Skip to content

Do We Even Want to Talk to the Animals? Dolittle Is a Mess Unworthy of Its Cast

28
Share

Do We Even Want to Talk to the Animals? Dolittle Is a Mess Unworthy of Its Cast

Home / Do We Even Want to Talk to the Animals? Dolittle Is a Mess Unworthy of Its Cast
Movies & TV movie reviews

Do We Even Want to Talk to the Animals? Dolittle Is a Mess Unworthy of Its Cast

By

Published on January 17, 2020

Screenshot: Universal Pictures
28
Share
Dr. John Dolittle (Robert Downey, Jr) in Dolittle
Screenshot: Universal Pictures

Does everyone else remember the summer of 2008? When the first Iron Man came out, and people were ecstatic about how great Robert Downy Jr., was as Tony Stark, and then like two months later he showed ridiculous range in Tropic Thunder (while also doing a cool riff on his dad’s classic indie film, Putney Swope) and then like a year later Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes adaptation came out, and RDJ was great in that, too?

It looked like the beginning of an incredible career resurgence for RDJ—and then the MCU happened, and it all worked even better than we’d hoped! But after a decade of Iron Man, we were excited to see what big project RDJ would tackle for his first big post-Stark role. Would he go prestige drama? Indie? Over-the-top comedy a la Tropic Thunder?

Or… would he cobble together a collection of his Holmes’ tics—with an accent that veers wildly between “the one he used in Restoration,” “almost-Jack-Sparrow,” and “not-quite-Mrs.-Doubtfire”—and valiantly attempt to portray a depressed, grief-stricken widower in a scene where a polar bear and an ostrich argue in voices provided by Kumail Nanjiani and John Cena?

Join me, on a perilous journey: an attempt at reviewing Dolittle.

All right, let’s just start with the obvious. I am NOT this film’s target audience, because I am not a six-year-old. (Even when I was a six-year-old, I wasn’t exactly a six-year-old—I liked reading books about chronically-ill Victorian children, and I loved horror. This film would not have spoken to me.) So I’ll start by saying that my screening seemed to be about 1/4 movie critics and 3/4 families with children. The kids seemed engaged, I heard some gasps, lots of smol hands clapped when the credits rolled. If you are guardian to a child, they might like this movie! The CGI animal rendering totally worked for me, and struck the right balance between cute and realistic. (Honestly I think the film should have just been animated, but that’s a whole other thing.)  The sheer variety of animals was good, with most of the action given to a gorilla, a polar bear, an ostrich, a parrot, and a goose, with some great smaller roles for creatures as varied as squids, sugar gliders, and walking sticks. So if you have a kid that likes bugs, they’ll find a bug to love, if they love birds, there are a couple of birds for them to squee at, and there are so many mammals! The one thing I completely like about the film is that the animators have clearly taken great care as they brought the animals to life—all of the movements are right and the body language is perfect. The interactions between actors and CGI largely worked; it wasn’t quite seamless, but I never felt thrown out of the film when the animals came into a room full of humans. RDJ also did a pretty solid job of interacting with the menagerie. It wasn’t quite up to the Brendan Fraser Battles The Mummy gold standard of CGI acting, but then, what is?

The animal characters are also varied, though not quite distinct or consistent enough for me. The gorilla (Rami Malek) is neurotic and fearful, and a lot of his arc is about overcoming fear. This starts out strong (and a GREAT thing to deal with in a kids’ movie) but kind of peters out in the second half. John Cena’s polar bear is bro-y, and trying to establish a friendship with Kumail Nanjiani’s ostrich. There’s a lovesick dragonfly played by Jason Mantzoukis, and a slapstick duck played by Octavia Spencer who thinks she’s the one running Dolittle veterinary practice. Emma Thompson plays a parrot who has become Dolittle’s main caretaker, and also serves as our narrator.

Screenshot: Universal Pictures

Now you might be asking yourself: Why does Dolittle, a human who is being played by a person as handsome and charming as RDJ, need a parrot to take care of him? Well, herein lies the main flaw of the film, which is that I don’t think anyone ever decided what this movie should be. When we meet Dolittle, he’s a grieving, taciturn recluse, blaming himself for the death of his partner (she died in a shipwreck—perhaps she crashed the boat into a refrigerator?) and unwilling to deal with humans at all. There are moments when RDJ commits to this and acts like his character is in a far darker movie, one that was meant for older kids who could handle a a more dramatic tone. But then a millisecond after we’re expected to take his grief seriously the polar bear will trip over something and land on the ostrich, and we’re supposed to laugh uproariously at basic slapstick.

