‘A Dog’s Purpose’ Review

A DOG’S PURPOSE (6 out of 10) Directed by Lasse Hallström; Written by W. Bruce Cameron, Cathryn Michon, Audrey Wells, Maya Forbes, Wally Wolodarsky, Based on the novel by W. Bruce Cameron; Starring Britt Robertson, KJ Apa, John Ortiz, with Dennis Quaid and Josh Gad; Running time 100 minutes; Rated PG for thematic elements and some peril; In wide release January 27, 2017.

Let’s talk existentialism. What is the purpose of any given thing? What is the purpose of life? This film asks this question from the perspective of good ol’ canis familaris — man’s best friend.  This is definitely a movie for dog lovers that pushes all the right emotional buttons you expect it to. We follow one dog, reincarnated through several lifetimes and across the last several decades, voiced by Josh Gad, who wonders what his purpose is through each of these iterations.

And yet you can’t discuss the merits of this film without dealing with the controversy first. A few weeks ago, footage came to light of a German Shepherd, one of many dogs in this film, forced into a pool to perform a stunt the pup obviously did not to want to do, and seemingly being sucked under water. This is, of course, unforgivable, and prompted shouts of boycotts.  

While producer Gavin Pollone and one of the writers of the film attempted to apologize for and explain what happened, one can’t escape the very real sense in this film that a dog’s purpose is to suffer. While most of our titular dog’s lives were filled with happiness and family, there are a lot of bad things which happen, too. In the first ten minutes alone, our pupper’s first life ends abruptly being euthanized as an unwanted dog at the local pound, and then he almost dies a few minutes later from being locked in a hot car. There is a large amount of violence and neglect towards our dog that even the happiest of lives can’t gloss over. This is going to make a lot of animal lovers cringe.

But the film, overall, is good. While predictable, schmaltzy and manipulative, it is all of those things in the same way you expect a good Christmas special (or a movie about a dog) to be. This certainly doesn’t break any new ground, but, hey– it’s a movie about a dog. It really doesn’t need to.

But let’s go back to the controversy for a moment. It’s fairly likely that the proposed boycott will cut fairly heavily into the box office of this film. The correlation of people who would see a movie about a dog’s purpose and people who would be turned off by finding out any sort of animal cruelty happened on set is basically 1:1. 

Perhaps the purpose of A Dog’s Purpose is as a cautionary tale. Maybe it’s time for Hollywood studios to stop using live animals for any sort of “stunt” shot — the footage used in the film is literally less than 10 seconds of a 100 minute movie. In a day and age where we can create a Rocket Raccoon or even resurrect a dead actor, perhaps it’s time to think of using “Digital Dogs” in scenes where there is any sort of peril or where a real life doggo might not want to do it. While digital effects are expensive, it can’t be as expensive as losing the vast majority of your box office because of one misstep. However, one misstep is all it takes– and studios should see this as risk management. And, of course, to protect the well-being of the doggies and kitties and other furbabies we love so much.

But the movie, controversy aside, is just fine– assuming you can set aside mistreatment of man’s best friend both onscreen and off. 

6 out of 10