IMDb > Balls of Fury (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Balls of Fury
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Balls of Fury More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 138 reviews in total 

124 out of 159 people found the following review useful:

A fun, silly movie. What's everyone whining about?

8/10
Author: robertmfreeman from United States
17 September 2007

What are people whining about? Balls of Fury was quite funny! A few years ago, the people who are now trashing this movie would have been going gaga and adding a 100 million to its gross revenue...but that's part of the problem. Tastes have changed.

I'm going to go on the record as saying that this movie is at least as funny as anything Adam Sandler or Will Ferrel has ever made. Why is it doing worse then? People just don't want silly, stupid comedies anymore, which is why Superbad is doing much better instead.

Balls of Fury is a very funny movie with a wonderful cast (especially Christopher Walken and Thomas Lennon), and if some of the jokes fall flat, or gave themselves away in the trailer, the movie moves quickly enough that it doesn't matter. They're already onto another joke.

Times have changed, and unfortunately for the movie, so have tastes. These days, even silly spoofs are expected to meet a required level of maturity, and for those that were raised on Naked Gun, Hot Shots and Police Academy movies, that's a little sad.

Go ahead, say the movie is juvenile. Say it's stupid. Just don't say it isn't funny. There were at least three moments during the movie when the entire theater was rolling in the aisles. I've never seen a SNL alumni movie do that.

Was the above review useful to you?

88 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

All depends what you are looking for

6/10
Author: drkvas from United States
10 September 2007

This movie is by no means garbage as some have posted, nor is it a great movie. Think before you buy the ticket. If you walk in expecting a spoof about ping pong w/ a cast of completely 1 dimensional characters to be a 10/10 you must live a life full of disappointment. This movie is funny, and if you didn't find yourself laughing at it you are probably already dead or on the fast track to ulcers and a stress induced stroke by age 30. This is not the first movie that approached a ridiculous subject in such silly manner. Odds are if you hate movies that have done that in the past (ie: Dude, Where's My Car, Blades of Glory, Hot Rod, etc.) you are gonna hate this one as well. As it stands right now this movie has a 4.6 and that probably a little low due to people 1 staring it because they wanted the Saving Private Ryan of ping pong movies. This movie should probably get a rating in the 6.1-6.3 category. If you have a little time to kill, have already seen Super Bad, and want a good laugh go check it out. Otherwise wait till it comes out on DVD or just ignore it. As for those who have blasted it. Go blast a movie that actually supposed to be good and isn't as opposed to picking on the 90 lb. asthmatic kid of movies. This movie can't defend itself for being stupid because is supposed to be. If you couldn't tell that from the trailer, then odds are you haven't made it this far into my comment.

Was the above review useful to you?

78 out of 110 people found the following review useful:

I liked it, I don't understand other people's problems with it...

7/10
Author: Crazy Ian from West Lafayette, IN
12 September 2007

I laughed at this movie. I laughed a LOT. True, some of the laughs were simply because some people were in this movie that had NO BUSINESS being in it, because they are considered to belong to a higher echelon of movies. Christopher Walken and Maggie Q are usually seen in LARGE blockbusters or high-profile indies; George Lopez has a very successful TV series, not to mention MANY cameos from well-known comedic actors. These people are GOOD. When they are on the screen, funny stuff happens. The script is an obvious parody on the movie "Enter The Dragon", but with ping-pong in lieu of kung-fu or karate. It also spoofs the "underdog" motif like the "Rocky" movies. I dunno, all I can say is that I REALLY enjoyed this movie. I didn't expect much, and I got a lot back because of that. True, I was a little liquored up, and a second sober viewing might not pay off repeat dividends, but I had a good time. Isn't that really what it's all about? Honestly, it ain't Citizen Kane, but I've seen crappier movies... a contemporary comparison: I was NOT disappointed by this movie, and comparatively much more disappointed with the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie...

Yaaarrrr, thar be worse things under the sun, matey...

Was the above review useful to you?

66 out of 95 people found the following review useful:

Not the greatest "stupid movie" made, but it certainly made me giggle.