There are points when Dolittle wants to be the story of a sensitive boy who goes on an adventure and finds a unique family along the way, and there are points when it wants RDJ to… battle a pirate? I think? I promise I watched the movie. I paid attention. I just don’t think it matters that I paid attention. The film crashes through so many tonal switchbacks it felt like the emotional equivalent of an Appalachian moonshine run. And of course it’s structured around the standard questions: will Eccentric Male Genius use his Special Skill to save a Special Woman? Or will he be too destroyed by grief for a Different Special Woman to do it? Will he accept New Special Boy as his apprentice? Will he defeat his Oily Nemesis? But all this tropey stuff is so saturated in standard kid movie humor (do you know that dogs enjoy sniffing butts? DO YOU???) that it becomes impossible to invest in the tropes, even.

Also Dolittle is friends with a young Queen Victoria (?????) and there’s a dark and disturbing regicide plot that shows very little knowledge of succession. And Dolittle, who, once again, is a whimsical veterinarian who can speak with animals, has a nemesis high up in the British government, who is jealous that he can’t speak to animals quite as well? (He’s played by Michael Sheen, who puts way more spark into his character than any of us deserve.) And we’re kind of in England, but also kind of in a fantasy realm with secret pirate islands, and magical worlds that might turn out to be real. And rather than centering on Dolittle’s ability to talk to animals, or his veterinary practice, or the idea that he should find and train an apprentice, the film exhausts itself on a steampunky Jules Verne-esque race against time.

Buy the Book

The House in the Cerulean Sea
The House in the Cerulean Sea

The House in the Cerulean Sea

I feel I should also mention that this film, unlike the 1967 version, is not a musical—which is a shame since anyone who’s seen Mr. Willoughby’s Christmas Tree should be eager to see RDJ sing and dance with animals again. And I regret to report that not a single Seal Wife was yeeted.

As you know if you’ve ever read one of my reviews, I love it when a movie tries to do a bunch of different things. But in this case none of those things coalesces, and the movie keeps hopping from idea to idea until it feels like you’ve watched a really long trailer. Which is frustrating because, and I’m sorry if this is more than you wanted in your Dolittle review, there’s there potential for a really good classic coming-of-age film buried in here. We’re introduced to Dolittle’s would-be apprentice, a sweet kid named Stubbins. Stubbins doesn’t want to be a hunter like his uncle. (Yes, his uncle is seemingly a professional hunter, in London. Let’s move on.) Stubbins loves animals, but everyone thinks he’s crazy.

When he first stumbles across Dolittle’s animal refuge, it feels very much like the moment Lucy goes through the back of the wardrobe, or Harry gets his first glimpse of Diagon Alley. For a few joyous moments, the film seems to be whispering, There’s a different world available to you, weird kid! The thing people hate you for is useful here. There are many paths in life, and you don’t have to just march down the one your authority figures want you to.

 

Because it is weird, because this isn’t just a kid who loves dogs, or a kid who adores his prizewinning pig, or a kid who wants to be a vet when he grows up, this is a kid who accepts all animals as they are. He’s as cool with ants as he is with squirrels, and so is John Dolittle. Both of them share a gift for empathy which would have been considered weird in Early-Victorian England, and, I would argue, is still considered a little weird today, at least on this side of the globe. The first instinct most people have when they see a bug is to smush it. Most people consider animals on an x/y axis of cute and useful and go from there. What Dolittle does, in its best moments, is assume that all animals have a basic right to life and liberty whether they’re icky or adorable. (A huge plot point is the idea that a gorilla deserves therapy sessions, ffs.) I can’t help but imagine the movie that leaned into the core concept of a lonely, misunderstood kid who wants to talk to animals, and the grieving man who becomes his father figure. How much more interesting if the film had become that—a misfit boy stumbles into a magical world and discovers, not magic, but empathy as a skill he can develop. A tool he can use to make the world better. How lucky for the weird kids who needed a new fantasy right about now to see that movie! A movie that encouraged them to care about other creatures, and by extension, people, about a power they could actually practice in life? With, sure, some slapstick and gross-out humor, but also with a real heart? And maybe if at all possible a plot that made sense?

I want that movie.

