MovieChat Forums > Koneko monogatari (1989) Discussion > You just need to watch it to know the tr...

You just need to watch it to know the truth

posted 16 years ago by belialprod
72 replies | jump to latest

In the end credits, it says: "All attempts were made to make sure no animals were hurt during the making of this movie." A laudable statement, to be sure.

But really, look at it. I watched it recently with my 12 year old daughter who had loved it when she was 5 or 6. Near the beginning, there were some sequences that were quite obvious that no animal that small could survive. She denied it. By the time the cat went over a waterfall in a basket while the dog was fighting a bear, she started crying and admitted that this was genuinely an animal snuff movie.

Yes, it was shot in Japan in the early 80's on a private island in Japan which acted as an animal reserve. It was governed by no laws, conventions or animal rights. I am sure the man who made it had a tremendous regard for animals, but it is also patently obvious that he was more interested in finishing his film...no matter how many cats and dogs it took.

I mean...just look at it. Use your common sense. My 12 year old did.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LittleMissDysthymia 15 years ago

Yeah because kids movies need lots of animal killings to make them especially great.

Witty closing remarks have been replaced by massive head trauma and severe hemorrhaging.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] belialprod 16 years ago

Silverking84, you are an utterly repulsive human being to pick on a twelve year old child.

Anyway, I am not instigating a call to action against anyone or anything. I just think parents should have some idea of what they are about to see when they pop this DVD in and sit there with their jaws agape watching actual animal carnage. Their was no CGI in those days. Everything was real. And it's a horror show.

[–] jesseecaaxx 16 years ago

This is ridiculous. You don't know what your really talking about. The bear is obviously trained otherwise the pug wouldnt of been scratching at its face. If the bear was a real threat to the pug it would not have lasted that long. Get your facts straight before bagging out classics. And did it look like the cat dies whilst going down the waterfall. NO? is that what you said?. i thought so. its only one take so its not like their MAGIC!

[–] itsalltears 16 years ago

that was no waterfall, we're talking about a cliff. far enough to easily kill a cat or a person, or pretty much anything that went off it.
the bear couldn't have been trained really, because it was a cub. it takes a long time to properly train a bear, and even then they are dangerous.
the cub was not hungry or intentionally trying to hurt the puppy, but just tossing him around playfully could easily injure or kill the dog, and putting the dog at risk like that just for a dumb movie is not cool.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 15 years ago

"that was no waterfall, we're talking about a cliff"
-The cat swims at the end of the shot, he's perfectly fine. Did you watch the movie?

"the bear couldn't have been trained really, because it was a cub."
-Well, now your making yourself seems dense. Of course that was a trained cub, they've had trained bear cubs in acts for years (long before movies were even around). Like the other person said, if it was a wild raging bear, there'd be no shots of Otis slapping him in the face, there'd be NO 'clean' shots so to speak.

Itsalltears is a good name for you...

http://www.myspace.com/thundergore ------> Best Band Ever

[–] JohnMcSame 13 years ago

They used multiple cats (dozens) and shot multiple takes of most scenes. Just because you didn't see it in the film, you don't think it's possible that animals got seriously hurt in these situations? Who is dense?

[–] MtnMan13 12 years ago

You need to see some of the footage that was cut from the American release. For instance, the cat falls off a cliff into the ocean. That's where the American cut ends (which is bad enough). In the cut footage, he tries desperately to scramble up the side of the cliff only to fall again from 20-feet and land hard on some barely submerged rocks. He is then overwhelmed by waves and barely manages to make it out again where he resumes his desperate scramble to safety.

I don't care if the cat did survive that ordeal, that's cruel. There's simply no justifying or defending it.

[–] leniese92 11 years ago

I forgot about the cat scrambling itself up trying to get out the water and it continued falling. Yeah whether you're an animal lover or not, you can't justify this movie.

[–] leniese92 11 years ago

You are extremely naive to think that these animals were completely unharmed:

A cat being thrown off a cliff where there are *beep* rocks is not okay. And even if by a small chance, no cats died during that scene, it's *beep* up to even risk it in the first place.

There is actually footage of that baby bear almost seriously hurting that poor dog. I have a hard time finding it on YouTube but the Nostalgia Chick did do a review of this movie where she did have the scene in her review.

Even if the cat survived being thrown down a waterfall, again *beep* up to do it in the first place.

Let's not forget those scenes where that poor cat was getting attacked by birds and I do remember seeing a scene with those little animals were getting chased by bulls and could have easily been trampled. Not to mention in the Japanese version, there is a seen where the cat obviously had it's foot broken (supposedly a producer did it) so that it can look unsteady.

And come up with a better argument then, "Did you see that cat getting hurt." Of course we wouldn't see it. Do you think the filmmakers would keep scenes like that in the movie. You've heard of footage being cut out of film right.

I think imbeciles defend this movie because they liked it when they were kids (I did too). But it's time to grow up and face reality. Putting these animals in these situations, whether they were hurt or not, is immoral and *beep* up.

[–] americanmaniac-1 16 years ago

Resorting to name-calling and false accusations in the face of a logical argument...where have I seen this tactic before?

This movie is a classic. I love it and my kids love it. We watch it frequently.

FYI, animals are property and have no rights. I own 2 dogs and 2 cats and they are treated as part of my family. That is what I choose to do with my property.

You on the other hand, are part of the problem in the world today. Buncha whiny d-bags always crying about feelings and imaginary rights. You have a right to life, liberty and property...that's it.

"Angry White Man"

[–] forwantof 16 years ago

Animals are living, breathing creatures. Living, breathing creatures are not property. Anybody who chooses to treat animals this way is trash. You are white trash.

[–] aaron-russell 15 years ago

Last time i checked living breathing creatures are property. Cats, dogs, ane ven humans (0-18) are property. If they weren't then your dog could bite anyone and no child would clean their room.

Nice try but your wrong, and seemingly a large part of what is wrong with our generation, uneducated.

[–] GojiraShei 15 years ago

Uh, yeah, it probably isn't a good idea to comment on the current "uneducated" generation, when in the same sentence you used "your" instead of "you're."

[–] IceboxMovies 15 years ago

The cat very clearly survives when the box descends the waterfall.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StaunchWoman 13 years ago

They have protections under the law. You can't just treat them however you want.

You can actually, and many people do. It's the ones who get caught who face the law and its punishment.

I'm not condoning it, just saying you CAN treat animals and children like sh!t.

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] Draven65-1 15 years ago

Oh, I get it. You're a troll. Nice try.

[–] IceboxMovies 15 years ago

Oh, I get it. You're a troll. Nice try.

Are you talking you me? Or the OP? Or someone else? If this was directed at me, then I have no idea what you mean.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] Draven65-1 15 years ago

It was supposed to be to AmericanManiac. I don't know why it came up as a response to you.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eden-35 12 years ago

"animals are property and have no rights"

I won't even go into the highly questionable idea that a living creature is "your property", but they have no rights? Who are you, Michael Vick? Lets see you abuse an animal in front of a police officer and claim afterward "But officer, it's my property, it has no rights!" - There ARE laws regarding the abuse of animals, and you're gonna end up under arrest. Jesus Christ, you're barely human.

[–] MorePeasPlease 16 years ago

It took 4 years to make the film, which was released in 1989, so all of the animals seen in Milo & Otis are likely very dead now any way you look at it.

[–] chinchillazilla 16 years ago

So you watched a movie your daughter loved with said daughter while insisting that the lovable animal actors obviously died during the filming, resulting in your child's crying? That's not damaging or anything.

Yes, it's sad if animals died (and I haven't seen the movie in years, so I can't comment on whether they did or not), but, and I'm saying this as the most animal-crazy person I know: don't make your kid suffer for something someone else did thirty years ago.

[–] belialprod 16 years ago

***sigh***

Yes, I set out to make my daughter cry. I also told her that during the filming of Batman, they threw Jack Nicholson off a tower and murdered him (he's been a CGI creation ever since). THEN we watched Ghostbusters and I told her the ghosts were all real and lived under her bed. We wrapped things up with Demolition Man, after which I told her that Wesley Snipes was so devoted to "method acting" that he insisted on being frozen and then shattered by Stallone. And she bought it! All of it! She is now an in patient at the local insane asylum and I am incredibly proud to have taught her all about the evils of the world by blatantly lying to her about movies and reality.

[–] zlotydog 16 years ago

Thanks so much for injecting a little reality, belialprod. :-)

I stick my hand up here - I'm a vegetarian and an animal lover. But frankly, I fail to see how anyone could watch this movie and enjoy it. Those animals are real, and they are not having a good time. I'm not saying we rise up against the Japanese, boycott the movie, become vegetarians, or whatever else. I just think we may as well acknowledge the truth of this movie - that it's just plain cruel and pretty horrible to witness.

