Furry Vengeance (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
89 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
3/10
a made-for-TV movie if ever there was one
Paul M16 May 2010
I won't give away any plot, but to be honest if you've seen the trails you've probably seen the only good bits of the movie and the rest is watchable if nothing's better on.

I initially gave this movie 4/10, but as I wrote this downgraded to 3. I'd say this movie would be ideal for anyone between the ages of 5 and 9. I'd not buy it on DVD except from the bargain bucket, or watch for free on regular TV. I regret having spent good money to see it at the cinema.

We saw this at the cinema as a family; we are middle-aged parents with a son, 6, and a daughter, 4.

We adults thought it was slow to get started but managed to pick up a little bit of pace. It was quite predictable with the same jokes repeated, and there were no plot twists at all to give it any interest. The bored teenager role was acted with little imagination, the girlfriend just about imagining a soupçon of character. Brendan Fraser managed to make a reasonable deal of a weak plot, and his wife Brooke Shields had a few moments of believable acting as a wife.

The script writer lacked imagination, the budget was probably quite low too, there were times the poor CGI punctured the suspension of disbelief (I imagine this would not be one to enjoy on blu-ray unless they fix things up in the transfer). One novelty was that the animals didn't speak, instead thought bubbles appeared with pictures. If I was being cynical I'd say this was as much a way to avoid the costs of voice character actors and dubbing into foreign languages as to give the movie a twist.

This could easily have been an episode of a any standard sitcom about a family relocating to the country, and could have been edited down to 45 minutes... and then perhaps the reuse of jokes might not be so bad, but they quickly became stale.

So, the movie failed from an adult perspective. Did it succeed to keep the kids entertained? Our 6 year old enjoyed it, he's at that age where adults being stupid, animals being smart, and lots of mess and stink are funny. He's able to follow quite complex dialogue so was able to grasp the point of the movie.

Our 4 year old found it hard going, as it was slow to start, there was too much dialogue with too little action, she enjoyed the slapstick humour, but was frequently restless - she'll re-watch Finding Nemo with more attention and she's seen that 10+ times!.
33 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Does what it does well enough
reccewoody7 January 2011
If you have seen the trailer and gone ahead and bought or rented the movie, then you know what to expect. This isn't Bergman's The Seventh Seal, or Welles Citizen Kane. It is what it is, a funny family movie with lots of forest critters causing trouble for Brendon Fraser.

Of course Brendon has done better more artful movies, of course he's done more adult-themed action, but why all the hate for this movie? Sometimes I want a sophisticated cerebral comedy with witty satire and subtlety, just like sometimes I want a fancy meal. But there also times I just want to kick my shoes off, sink a beer, scoff a pizza, burp and watch a fun film. This is what you get with Furry Vengeance, and it delivers what it sets out to deliver.

The performances are exaggerated sure, and yes, you can tell no-one has spent months refining the CGI. But what the hell, the movies makes you smile throughout, with a few laugh out loud moments thrown in too, and the extras on the DVD prove that everyone had a good time making the film.

