FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to of the 1%

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews Well, at least this was the last they made(*no*, Hollywood, that was *not* a dare). In that they had run out of different genders of children to give celebrity voices to, they turned to the pets. This time, they give the family two dogs, one of each gender, give them each a voice and lets the kids rest their inner voices. Why is it that infants, right from the womb(which we, again, see, because there apparently can not be an entry in this franchise without that), have the voice of people who are about middle-aged, give or take a handful of years or so? Apparently, even dogs. Oh well, at least these two actors, DeVito and Keaton, aren't too bad(not that I had a problem with Willis, at least as an actor), and the former's voice fits rather well for a canine. Take that any way you want. At least Roseanne is gone... but they make efforts to make Julie as annoying without her, having her tell knock-knock jokes so lame that even the parents would ask her to stop... she also apparently fantasizes about beating Charles Barkley, who must have liked the part, as he did the same thing again three years later, in Space Jam. Dukakis shows up again, in what can only be loyalty(in a film with dogs as main characters, how fitting). Heckerling neither wrote nor directed this... when the very *creator* of a franchise steps down, you ought to know there's something wrong. There is no trace left of any charm the series ever had(which was all found in the first). I would say that the franchise by this point just has overstayed its welcome, but it could be argued that it achieved that before the end credits of the original film. More nightmare sequences, this time being ridiculous(a first for the series; usually, they were just misplaced and more unsettling than anything a young child should watch). The main conflict is essentially rehashed from the first two, only dumbed down. Lysette Anthony shows up, her acting performance being at the same level that it was in Trilogy of Terror II(that would be poor). This film will insult the intelligence of anyone beyond the age of seven, but some of the humor remains above what they will(or should) understand, or ought to watch. The very ending was almost too much. I recommend this to people who like dogs, and men attracted to Lysette. 3/10

textile_fiend I got stuck in front of this when it was playing on TV one school holidays. I was surprised it was so entertaining, mainly due to the excellent performance from both kids. I loved the cynical grumpy Mikey and the kind of weird but charmingly askew Julia, so was prepared to put up with the ludicrous plot line and actually managed to sit through the whole thing. The 5 year old adored it. This is a strange entry in the series; fantasy dance sequences! Caution; at the end of the movie the family is menaced by wolves in a forest - this is fairly scary for very young children, and I found it unexpected because the rest of the series has nothing like this in it. Avoid tragic singing miniature children/elves (?) over the end credits AT ALL COSTS.

Nico Moreno good family movie to watch on a Sunday evening full of goodness with talking dogs and this time the kids can talk for them selves also the wife is very paranoid about her husband so it ends up like bit of fights in her dreams Gangtok dogs bogs photogenic none flapping Sedgwick fisticuff this movie is great superb amazing fantastic outstanding dog fun for many people i would recommend this movie for a family of 3 or more so you can sit on your couch while the fire is on to enjoying a good comedy plus the mum(British term) and dad are the same actors so there cannot be any confusions an if any parents think this is bad for there child's life about finding out that Santa is a fake it shows you at the end that there is a Santa clause

cruztacean Call me lame, but I am a sucker for these talking-animal movies that it seems to be the fashion to hate. It is also pretty much a given that we have to hate sequels, just for being sequels. I'm going against the grain here, but that's me.The movie is downright cute. If people want to equate "cute" with "sappy," making it a bad thing, I respond that some movies are supposed to be an escape from reality.This said, I don't like everything about it. I never liked John Travolta's James in the first place. He (the character, I mean) is a hypermacho creep who gives men in general a bad name. His character causes Lysette Anthony's Samantha to lose ground not for her acting, but for something that is not her fault: the writing that fails to answer the question, "So what does she see in him anyway?" Kirstie Alley's Mollie can be annoying too, with her overemotional dramatizing of everything, although the deliberately campy dream sequences redeem things just a touch. If we're going to be melodramatic, at least let's do it on purpose, right? Thank goodness for the children and the dogs to carry the movie. They are the reason for six of the seven stars I've given it. Olympia Dukakis as the now fair-minded, formerly buttinsky grandma, s for the seventh.The interplay between the snobby purebred and the streetwise mutt is hysterically funny. "Doggy snacks" to the trainers, who were able to get the dogs to behave on cue with the perfect gestures and facial expressions. More doggy snacks to Danny DeVito and Diane Keaton, the canine voices. David Gallagher and Tabitha Lupien are stellar as Mikey and Julie, and deliver performances as well as or better than anyone can expect at their ages.As for the writing, it isn't all bad. "I never liked this haircut," says Daphne the spoiled poodle. "My butt is freezing!"