Instead, we get Wackity Schmackity Dolittle, where actors in a variety of recording booths say disconnected catchphrases to be pasted over soulless CGI slapstick, and in the middle of it all RDJ occasionally reminds us that he’s an incredible actor, and maybe your kids are entertained for an hour, and maybe that’s enough? But imagine what we could have had.

Fine, Leah Schnelbach does still want to talk to the animals. Come join them in yelling JUSTICE FOR SEAL WIFE on Twitter!

About the Author

Leah Schnelbach

Author

Intellectual Junk Drawer from Pittsburgh.
Learn More About Leah
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
5 years ago

Okay, I will likely never see this movie since I also am not its target audience (I’m actually not really all that in to the ‘hikjinks ensue with talking animals’ genre, honestly, and even as a kid could not stand slapstick) and the trailers generally perplexed me; I figured it was RDJ just wanting to do a ‘what the hell’ Snakes on a Plane kind of movie.

But I read this review anyway and it was likely more entertaining than the movie it is. This line is an absolute gem and you should feel good for writing it: “(she died in a shipwreck—perhaps she crashed the boat into a refrigerator?)”.  I can’t stop giggling over this.

The paragraph you describe about the core concept that the movie it could have been and its acceptance of all animals  – even the ones we consider gross or creepy; in some ways I feel like that’s also all the good parts about the Fantastic Beasts movies (which is itself kind of a mess for various reasons, but I find Redmayne’s Newt to be utterly charming).

Avatar
5 years ago

I quit reading this review after the sentence, “Emma Thompson plays a parrot”.

I’m all in, I must see this film regardless of any other problems it might have.

wiredog
5 years ago

From the review at The Atlantic :

“genuine catastrophes such as Dolittle,”

“one of the worst cinematic fiascos I’ve seen in years.”

“It would be an exaggeration to say that Dolittle has a plot. The viewing experience more resembles a series of malfunctioning screen savers” 

“a narrative so bowdlerized, only a boardroom of studio executives could have created it”

 

From my hometown newspaper, 10 of the most scathing reviews of ‘Dolittle,’ a ‘shockingly unfunny’ act of ‘movie malpractice’

 

Avatar
5 years ago

I admit that its been a few … decades … but your description of the randomness of this movie seems to resonate well with my memories of the books.  They weren’t at all serious either – maybe not everything has to be.  That’s a big part of the reason that I preferred watching Stardust to yet another gritty superhero remake.

wiredog
5 years ago

I see a strong potential for a double sequel to both Dolittle and Cats.  With a duet between Robert Downy Jr.and Taylor Swift.  

 

 

Avatar
5 years ago

@5 shut up and take my money!

Avatar
5 years ago

A reviewer I really like said that Dolittle’s horrible voice is an example of an actor so powerful that no one told him “no” when they obviously should have.  

wiredog
5 years ago

Meanwhile, this fine film is straight to streaming.

Avatar
5 years ago

Somehow I had not seen the trailer or read any reviews of this movie until today. I have vague memories of enjoying the Dr Dolittle books as a kid, have not seen the entirety of Eddie Murphy’s movie version or any other ones. 

Based entirely on a 2 minute trailer and those fuzzy memories – it looks like an okay movie, y’all. Dare I say… lower your expectations. This is a PG rated movie for children. The animals in the trailer look freaking GREAT. There are talented actors and some actually funny one-liners. I mean, I have sat through the Secret Life of Pets 1 AND 2 because I love my child. Let’s use that as a baseline for comparison and not Iron Man. 

Also, actual children and their parents seem to like it just fine. – https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/dolittle

 

Avatar
5 years ago

I have never seen this movie or the Eddie Murphy adaptation, but one thing that I like about this version is the setting.

I don’t know if it resonates with children, but I vastly prefer a period setting for this over a modern take.

Avatar
5 years ago

Robert Downy must have liked the script, he can pick anything he wants at this point .

Avatar
5 years ago

As I recall ‘The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle’ begins with young Tommy Stubbins, a budding naturalist, trying to nurse a squirrel with a broken leg and worried because it isn’t getting better. Tommy’s friend The Cat’s Meat Man, no pet food in those days, tells Tommy about Doctor Dolittle. They meet and Tommy ends up taking a post as the Doctor’s assistant and student of animal languages. Assorted loosely connected adventures follow culminating in a voyage to find Long Arrow, the world’s greatest naturalist, who the Doctor hopes can help him learn shellfish. The sanest adult character outside the Doctor, is Prince Bumpo, heir to an African throne and student at Oxford, who dislike shoes and impressed Tommy with his long words. 