[–] MorePeasPlease 16 years ago

I just think we may as well acknowledge the truth of this movie - that it's just plain cruel and pretty horrible to witness.

I don't know, my five year old siamese cat seems to enjoy it, but we'll rewatch it when she's twelve and see if she feels the same way.

[–] forwantof 16 years ago

Agreed. Regardless, animals shouldn't be exploited, abused, and mistreated just to USE them in films. They don't have a choice and it's wrong to force them to do things that are completely unnatural to them.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doughgirlsass 15 years ago

I just watched this movie for the first time today and was not in the least bit amused to see a kitten crying because it had a crab clawing it's face. I also wasn't amused by the cat being attacked by sea gulls and then thrown off of a cliff. Why the hell would anyone think this was a great family fun movie? It's chock full of animal abuse. Tossing cats in a river, throwing them off a cliff, chasing them up a tree with a snake...just an all around awful movie, I don't care if it's a "classic".

Shop at Macy's and love me tonight!

[–] michahardy 12 years ago

0___0 its *beep* sick.

[–] soco-81 16 years ago

Why did you let your daughter watch this movie then? You should do research about movies before you show them to your child. You know, as a responsible parent. :)

Maybe even view it before she does.

Mum & Dad 8/10
The Living and the Dead 6/10
Nail Gun Massacre 4/10
Martyrs 10/10

[–] videoarmageddon 16 years ago

You know, they could have just replaced Milo with a stuffed cat before the basket went down the waterfall.

[–] Credo_Quia_Absurdum 15 years ago

If you are truly searching for animal cruelty I suggest that you take a look at many american films made in the 50s and 60s who used animals ( lions and other exotic animals and also, most notably, horses ). For example, in many movies ( John Wayne's western films are a great example ), you can see a horse being shot by a cowboy and falling to the ground. The fact is that the horse is falling because there is a rope or a string attached to his leg. Most horses you see falling like this would subsequently break their legs or ankles and would be shot afterwards. Also, I believe it would be safe to say that behind all the movies including chimpanzees there is a chimpanzee trainer who repeatedly beats and screams at the animal between every scenes.

Early Disney films portraying animals were the worst. For example, " White Wilderness " involves a scene where Lemmings are committing mass suicide by falling off a cliff. The truth is Lemmings do not commit suicide and that the whole thing was staged used a rotating instrument that would push the Lemmings off a cliff. Here's the scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqlZjpSJCc

Of course, in Milo and Otis, there is human involvement is many scenes. There are times you simply know someone put the cat ( or dog ) in this specific area to film it. The difference is that there is no visual proof that the animals are actually hurt and harmed at all.

[–] CowgirlSRS-1 15 years ago

I'm watching the movie right now and I realized, wow, PETA and any other animal rights activists would have a field day with this movie. My brother and I watched this movie all the time growing up and it was one of our favorites. I'm 21 now so it's kind of interesting to watch it from an older viewpoint. I don't agree with animal cruelty in any way, but I also believe that people don't need to always treat animals like glass figurines. I grew up with lots of cats, dogs and horses (we lived in a small town on an acreage) and domestic animals are much tougher than people give them credit for. Now obviously a house cat isn't going to have the same sense of danger as a cat that's lived outside its whole life, but the animals used for these kinds of movies are obviously trained and/or at least used to/suitable for the conditions. Also keep in mind that this movie took four years to make. If they were really all about just getting a movie made and didn't care about the animals I'm sure it could've been made in a lot less time. It takes a lot of time not only to get the right action and reaction shots from animals but to do it safely, so I do believe that they had regard for their safety, especially in light of somewhat lengthy production period. The points about it being made in Japan in the 80's and yes, most likely under far less restrictive animal rights laws, is very valid and I'm sure they got away with a lot more than an animal film made in the States these days ever could. However, despite a couple questionable scenes (yes, I do agree that there a few times when the animals are clearly uncomfortable and possibly in more danger than they should be) and the conditions the film were made in, I believe they did mind the animals' well-being and it made for an excellent story for a children's movie.

[–] peregrintook69 15 years ago

Sounds to me like you bullied a twelve year old into an opinion that was not her own.

Yep..... that sounds like PETA to me.

[–] djfury 15 years ago

All i have to say is that if you are meat eaters you havw no right at all to say anytong really, because it is all the same im sorry there is no difference between a cat or dog dying and a cow or chicken.. keep thinking its different but in the end its not sorry. so really most of anyone has any right to commnent about animal cruelty because you all eat them any.. hah sorry!