk that had nothing to do with the pig.
Speaking of "pig", or, "pig-pig-pig-pig-pig!". The word "pig" is so overused, had they changed it to an expletive, and had the pig be Al Pacino, I could have been watching _Scarface_. This is screenwriting?
Further, I cannot explain the deep gnaw at my gut in the many scenes where accidents happen to good people in fantastically elaborate setups. Had it been a cartoon, and the victim be an equivalent of Elmer Fudd, maybe my reaction would have been softened. But to Farmer Hoggett? His wife? An elderly Mickey Rooney? Much too irreverent. ("Quick! Splice those singing mice into those scenes!").
The film isn't a colossal failure. I did like Glenne Headley's schmoozy chimpanzee. I liked the pink poodle. The dog on the cart, who momentarily thinks he's in dog heaven. And a weird looking guy who may have been doubly-cast as an airport employee and a judge. But most of the time, I was looking down, in boredom, or in embarrassment over the hacked-up script. Them singing mice, those chapter partitions, the proficient acting of the animals-- none of these can compensate for a story.
Let me spoil the final scene: Farmer Hoggett looks at pig, proud, says "That'll do, pig. That'll do." That's it. Hope I didn't ruin it for you.
But tell me this: what the heck did that pig _DO_?
Nick Scale (1 to 10): 4
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews