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.

My child and I enjoyed that movie Charlotte's web and when I seen this in the store after black Friday, for sale, I thought why not. I let him watch it in his room while I was doing my chores. I thought I heard some weird things in it. As I was making my rounds I heard the word suicidal and thought oh now that is it! I took it from him (dvd portable) and sat down to see what was going on. This made my heart drop to my stomach. Babe is being chased by two evil dogs. One dog gets smashed by heavy things falling on top of it. No one helps Babe. Babe also had flash backs of what looks like evil demonic things that must of happened through the movie. Like an evil looking clown with blood splattered across his face. (What the heck is that? I really don't want to find out). Then the dog is hanging upside down drowning. How many animals did they torture and probably even killed to make this movie? From that one scene it made me feel sick to my stomach that my child had to see anything like this. The movie seems really scary, gruesome, demonic, and highly depressing. I don't think this should be corrupting any developing child's brain.

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.

A truly terrible sequel to "Babe" (which was a wonderful movie). Famer Hoggett (James Cromwell) is seriously injured when he falls down a well. Great way to start a kids movie--see a character we like getting seriously hurt. Mrs. Hoggett (Magda Szubanski) has to go to the city to save the farm from being sold and takes Babe with her. That's when the movie just goes out of control.The city is a mishmash of all famous buildings from other cities around the world. Some may think that's clever--for me it was disorienting and annoying. Babe meets other animals and here's where it gets really disturbing. At one point Babe picks up a fish in his mouth to get it back into water. The way its shot u think Babe is going to eat the fish. At another point a dog's leash gets tangled on a bridge. He falls over into the water. Because of the way the leash is tangled and he falls he can't get his head out of the water for air! We get a nice shot of the poor animal trying to get some breath. At ANOTHER point a baby monkey is clinging for dear life from a chandelier. Also the human characters aren't treated much better. Mrs. Hoggett is ordered to be strip searched early on! I caught this at a matinée in 1998. I have never forgotten some kids crying because of what they were seeing and outraged parents storming out of the theatre and complaining LOUDLY that this film was not a kids film. The original had dark moments too but nothing like what we see here. This movie seems to enjoy putting humans and animals in danger and shoving it in the audiences faces. THIS has a G rating? Don't let your kids see this one.