Chill out all you negative reviewers, appreciate this movie for what it is.
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A family Film
Twitchy-Film-Kid14 November 2010
This movie was really a kids slap stick comedy. For children around 10 and under. It used some very old comedy tricks seen in many other movies and wore several of them out after using them 3-4 times in the movie. The animals in the movie were very well trained and did their parts, however it was very obvious when they were animated animals. it is a nice movie to watch but I wouldn't go to the cinema to see it. I was very slow to get started and some parts in the movie were stretched on a little long. However it was definitely a movie to be highly enjoyed for the much younger audience. I would play this once in a while on a Friday maybe but not one I remember as one that stands out. Even at the sad bits I didn't really have any connection with the characters so I couldn't really sympathise with them.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A movie that needs defending
Thischarminglad20 August 2010
I don't usually bother with reviews but when I logged into IMDb and searched for Furry Vengeance I was astonished to find the movie was actually lounging in the bottom 100 of all time I was simply stirred into action to defend this movie. I have put two and two together and decided that the low rating this movie has accrued has probably everything to do with a bunch 20 something nerdy tech heads who have yet to enjoy the pleasure of having children, I watched this film with 3 young children of various ages and they had a ball as I did, there was several laugh out loud moments and not just for young children but adults too, but if you're a twenty something adult you might find it so uncool inverted commas! so seriously you view life. When you have children of your own movies like this will become so much more enjoyable believe me!. I'd give this movie a 7 rating from an adult with children perspective but I rated it a nine because the children in my presence absolutely adored it and would probably have gave it ten if they could rate it themselves. Some people should really learn to enjoy life sometime?
44 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
You know, it's not THAT bad..
lundman12 August 2010
All other reviews have been giving 1 out of 10, and proclaiming it as the worst movie ever. The movie is not as bad as that, and the kids enjoyed it and got a few laughs. As an adult it seemed aimed at the 6-8 crowd and worked as that. There have been children movies out recently that the kids did not manage to sit all the way through, for example, Chipmonks squeekle, Princess and the Frog, Planet 51, Aliens in the Attic and so on. Perhaps it had an advertising campaign that gave a different idea of what it is, which disappointed most viewers. The plot is simple enough and follows the classic 'protect nature' without being rammed down the viewers throats too much. Brendan Fraser appears to have put on quite a bit of weight for the role.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Dismally unfunny
mcornett25 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Brendan Fraser has uprooted wife Brooke Shields and their teenage son to some unspecified rural area, where he's overseeing the construction of a McMansion community in a formerly pristine natural area. This angers the local wildlife, headed by a cackling raccoon, who set off to humiliate, injure, and presumably kill Fraser and other human interlopers.

Now, I'm all for the stupidly funny. I wasn't expecting Oscar material and certainly didn't expect it from this. But even on its own low terms, this movie just fails to be funny, and in my eyes, there's little worse than a bad comedy. Bad efforts at other genres can be great for laughs, but when comedies fail to elicit laughs, they're just painful and dull.

Fraser's goofy amiability has levitated other films before, but this time he's just not up to it. There's too much bottom-of-the-barrel slapstick, an overpopulation of stupid characters, and predictable family drama. Also, frequently weirdly inconsistent. At one point Fraser is flung into a bee's nest and is covered with stings, but the next morning he's shown without a scratch or swelling on him. Early on, another character suffers an animal-induced auto accident that's rather appalling since it would be clearly fatal and later we're told the character "disappeared." There quite a bit of wet-crotch and groin-injury humor; I remember a time when that was considered too risqué for children, and now is standard for kid flicks. At any rate, they're cheap laughs.

Fraser looks bad; he's gained weight and looks pudgy and uncomfortable. Brooke Shields can be a great comic actress but spends most of the time playing the straight man, so her talents are underused. She also doesn't look her best, either. They're basically playing second fiddle to the cutesy animals, which range from real animals to poorly-done CGI stand-ins. Also has nocturnal animals, like owls and raccoons, running around in the day, and daytime animals, like crows, active at night. Not to mention seagulls suddenly showing up in a clearly inland and mountainous locale. At one point the flick attempts to set up some sort of mystical/magical reasoning for the intelligent animals (who not only understand human speech, but seem every bit as aware of human pop culture as the humans are), but then it's quickly dropped and forgotten.

I saw this at a preview screening; there were a number of families there and I could tell the very young found it funny, but older kids and adults were clearly not amused and unimpressed. I guess they wanted a sort of live-action cartoon here, but amidst all the mayhem they forgot to make it truly funny...and contrasting it to a halfway realistic family drama doesn't help. You're better off staying at home with some classic Warner Brothers cartoons. FURRY VENGEANCE is to be avoided at all costs, one of the worst things I've seen in a long time.
47 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What a waste!
Robyn Daly12 June 2010
What a waste of a talented and versatile actor! Fraser has fattened up for his role as a very unpleasant character who deserves all that happens to him, but the broad slapstick and second-rate predictable script gives Fraser no chance to display the sly wit of the Mummy movies or the subtle emotion of Gods & Monsters.