John Dolittle has never been married, is totally absorbed in his researches and his numerous animal friends and patients. Dab Dab the duck is a very efficient housekeeper, Chee Chee is a chimpanzee who prefers adventures with the Doctor to a life at home in Africa. And Polynesia the parrot is bossy, un-PC and a source of exposition.

The books have their problems, being written so long ago. Polynesia can be quite offensive, but nothing that could be easily fixed.

ErisianSaint
5 years ago

Frankly, I’m fed up with every movie needing to be fine cinema.

I went into this movie last night wanting to cry and feeling crispy from a rough week.  I came out entertained and happy.  It was fun and fluffy.

I didn’t bother reading the review, mind you.  It sounded way too mean, right from the first sentence and I’m saving my mean for RL politics.

Avatar
5 years ago

@13 – I, too, am fed up with every movie needing to be fine cinema. But more than that? I’m fed up with every kids’ movie needing to also satisfy adults. I’m fed up with everyone using the excuse “Just because it’s a kids movie doesn’t mean it has to be bad.” No, it just needs to satisfy children.

From the article:

If you are guardian to a child, they might like this movie!

That’s all that needs to be said about this movie, unless the article was written for a child to read.

Avatar
Austin
5 years ago

Leah, the disconnect you experienced is apparently due to reshoots with a new director. The original version was darker and test audiences didn’t like it. So they did reshoots and heavy edits.

Then again, referring to it as “Gaghan’s ‘Dolittle’” might be a stretch considering how much of the movie was reshot by “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” director Jonathan Liebesman after test screening audiences — primed for an all-ages adventure about a kooky doctor who can talk to animals — rejected the seriousness of Gaghan’s cut. Paralyzing grief! Attempted regicide! A homicidal squirrel who’s determined to get revenge on the human teenager who shot him in the chest! And that’s just the stuff that couldn’t be fixed in post (to say nothing of Gaghan’s still-palpable struggles to construct a legible scene around computer-generated characters).

Even the manic, sugar-coated final cut that Universal frankensteined together feels lost somewhere between “Madagascar” and “Syriana,” down to the convoluted plot about a Western power stealing resources from an exotic foreign land. The studio did its best to taxidermy this mess into something presentable, but it’s hard to make a Doctor Dolittle movie if you can’t even understand the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dolittle-review-even-robert-downey-180021156.html

Avatar
5 years ago

@13 If a movie has decent structure, plot, and characters, it’s more likely to live beyond its theater release, and its audience will be more than the average toddler to kindergartener.  Small kids in these days of over-saturation by popular media are becoming more sophisticated in their tastes, too.  

goldenkingofuruk
5 years ago

It they wanted a good film, they should have stuck with the original Voyages of Doctor Dolittle. Remove some of the dated stuff and highlight the relationship between Tommy Stubbins and John Dolittle.  There’s a great bit where the Doctor protests bullfights as cruelty and acts to stop it. Give us the kindly and empathetic John Dolittle of the books, the great naturalist who is basically an early animal rights activist, not a guy with generic tragic backstory. However being Hollywood they screwed it up again! They made the same mistake as the 1967 version and cast someone popular who was NOT a good fit for the character. This is an appalling mess.

Avatar
5 years ago

Ok it’s a mess. I might watch this on DVD when it drops because I can check it out of the library for free. I have a soft spot for the musical and kind of indifferent to the Eddie Murphy versions. I just have one question I need answered that the review didn’t Why is there a DRAGON in this movie? 

Avatar
5 years ago

People are down with a dude talking to animals, but a dragon is a step too far?

Avatar
5 years ago

Yes, a dragon is a step too far. A giant pink sea snail on the other hand….😉

EBee
EBee
5 years ago

The giant sea snail in the books isn’t pink. It has a transparent shell. Polynesia is an African Gray (grey?), not a macaw  

I read the books when I was a kid. They were jaw-droppingly racist. Prince Kabumpo comes to Doolittle because he wants to become white in order to find a princess (Serious wtf stuff) A bucket of a bleaching potion is provided, immersion the method of application. Later, when asked if the prince found his princess, Polynesia sneers something along the lines of “Probably just an albino negress.” Don’t recall the exact line and I won’t be going back to check. But it has stayed with for years because it freaked me out, as did the Penrod books. Lots of freaky stuff, back in the day, in the children’s library. The Waterbabies? Don’t get me started! As the years roll by, I am always astonished that Hollywood bothers to keep flailing away at adaptations of Dr. Doolittle. It’s one sow’s ear after another. 

