DOG MAN (2025): The Family-Friendlies Are Cinema, Too!

Dog Man2025

Have you ever felt that family-friendly movies are underrated? I've noticed how some people in the film community take a hard look at them. Whether it's to indulge their not-so-fans, or to make fun of how "weird" or "cringe" they can be. Honestly, I state that there's a big stigma around them.

Many times, the final verdict is summed up as “well, it's a family movie”. Dude, it's obvious. That's the target audience. Couldn't they get a brief analysis out of it... as with any story? It's complicated to talk about that. On the one hand, it's understandable that when you grow up, you get changed expectations about entertainment.

On the other hand, it annoys me that one might end up tearing apart with irony a product that can mean childhood for nowadays youngsters. Childhood that you have also lived with your own series and movies, that not everyone must necessarily grow up with them. Saying that my times were better is not valid. Everyone grows up in a different era. It will always be special, when we feel it is special.

Family entertainment always finds its place and deserves to be respected. At the same time that many appreciate the sweet adventure of "Paddington 2", there are negative audience criticisms against studios like Illumination (Despicable Me, Sing, Migration, The Secret Life of Pets) for making family films, when they could “be more”. Would not making tame stories make them better? They are very good at what they do! People of all ages love it! It's a healthy environment and a generator of many childhoods.

It's not an inferior market, if it evidences financial success and a loyal following across generations. Thank goodness there are awards like the Kidscreen Awards... or the recent “Children's and Family Emmy Awards”.

Trolls2016

For example, I know a portion of cybernauts who dismiss DreamWorks' Trolls trilogy (mostly in a mocking tone). When in fact:

• They are not the demographic. It's a children's franchise, which is no problem. Every niche deserves its experiences. I don't find the adult-made guff to be funny. Why are some people shouting from the rooftops that something is horrible to them and we should agree? Is hating more contagious than loving?

• The very existence of both sequels shows that there is a genuine interest in the saga. Furthermore, remember that the second one premiered during the eye of the Covid-19 pandemic storm in 2020. Yes, it did poorly in theaters, but did strong in viewers' homes. Does a studio “die” if it doesn't please you, but “revive” when it does?

• Why do many people have the misconception of the superiority of a cinephile, because consumes “mature and thoughtful” content? How insane is it to (passive)aggressively dissect a film in social networks? If something didn't like it, it seems it can never stay there and focus on what it is liked. Sometimes, it seems like every dislike is fuel for unnecessary over-the-top loathing. Guys, movies are not religion. They're for all people.

To be honest, I know that there are those who currently give animation more recognition, when the technique acquires nuances of depth, or enhances its dramatic aspect in the storytelling. This awards season, the widely discussed “Flow” or “Memoir of a Snail” fit into that category. I don't plan to push them aside, ever. I've seen both and they are ethereal gorgeousness.

It's just...

Are we underestimating the funny side of life?

Are family movies just a nostalgic anecdote? Or perhaps a guilty pleasure? Something derogatory to “cinephile” users? Are they only worthwhile if they touch on issues relevant to grown-ups?

Besides the grim or existentialist side that we will be imminently dealing with once again in our existence…

How about smiling once in a while?

Under this scenario, I want to prove that a light adventure deserves to be analyzed as a solid and competent artistic work. My reason for mentioning DreamWorks was an introduction to share with you...

My opinion about the recent film “DOG MAN”: an immersion in the sentimental side as well as the absurd side. Both stand out without making one inferior, converging in a madness with a whole bunch of heart. It is a full commitment adventure with pride in the family genre. 

What is it about?

Officer Knight, a half-witted policeman and Greg, his loyal canine companion, end up badly injured in their last encounter against Petey, world's most evilest cat. At the hospital, a revolutionary idea arises to save their lives by fusing their useful body parts together. Thus begins the chronicles of DOG MAN! But Petey is no slouch. He plans to level up the game by getting (or creating) his perfect evil sidekick. A plan that unexpectedly turns the tables on this pair of foes, leaving them to discern in their loneliness.

Directed by Peter Hastings, who also plays Dog Man (Knight and Greg, too). He has been involved in other Netflix's Captain Underpants audiovisual adaptations with DreamWorks, as a voice actor and writer. The film is based on a series of books, written by the same author of Captain Underpants: Dav Pilkey. Both sagas, brought to the movies by DreamWorks, share the style of a laughing chaos with the good heart of a child, positivism and a willingness to do good.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie2017

It should be noted that I speak from my experience with the movies. I have not read the books on which they are based. But as I always say, adaptations must work in their chosen medium, on their own.

Why does it feel unique?

This being so, DOG MAN is an evidently peculiar style. Imagine entering a dimension plagued by such imagination that it will make you feel like you've lost your ability to imagine without restraints. Everything looks naive, irreverent and carefree... at the same time, with links, crossroads that carry a genuinely empathetic narrative construction very well thought out.

As an example of this, let's go to the beginning of the film. Simple, to the point and funny. Good chemistry between a good-natured cop and his sharpest dog, against a feline MWAHAHAHA villain!

