erika-2-160114 They should of not make this film in first place since its not like the first one. The plot did not make any sense to me. Why did they have to go to the city in first place ? The whole city thing felt like that they just put random ideas together with out any thought. i seriously did not get the ending at all. This film is not worth your time at all.

Python Hyena Babe: A Pig in the City (1998): Dir: George Miller / Cast: Magda Szubanski, James Cromwell, Mary Stein, Mickey Rooney, Paul Livingston: Misguided sequel about being out of your element. After the celebration concluding Babe, Mr. Hoggett is injured with the farm under threat of being sold. With an offer on Babe Mrs. Hoggett flies to the city with the pig and settle into a hotel. Soon she is arrested leaving Babe with new animal companions. Similar plotting but parents be warned of dark images including a dog dangling by its collar that Babe saves. Inventive job by director George Miller as a far different film from what he is often tagged with. He previously made Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. James Cromwell received Academy Award recognition for his role in Babe, so how unfortunate that his role is so reduced here. Magda Szubanski embraces her role as Mrs. Hoggett with hilarity within every bizarre situation she encounters. Mickey Rooney makes an appearance as a clown but more would have been great. Mary Stein is flat as the landlady whom assists Mrs. Hoggett. Paul Livingston plays an angry chef whose disappointment likely stems from the idea that Babe needed a sequel to begin with. The originality is lacking and the story is standard fare. Triumphant production as expected but parents may exit children from this city when dark themes set in. Score: 5 ½ / 10

ElMaruecan82 To be honest, I never thought "Babe: Pig in the City" as a worth watching sequel. I couldn't see how the magic of the first film would operate again, what new could Babe ever learn? I compared "Babe" to "Bambi" and "Dumbo" and the idea of a sequel was as ludicrous as the sequels trend that almost ruined the Disney classics.Yet Roger Ebert put the film on his top 10 list of best movies released in 1998 (the original "Babe" had only 3 stars) and Gene Siskel made it the top on his list, but I thought it was a sentimental choice for a man for a reason that makes me feel guilty now. Anyway, I was wondering how the film could surpass the original and made the two critic's list, but then I recall what Ebert said once: when they disagree, one is right and the other is wrong, when they both agree, they're both right. That's enough due to my respect for the distinguished critics, to give the film at least the benefit of the doubt, and watch it to see where I stand for.In fact, it's all a matter of mindset, if you decide to watch "Babe: Pig in the City" as a sequel recreating the same cutesy magic of the first opus, you prepare yourself to a big disappointment because the film carries much darker undertones than the first, featuring in very explicit scenes, the notion of violence and some unexpected near-death experiences. But it's less a flaw but rather than the basis of the film's originality. "Babe: Pig in the City" is not a sequel, not even a part II, it's simply the recreation of a character in a new universe, and what a beautiful universe. I said that the farm in "Babe" could be any farm; the same applies for the city. It feels like a city, something like Sidney or New York, yet it avoids all these clichés, there's no sight of animals crossing a road in the middle of a traffic jam, or meeting a group of hookers or kids in skateboards. The city is here without its archetypes, and that's the big surprise of the film: it's still an animal-centered movie.However, the film takes is kind of slow when it comes to gain our trust. I must admit I was so perplexed about the 'sequel' that the opening sequence made me cringe, the sight of good old Arthur Hogget (James Crowell) being accidentally wounded after the water pumping incident took me by surprise, but I didn't see the violence because I guess I was relieved he didn't die. "Babe: Pig in the City" is full of unsettling moments where we feel the presence of death, and really expect a character to pass away. It starts with a fire caused during a circus show, ruining the act of a clown played by Mickey Rooney, later, a pit bull who savagely chases Babe and then throws him in a river, before accidentally hanging himself and almost drowning in the water, there's also a goldfish asking for help after a bowl is broken, and a dog on wheels that gets hit by a car. Yet the genius of these scenes is to flirt with violence without getting too much disturbing for children, because no one dies.The film, directed by George Miller, didn't meet the same critical success than the first, it was even a box-office flop, and I guess the darker tone was to blame. The problem is that retrospectively, if you compare the film to any other one made after, it has everything that would make it a classic: a magnificent setting, actions, thrills, comedy through an unforgettable climax involving a swinging chandeliers and a scene-stealing Esme Hogget, played by a talented Magda Zubanski, who forms an irresistible duo with the tall and slim landlady (Mary Stein). And last point, if not a message, the film shows a new facet of animals, as living creatures. In many films, you see fishes agonizing after a bowl is broken, but what if you could hear them talking? That's the little details that elevate the film above the common children's movies. And the monkeys are the real stars of the show and they're absolutely believable, as the closest animals to men, it's interesting that George Miller chose to focus on them as to give them a sort of human look, not human as 'like us', but as 'more human that us'."Babe: Pig in the City" had all the ingredients to be a great and successful film, but I guess it only suffered by comparison with the first film, and its failure put an end to what could have been a beautiful saga. But what a second sequel, how thrilling it is, some parts are weird and it takes its time to grab you but when the action starts, it's really a heart-pounding experience, with great special effects, and unforgettable characters, Babe is here, the three singing mice, and Ferdinand the Duck desperately trying to follow the airplane, creates a hilarious moment, but was it as funny as the "go fly, noble duck", from the pelicans, or the unfortunate place he landed.? I concede the film is a little adult-oriented at times, but there's no way a kid could really be traumatized by this, or let me be more direct, if any parent believes that it's too much for kids, then they should also throw away movies like "Pinocchio" (think of Monstro, the Coachman, Stromboli), "Bambi", and "Fantasia" and while they're at it, every animated film containing a death."Babe: Pig in the City" trusted the maturity of its audience but it went wrong somewhere, whatever is the reason, I don't put the blame on the film which, if not as great as the first, because the element of surprise disappeared, is a gutsy sequel with some parts that transcend the charm of the original.

jvfunn1 I'd hate to say it but I didn't find Babe: Pig in the City to be as good as the first movie. The plot was okay but it just didn't seem to live up to the original. Mrs. Hoggett and Babe go off to the city to rescue the farm. I was rather disappointed that Babe wasn't accompanied by Rex and Fly in this one and that they're roles were shorter than in the first. I sorta found the whole thing with the animals in the hotel kinda funny but weird. The whole movie just seemed kinda childish and not as good as the first. It just doesn't live up to the first one. If you were a fan of the first movie like me I suggest that you don't watch this movie! It's just not as good as the first movie! I give it a 1 out of 10.