K-9: P.I. (2002)
Review by Doc Ezra
Film:
DVD:

Written by Steven Siegel and Scott Myers
Directed by Richard J. Lewis
Starring James Belushi and a German Shepherd that probably won't put this on his film resumé

Rating: PG-13

Anamorphic: Yes

My Advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Where to begin in a discussion of K-9: P.I.? Belushi must've needed the money badly. The fact that anybody was willing to hurl around money for a sequel to K-9, which itself didn't exactly go gangbusters at the box office, is mystifying in and of itself. That they talked Belushi into coming back is even more unusual. While I realize Jim isn't exactly beating off the good scripts with a stick, I can't believe that things have sunk so low that a direct-to-video buddy cop/dog movie was one he couldn't refuse. Maybe he just really likes German Shepherds. Who knows?

Belushi returns to reprise his role as Dooley, a cop now getting ready to retire, and his K-9 partner Jerry Lee is still by his side. But he's got to do a brief stint as a P.I. to track down stolen high-tech goods before his retirement can take off in full force. Toss in an underdeveloped romantic angle, some scenes intended to be heartwarming that just turn out disturbing (Dooley and Jerry Lee in the bath together, for example), and the occasional bit of lightweight action, and suddenly you have what passes for a movie.

It's not the worst movie ever made, to be fair. It might not even be the worst buddy cop/dog movie ever made (incidentally, who decided we needed a whole damned genre of the things? Wasn't Turner & Hooch enough?), but neither can it be considered a fine addition to the cinematic tapestry. It's not even really a fine addition to Belushi's admittedly limited list of credits. The story is basically a long string of contrived excuses to get the dog involved in the action, with a nominal heist mystery painted on top. The whole thing feels rushed, slapped together, and generally ill-thought-out. Belushi does his best with what he's given, but the dialogue contains lots of cop-movie clichés, lame one-liners, and generally bad dialogue.

The film's technical aspects are no more rewarding. The cinematographer apparently thought that the movie would look good if all of the scenes were poorly lit, and if he shot the actors in backlighting as often as possible. So many of the scenes occur with silhouettes of heads talking to other silhouettes of heads in dark and smoky rooms, where all scene detail is obliterated by the lack of any light other than a 40-watt lamp bulb in the corner.

I'd say that the lack of features was disappointing, but I'm considering it a blessing at this point. I can't imagine a soul alive would sit through additional footage after seeing the movie, and if they watched the extras up front, they'd never sit through the movie. So perhaps the lack of features is a clever marketing ploy to get people to actually watch the film. But I'm not sure what nefarious purpose there can be behind such cinematic cruelty.