5/10
Author: Emily Taylor from Utah
15 September 2007

This has to be, quite possibly, the dumbest movie I have seen in a very, very long time.

However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think there was a single moment in this film that purposely wanted any smidgen of intelligence whatsoever.

And, heck, the reason I went to see this movie was because I thought it looked funny. And, guess what? I laughed. I don't know if this will go into the treasury of greatest stupid movies ever made, but it did leave me with a smile on my face.

I think it was because it was ping-pong. Yes, I like a good game of ping-pong as much as the next person, but come on. It's ping-pong. Just try telling that to these characters. The fact that anyone could take so slight a game so seriously cracked me up.

And that's where this movie works.

It's pointless, silly, and down-right brain cell killing. But I found myself forgiving everyone because they were so good-hearted in waltzing around with their idiotic humor.

No, it will probably not be nominated for Best Picture. But as for dumb comedy goes, this nicely held its own.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as I expected

6/10
Author: doolittle1 from United States
24 September 2007

I went into the theater expecting almost nothing good coming out of it. I read the reviews- Washington Post, USA Today, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. I knew they were horrible and quite honestly, I thought I would hate the movie. But my friend wanted to go, and me having no life whatsoever, I agreed to join her.

I have to say, I should go into to more movies with such low expectations, because I really enjoyed it. Was the acting superior? No. Was the script well-written? No. But it was funny and Christopher Walken makes all things glorious, so all in all, it wasn't a bad way to spend a Thursday night after an especially terrible day of work. The actors all seemed to realize that they weren't participating in a project that would make movie history and they all seemed OK with that. It was very much a movie done to simply enjoy the play on the word "balls" and in this particular case, it was forgivable.

Overall, don't go in expecting complete comedic genius and you just might find yourself laughing.

Was the above review useful to you?

58 out of 100 people found the following review useful:

Okay, for cable

4/10
Author: Alan Rapp (alan@razorfine.com) from United States
29 August 2007

Balls of Fury wasn't the total disaster, but when that's the highest praise I can offer, well, that's a problem. Think of it as a lesser version of Dodgeball.

Ping-pong just isn't that funny, or exciting, or anything really - just like the film. The idea of underground ping-pong never really goes anywhere. The jokes are okay at times, but there are no big laughs and certainly no surprises.

Unless you are a 10-14 year-old boy, who given the film's humor and scantily clad actresses is obviously the target market, you will probably be disappointed by paying money for it. Wait a couple of years and watch it free some night on Comedy Central and spend your ten bucks somewhere else.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Balls of fury!

6/10
Author: helmutty from Singapore
30 September 2007

It is not that bad. I am one of the guys who like this. It is not bad comparing to the movies that were recently released in Singapore. Underdog is not very good, can't even be a superhero movie. Shoot em' up is for hard-core action fans and basically is very violent and bloody. Then it is Balls of fury which I enjoyed watching. I thought it was something like Prince of tennis, the live-action movie and the ping-pong ball fights scenes are something like that. That, the ping-pong ball fights, is the thing that attracted me to watch it. But Prince of tennis is better than this. Balls of fury got the comedy and the simple action which becomes a harmless fun movie. I like movies as long as they are fun or entertaining. Balls of fury, though fun, is considered quite dumb for some mature adults or teenagers, the director used stupid jokes like always get hit in the groin and banging into the wall. It has to be stupid to be funny. Sometimes, I admit that it is quite dumb in some of the scenes but it is fun, it got slow-motion ball fights, it got Maggie Q who is hot and it got dumb-a** jokes so what more you want for a dumb comedy.

Overall, it makes a harmless movie that you can watch in your free time. It can be funny sometime and it too can be dumb sometime. You may laugh or smile at some scenes. I don't know but I smiled when watching it even at the stupidest jokes. Best to leave your brains at home while watching. This movie is not to be taken seriously.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Mocked its own genre, not for everybody

8/10
Author: FatMan-QaTFM from United States
16 December 2007

This is a Thomas Lennon written comedy, so you know it's going to be a little abstract, and very pacing based. Balls of Fury really did a great job of keeping in the same humor vein of Reno 911, etc.

Yes, there are crotch shots and other typical middle school humor, but they happened so often and with such randomness that it went from stupid to hilarious.

A lot of the humor is based in uncomfortable moments. Not a lot of people enjoy being made uncomfortable by something they are viewing for entertainment, but if you like that style of humor, Balls of Fury is right up your alley.

This isn't for everybody, so it'll either be a 10 or 1 for you. Worth the rental just to see.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Laughter abounds

9/10
Author: PWNYCNY from United States
14 September 2007

There are some who may look down at this movie with disdain and dismiss it as just another lowbrow attempt to elicit cheap laughs. Well guess what? This movie does exactly that, and that's great! This is an incredibly funny movie, with goofy but likable characters, especially James Hong who plays Master Wong. James Hong gives one of the funniest performances ever. He was great. He made this movie happen. Also, Maggie Q was great. She is the next Sandra Oh. And the the goofy story line also contributes to the overall humor, and of course, one would be remiss if they did not mention the performance of Christopher Walken who once again proves that he is a great actor. His deadpan approach was absolutely perfect for this movie. If you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh, then this is the movie for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

102 out of 194 people found the following review useful:

The jokes suffer from the "Kate Moss, Heather Mills McCartney, and post-2000 Muhammad Ali Syndrome."

5/10
Author: (themoviemark@themoviemark.com) from http://www.themoviemark.com
30 August 2007

Taxi. The Pacifier. Herbie Fully Loaded. Let's Go to Prison. Night at the Museum. If this list of movies is an accurate representation of your DVD collection, then my friends, you either have a young child in the house or a strange fetish for average-to-below average comedies. Or "absolutely dreadful" in the case of Jimmy Fallon's Taxi. *shudders* I'm still trying to erase memories of that steamer from my mind.

Other than being part of the aforementioned pathetically sad DVD collection, do you know what else each of these movies has in common? They're all written by Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, the duo who wrote, produced, and directed Balls of Fury. Are you trying to decide whether or not this is a film worthy of your time and money? Please let my above revelation stand as "enough said."

In all honesty, what can you expect when you take a poor man's Jack Black and give him the starring role in a poor man's Dodgeball? A little thing I like to refer to as "not much." Dan Fogler gives it the ol' college try, but perhaps the material is to blame for his mostly forgettable performance. He delivers a couple of laugh-out-loud moments, but by the time he's lip-synching to Def Leppard you'll be asking yourself, "So who's this guy, and why is he doing a bad karaoke impersonation of 'Jack Black Meets Sam Kinison'?"

I will give Balls of Fury three credits - 1) Maggie Q is adorable, 2) The film rightfully never takes itself too seriously, and 3) It's nowhere near as filthy as I expected. At the top of my notebook I wrote, "Balls/Genitalia References" and I was set to keep track. I just knew they were going to fly off the screen fast and furious, especially judging by the "a huge comedy with tiny balls" tagline. So I was quite shocked when the grand total was only one, and that one was merely Maggie Q's character disgustedly relaying an example of the comments she was forced to deal with from male players.

What more can I say about a film whose crowning achievement is, "Well, I didn't expect much, and it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, so whatever"? That certainly doesn't send you rushing to purchase a ticket, now does it? It'll be on TNT or TBS soon enough so just have patience and watch a few legitimately good comedies in the interim. There'll come a time when you're flipping channels, nothing else is on, and you'll cruise across this. You can decide then whether you want to sit through all of it. The end result will likely be a long email thanking me for saving you $8.

Before I commence, let me once again bring attention to my above "poor man's Dodgeball" quote. I overheard several disappointed people say, "I thought it'd be like Dodgeball." What's that? Yeah, they said it in unison, Wisenheimer. Now shut up. The consensus? It's not even close. So if that was the opinion you formed after watching the trailer then dismiss that notion immediately. It's an interesting concept that probably contains about ten minutes of solid comedic material.

What ultimately happens when you stretch that over an hour and a half? Unfortunately, the jokes suffer from what I like to call the "Kate Moss, Heather Mills McCartney, and post-2000 Muhammad Ali Syndrome." In other words, they're flat, lame, and they pack no punch. Let's see them put THAT on the DVD cover.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history