Avatar
5 years ago

@17:  If they wanted a good film, they should have stuck with the original Voyages of Doctor Dolittle. Remove some of the dated stuff and highlight the relationship between Tommy Stubbins and John Dolittle.  There’s a great bit where the Doctor protests bullfights as cruelty and acts to stop it. Give us the kindly and empathetic John Dolittle of the books, the great naturalist who is basically an early animal rights activist, not a guy with generic tragic backstory. However being Hollywood they screwed it up again! 

 

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve always loved Robert Downey Jr., he is a great actor, but he is all wrong for the part; Adrian Scarborough would have been a much better choice. And it appears they went for Victorian squalor instead of Victorian coziness. Who makes these decisions? People who have never read a book, apparently.

Avatar
cap-mjb
5 years ago

I admit that my reaction to “Robert Downey Jr is Doctor Dolittle” was WTF. I’ve never seen a Doctor Dolittle film and probably won’t start now. That’s not why I’m here. I read some of the books when I was young at the end of last century, I enjoyed them but haven’t read them since. But my first exposure to Doctor Dolittle was a cartoon…and this is where my brain turns to mush. Because the only one mentioned on the internet is an American one from the early 70s which is most definitely not what I remember (in fact, it sounds like this film adapts that rather than the books, with added Hollywood angst).

What I remember was shown on BBC somewhere around the late 80s, was possibly (but by no means definitely) of French origin (because most things were in those days) and had a much darker tone. It was a fairly faithful adaptation of the first two books in publication order, rejigging events to have Stubbins with Dolittle from the start. They added a girl Stubbins’ age, presumably as a female identification figure, who I think was from a rich background and stowed away on their boat for the middle section because she admired what Dolittle was doing. It started off in London and included an adaptation of the story where a quasi-hermit friend of Stubbins is accused of murder and Dolittle proves him innocent by asking his dog what happened (I remember the details so the real culprit murdered him outright rather than indirectly as in the book). The main plot thread was that of the first book where Dolittle goes to an African island to cure a load of moneys, and leaves Polly and Chee-Chee behind, getting the Pushme-Pullyu (a two-headed horse basically) as a reward. There was then a suffix where they get back to England, the Pushme-Pullyu gets kidnapped by a circus and they go to the rescue. I also remember that, aside from Polly, all of the animals only made animal sounds (ie Dolittle and Stubbins could understand them but the audience couldn’t), except for one scene where there were no humans around to translate so we heard them talking English.

But I can find absolutely no mention of this series after a brief search on the internet and am starting to worry that I’ve dreamed a huge section of my childhood or drifted into a parallel universe where it doesn’t exist. Can anyone assure me I’m not going mad?!

Addendum: Okay, another search has turned up precisely two references to it, suggesting it was Japanese in origin (that would have been my next guess), first aired around 1984 and was entitled The Voyages of Dr. Dolittle. So at least I’m not entirely mad, even if my fevered brain appears to contain more information on it than the whole of the internet…

Avatar
5 years ago

@21, Polynesia is rather awful, I noticed as much when I was a kid. Bumpo comes off much better in Voyages of Doctor Dolittle. He is sensible, efficient and has an impressive vocabulary, if not always correctly used. He is rather less ridiculous than the other adult characters. It’s worth noting that the Doctor and Tommy both use rsesectful according to the standards of the time, language neither ever used the n-word, 

Avatar
5 years ago

@23 I remember this version too! In the court scene Doolittle communicates with the judge’s dog by barking and then translates for the court. (He was proving he could really talk with animals by asking the dog what the judge did the night before- singing or whistling out of tune on the walk home! ).

It’s always been my favourite version and I’ve never been able to find it again.

Avatar
5 years ago

If you have the time, I recommend this thread about the dragon. SPOILER WARNING!

https://twitter.com/theryangeorge/status/1218012896539684871

Avatar
cap-mjb
5 years ago

@25 Yes! He was only meant to find out what the judge had to eat but ended up relating everything he’d done the previous night!

I’m probably biased but it seems like it was one of the best and most faithful adaptations, so I’m bewildered that it seems to have faded from public consciousness so much.

Avatar
5 years ago

I try not to be the spelling police, so I kind of gritted my teeth and got past the reviewer’s misspelling of the star’s name, only to see two of the commenters make the same mistake.   People.  He’s an actor, not a fabric softener.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined