I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Very disappointing...

From my favorite movies..

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

When English writer and BBC editor J. R. Ackerley brought home with him a German Shepherd bitch whose owner was in prison, little did he anticipate how difficult would be to care for her. However, despite the fact that Queenie (the original dog's name) was untrained and high strung demanding his full-time attention, he felt unconditionally loved for the first time in his life.This is a delightful animated movie for adults and older children based on Ackerley's memoir of the same name. Each individual frame was digitally painted with broad brush strokes creating a minimalistic and naturalistic scenes. Tulip is shown acting like a dog when she is taken to the veterinarian, runs out of control in the park, or goes into heat. And life-long bachelor Ackerley used to his peace and quiet is challenged by each one of Tulip's behaviors or problems. This is a movie about unconditional love that dog and animal lovers, or for that matter anybody who has had real feelings for any creature, should treasure.To understand the origin of Queenie, see the very good comedy drama "We Think the World of You" with Gary Oldman and Alan Bates, based on Ackerley's novel of the same name. It tells how an incarcerated burglar's dog becomes the object of class warfare between his working class wife and parents, who mistreat the dog, and a middle class former boyfriend.

I've given two stars for the charming, freehand-style animation -- very enjoyable and unlike Disney or Pixar. The film has a handmade, European look to it and often very pleasing. I understand it was drawn in some kind of computer animation based on drawings, but it looks like it was hand-rendered.I had such high hopes for this film; it's about a dog and I'm a dog lover...I'm a HUGE sucker for any sort of sentimental dog story. Alas, this is more of a cynical and very odd memoir about a German shepherd female ("Alsatian bitch" in the UK lingo) who is owned by a curmudgeonly old writer, J.R. Ackerley. I have not read the book, but from my understanding the film is faithful to it.Why odd? because Ackerley is a pretty strange dog owner, obsessed with his dog's bowel and bladder habits and almost nothing else. We don't learn too much about why he wanted a dog, or what Tulip's personality was like, or even many funny anecdotes about her life with him -- but fully 2/3rs of the film seem to be musings on her bladder and bowel habits, plus animation of the same.At least 1/3 of the film is about Ackerley's rather unpleasant attempts to breed Tulip, with a lot more information than anyone wants to know. This makes the film 100% unsuitable for young children, and probably awkward even for older children. You also wonder what else was wrong with Ackerley's life that he didn't concentrate on his own relationships (he admits upfront to being lonely and isolated) to the point he obsessed over his DOG'S sex life.Eventually, Tulip gets impregnated by a rough stray in the neighborhood ("Lady and The Tramp"?) and has a litter of 8 puppies, at which Ackerley seems gobsmacked that he actually has to deal with the results of the breeding he pursued so avidly -- apparently without the slightest plan for taking care of the puppies! Indeed, he is shown preparing to DROWN Tulip's puppies! UGH! I was warned off this from other reviews, but imagine going into this COLD; it utterly destroys any sense that he loved or cared for this dog. He seems heartless. What kind of person could DROWN a whole litter of puppies? (Note: he had a vet, and could have euthanized the puppies or even aborted the pregnancy.)There is also a odd problem with the timeline; supposedly Ackerley, born in 1896, adopted 18 month old Tulip when he was "well over 50". That would make it the 1940s -- when the war and wartime deprivation was ongoing. Yet it isn't mentioned AT ALL. In fact the film suggests it is taking place in the 60s or 70s, or even more recently.The book was published in 1956, when Ackerley was 60 and Tulip passed on. That means the most recently he could have had her was roughly 1948 (she lived to 16), but probably it was earlier even than that. No matter how you do the numbers, if she died at 16 but BEFORE 1956, then Ackerley had to be younger than 50 when he got her.Also, Ackerley is depicted as if he was nigh onto 80, a frail elderly man. That could not have been close to true until the very end of Tulip's life -- which is not remotely shown. The story about her basically ends after her puppies are rather heartlessly given away (no small wonder, as they were "mutts" and not purebred German shepherds! at least they were not DROWNED!). We are simply told "after that, she lived to 16" (a very old age for any dog 60 years ago).The tone of the film is just terribly odd, with strange ramblings, like a fantasy about some fellow dog owners (whose male dog is selected to be bred with Tulip), and how Ackerley imagines them as naked. Frankly, I just don't get the whole "obsessed with sex" theme mixed with "my wonderful old dog" theme. It is awkward, unpleasant, not very well handled and of course, it makes what otherwise might have been a delightful story of a man whose life was wonderfully filled with the love of a good dog into a bit of a peep show. Too bad.(Note: the real Tulip was named "Queenie"....why change her name? It's not like she's going to sue.)

JR Ackerely is one of my very favorite writers, one of the great stylists of the 20th century and way ahead of his time with his concerns for the homosexual, animal rights etc. Although he didn't think much of himself as a poet he produced a small body of brilliant verse. He also wrote a short play that kicks arse. His use of language and his humor are outstanding as a matter of degree - so funny, so beautiful as impressive as anybody else's work that ever wrote anything, are his books. His bittersweet oddly sympathetic misanthropy, his audacious lack of shame/total honesty are however incomparable/one of a kind. I've read "My Dog Tulip" at least 4 times and it's not my favorite of his works by any means.First of all, I'm disappointed that the lack of creative imagination in this effort resulted in a script consisting of nothing beyond excerpts simply cut from out the book and strung end to end which are delivered as voice-over to images which despite the not entirely uninteresting style of the drawings, serve merely to illustrate the spoken text in a straightforward/pedestrian manner that serves only to subtract from what the mind's eye would see sitting down with the text. What horrifies, mystifies and utterly confounds, though, is that a book that is so LOL funny, and so transcendent / touching happy/sad is thus reduced, somehow in the performance, I think, notwithstanding the addition of so much window dressing (which is frankly at its worst perhaps, actually, in the sequences in which it attempts to do a wee bit more than simply depict in 2 dimensions what we're reading flat out - as for example in the sequence in which Tulip marking her territory urinarily is depicted as a kind of ballet dance which I suppos o u g h t to be funny (especially, I suppose, if you find those pfeiffer "here is a dance to..." comic strips to be funny) but simply falls flat as a loose stool), to coming off as no more amusing than it'd be to be stuck listening to some old codger who has absolutely nothing to say but to blab incessantly, humorlessly, without much enthusiasm/verve at all in fact, enough to put you to sleep, if you wanna know the truth, about his beloved pooch (this, of course, a direct result of the reader's digest treatment the book gets in "focusing" it). As an example, his writing about the battle between his sister and Tulip over the territory that is JRA's bedroom is just too hilarious on paper, but on screen it barely elicits a smile from this viewer.I don't suppose that "My Dog Tulip" was the best subject for film treatment, yet it might have worked beautifully and surely would have played better as a plain old "movie movie" (ie a narrative film/story) than to serve up this ultimately lazy kind of multimedia presentation of 'highlights' resulting in a show and tell snoozefest. I'm sure there actually IS a 3 act drama in there to be divined, written afresh, shot and shown. This movie most assuredly is not it dammit!Disclaimer - after about an hour I packed it in. "We Think the World of You" is another film that does an abysmal job taking what his most popular novel offers in the way of dramatic material and turning into a movie. So sad.

An utterly charming and delightful film which provides a mostly joyful and honest perspective on the trials and tribulations of being owned bya dog. The mores and geography of a time and place from England's recent past are portrayed from a middle- class perspective, with very effective attention to detail. You'll leave wanting to get home right away to your canine, and give him/her a reminder of how much you care.The graphic styles are a great fit for the setting and the sentiments of the story. We left curious about the book's author, and wondering how he fared after the end of the period covered in the film. The last few years of Tulip's life get little-to-no coverage in the film, which short-changes the audience a little. The dog's youth is engagingly well covered, it would have been even more of a delight to get some rich visual story-telling about Tulip's middle- and old-age.