• Knight and Greg made a good team, but they always got in trouble with Chief. Buy Petey sees that in a different light. According to him, the combined talents of this vigilante duo represent a serious threat to his evil plans. Yin and yang: what one lacks, the other possesses. Here's the irreverent part, which is by no means a weakness.

• With the birth of Dog Man, the level of reputation rose to great proportional levels. Now Chief respects him as his best cop. And if Petey saw him as a threat before, now it's a hell of a lot worse. All his strengths together. Here's an example of a logical explanation within the seemingly illogical.

Humor plays a crucial role to have this effect on the audience. Chaotic, anarchic, but innocent at the same time. That mix catches everyone's attention. It even seems on numerous occasions to cross over beyond white humor. I always appreciate that cleverness, similar to basically any LEGO special. That playfulness and variety of comedic tints make a super enjoyable ride for kids and adults alike. At the screening I went to, there were a lot of adults who were having a blast, laughing at the witticisms in the film.

There are things that die-hard fans will enjoy, because I heard people commenting on coincidences to the original books. A new generation will also enjoy it. The same vibe as The Peanuts Movie or the Paddington films.

This leads me to discuss my next point. “The Inner Child.” The first few minutes are complete madness. It's what a child might come up with while he's playing with his toys, drawing or imagining a story. We see how it's so easy to mix a human and a dog, it's so easy to have a child, it's so easy to have a factory that can give life to every inanimate object. Crazy absurd, but really eye-catching.

Because it invites you to give it a chance so that that inner child of yours can be reborn. Whatever craziness resulted in a fun show. That's the point of the film: being pure, constant, unstoppable fun.

If you think "DOG MAN" is a children's film, then it over-commits to its target audience. It's not afraid to be as explosive and exuberant as possible. That's its pleasing hallmark.

In shape, they represent it thanks to the bombastic explosion of colors, plastinous textures, simplicity in drawing combined to the new standard of 2D-3D hybrid animation, energetic visual comedy without any pause with its good dose of meta-references to the technique and narrative structure of a story.

Cars flying back and forth, heroes and supervillains, animals and sentient objects fighting, mad science and illogic. Hybrids, clones, resurrections. As I said a little while ago, a chaos out of a child's creative imagination. Bold, hearty and witty to the delight of young and old alike. To let that inner child come out, whether you think so or not, because as I said, there is humor for everyone.

Characters and sensitive messages

Besides all the fun, it brings in the background empathetic messages about family and loneliness. Especially, talking about the rivals DOG MAN and PETEY.
 

• Dog Man (Peter Hastings) is a miracle and a sensation for the city. Although during the day he is praised, loved by the people, let's not forget that his world changed completely. Dumped, and worst of all without company because there is no more dynamic duo. Now they are one. At the end of the day he is left alone at home with his ball. A sweet reminder of his former sweet life.

• Petey's (Pete Davidson) loneliness is represented by his desire for a companion, someone who fits his evil standards. When he doesn't find that in Pedro, he sees it as a problem. Being a father meant a CURSE for him. But over time, he grows attached, realizing that he became a reflection of Grampa (Stephen Root), his terrible father. He won't repeat that cycle of misery he went as a kid. That's when he begins to see that this CURSE, all along, has been a beautiful BLESSING.

Yes, Petey's clone has been one of my favorite characters. With no hint of evil, he is the heart and soul of the story. He found family in his biological father, as well as in Dog Man during the time they lived together. Both of them, ties that were reciprocated. Thus, for these two rivals, Li'l Petey (Lucas Hopkins Calderon) becomes an opportunity to cure their loneliness, to rebuild their lives based on love and the warmth of being part of a family again. With whom to be, to live together, to have moments of happiness... A much more pleasant alternative to the eternal cat-and-mouse game (more like dog-and-cat).

In fact, we have characters of a simple and one-dimensional nature (which in themselves are already wonderful), with various hints of complexity. The best of both sides of the scale. A curious mix. Both simple and complete in empathy, affection and commitment to what it wants to tell. In addition to them, I was also fascinated by Butler (Poppy Liu), Petey's former intern...

But could certain characters need a little more presence?

Are there negative points?

Sarah Hatoff (Isla Fisher), the news reporter who supports Dog Man, had a subplot of wanting to move up in her journalistic career. But it feels like it lacked a repercussion or a resolution to it all. Similarly, I see that the love issue was left up in the air. As if something was missing or pending. I want to believe that the story continues in the book series. But like I said: adaptations have to work in their chosen medium, on their own.

Aside from that, the third act may perhaps feel a bit odd to some, due to the re-emergence of FLIPPY THE FISH (Ricky Gervais). I find him the least memorable, because while the others got their funny moments throughout the show, he was always in the background.

That makes his appearance by the end feel abrupt, although that was the intention. The whole DOG MAN is a chain reaction of surprises. I just think, in comparison, it makes him the least distinguished, even though he is the extremely relevant perpetrator during the final battle.

That would perhaps change if we had seen firsthand what we were told of his origin story. A flashback or point of view of his acquisition of powers and perishing. I'm sure it would have looked as weird and wacky as it sounded in the words of Chief (Lil Rel Howery).

I remember more the giant buildings coming to life or going to Li'l Petey's rescue, than the fish itself. There was little presence, but at least there was presence. It's still exciting to slowly wait for his big return. But it's curious how at the end of the show the supervillain acts resonate, not the supervillain.

In short, I think, it would have been great to see more about Sarah and Floppy. But quite frankly, they all come across well. Pretty magnetic. You're left wanting to see more and more of this personality-rich world. Hopefully, maybe it's not the end.

In conclusion

How do you tell a good story? For me, you can have form and substance according to what you want to communicate, but at the heart of all fiction is always about impact, emotion and emotionality. That goes for the most “serious” to the most “unconventional” things.

That's an honorable distinction for DOG MAN. A competent product like any other animated film, like any film in general. That also makes it fantastic.

I won't deny that it left me square-eyed watching everything that was going on. But that's the point: to shock you, create surprise, shatter your expectations, and imminently have a happy afternoon. You arrive with that vibe from the moment you see the poster outside the movie theater. But along the way they also cause friction in your brain, in a good way.

Past the commotion moments, at the end of the day it's still heroes versus villains. Opposing tones that go phenomenally well together. The characters will change on the inside, but their hilarious roles and the surreal synergy of the city never will.

Think that everyone in the city is crazy. And that you can be a part of that craziness, if only for an hour and a half.

If you get to feel that way, it's because the movie connected with you.

What everyone is looking for.

What everyone should achieve.

DOG MAN. Part dog. Part man. Terrific movie.

See how we can talk about a family movie, besides just highlighting the obviousness that it's for the family?

FINAL THOUGHTS

I often feel that family/children's films are not as recognized among moviegoers. To me, they are a wonder that brings color in the midst of a gray day-to-day. Their healing and comforting effect is the spark of the entertainment. Believe in magic. Being happy for a few minutes. The precious value of forming precious memories that will last and come back for a lifetime.

If cinema was born to dazzle the audience, then that is an inherent attribute in animated films in general. Because the technique immediately teleports you into a new perspective of imagination and reality. Twisting it! Allowing you to reach new emotions and unique experiences that surpass our own limits of imagination. Things that live-action can draw on with computer-generated effects (which is also animation).

Family cinema is cinema, too! It is perhaps the purest expression of its original purpose: to make you smile. That's why it saddens me to believe that it often remains as something anecdotal, nostalgic, or in the second plane when compared to grief-stricken narratives. Yeah, DOG MAN has wonderful deep messages, but don't forget the zany side is the reason to watch the feature, too! 

At least, I would like to tell you that in life we do not always meditate. We also have good times, we have moments of happiness without realizing it. The same applies to movies, an artistic reflection of life itself. And in both, experience validates each and every emotion.

Ultimately, it is mysterious to come to a single conclusion on how to consider this style of films. Because it's up to each one of us what we like, as well as what we want to show about ourselves. What is definitely universal is to respect tastes and dialogue without imposing. It is a matter of balancing fun with learning. Of course, it can be between contents of any era, but always ensuring the free choice of others and an open mind. And yeah, you got the right to see your childhood things with other eyes as you grow, buy remember everyone assimilates it differently.

Children's movies (like any other) nurture visual, emotional, even interpersonal intelligence. And, of course, there are those that entertain... not because of anything in-depth... simply because it's fun to have fun. They are made for adults (like any blessed tape that's on screen), who know how to reach the little ones' hearts.

Of course, that does not justify that movies will always be perfect for everyone. The subjectivity of appreciation and opinion is a separate issue. My point is that in every demographic there are stories with narrative, characters, tone and execution. So there is more to be said, than reiterating your demographic to allegedly validate it.

Any form. Any substance. It's welcome.
 

I agree, the animation doesn't have to be exclusively for kids. But there's no reason to exclude them from it. Everyone is invited. Melancholy isn't everthing.

Any film... even those that don't come to mind as I write this... have a chance to find the audience they like.

Happiness doesn't need to be complex to fit in with the other emotions.
If it won't be so recognized, at least let it be respected.

(Thank you for reading this catharsis!)

If you LIKED the article, please take a look at these OTHERS:

• CIRCLE (2015) - A human holocaust that may have sequel ⭕
• How KINGSMAN mastered the death scenes? - Analyzing the saga 🕵️‍♂️
• The Paddington films philosophy - "If we're kind and polite, the world will be right." 🍊
• Smile 2 - How to enhance a classic formula for a terrifying sequel 👄
• A Quiet Place: Day One - Why is it my FAVOURITE of the saga? 🍕
• The Wild Robot - Can Tech and Animals go beyond their NATURE? 🦆

🟣🟢🟠 More content on my YouTube channel and more social media HERE 👈