Even Dudley Do-Right was better than this: at least Fraser looked like he was having a good time, unlike in this sorry excuse for a film. This role smacks of desperation. He must have really, REALLY needed the money.

The CGI is OK but it's not at the top of the tech, and the supporting cast are cardboard cutouts.

Give it a miss.
38 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Really not that bad
Nocgirl725 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Keep in mind this is a KIDS move so the standards should be lowered a bit but still to an acceptable level. I really do not understand how this movie ranked a 1.8 unless the same couple posters are making up screen names and writing bogus reviews.

This movie had the theatre cracking up, especially kids. Brenden Fraser is so lovable as a real estate developer who has ticked off a raccoon and his forest of friends to stop a development from going up and destroying the forest. Brooke Shields is his faithful do good wife who stands by him as he gets his butt kicked by mother nature.

A few pretty funny moments including the outhouse scene.

If your goal is to see a movie that your kids will understand and laugh at, this is a good one.
33 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This Film IS the Animals' Revenge
RichardSRussell-130 April 2010
Furry Vengeance (1:30, PG) — Other: Talking Animals, 3rd string, original

Brendan Fraser 1st endeared himself to SF fans as the thawed-out missing link in 1992's Encino Man. Since then, he's turned in a lot solid performances in genre films, notably as gentleman adventurer Rick O'Connell in the Mummy series. So, while he does doofus really well, he can also sell himself as a big, beefy guy with a soft heart or as a serious actor in a serious role. The one thing he's never attempted is villainy; like Will Smith, he's always aimed for (and largely hit) likability. Last year he reached new heights in Inkheart, which I thot was magnificent. (I'm a sucker for books.) This week the law of averages reasserts itself as he plummets straight to the bottom in the role of suburban developer Dan Sanders, beset by the woodland creatures he's preparing to displace, in Furry Vengeance.

Just to put things in perspective about the relentless, unremitting awfulness of this movie, I gave Beverly Hills Chihuahua a higher rating (2). Speaking of relentlessness, Edward Shearmur's score is both ubiquitous and manically perky. An appearance by the world's least helpful librarian is only about 54th on this film's list of sins.

Screenwriters Michael Carnes and Josh Gilbert have provided an abundance of plot and dialog, so you get a lot of substance in the 90 minutes you spend squirming and covering your eyes. I think they took pride in breaking new ground in the icky-fluids department. In addition to the abundance of poop, pee, fart, barf, and crotch jokes, they've upped the ante with skunks. And, just to be sure you didn't miss this brilliant innovation on their part, they repeat it 3 or 4 times.

Searching desperately for something positive to say about Furry Vengeance, I must commend director Roger Kumble for getting the entire cast to buy into the premise of how it should be overacted, as every single one of them gives it everything they've got, from beginning to end, without pause or apology. I can imagine Kumble's pep speech at the kick-off meeting: "All right, we're making this film for an autistic audience that doesn't read human expressions very well. Also, we think it'll probably play well with space aliens who know nothing whatsoever about carbon-based life forms. So don't hold back, OK? Exaggerate everything. Everything! Actions, expressions, vocal intonations, emotions, the works! Just to help you out, we've prepared this little drug cocktail we'd like you to take daily, consisting of LSD, PCP, speed, and whatever it is that gets your eyes to bug out like that guy in the Staples commercial."

I categorize this movie under "talking animals", even tho they don't engage in actual human speech. Instead we get a variety of churrs, coos, and gurgles, apparently from the throat of one Dee Bradley Baker. But the various different kinds of critters can all understand each other, and they pass along stories via cartoon thot balloons running flashbacks (or, in one scene, Mel Gibson in Braveheart). And they've developed tool use, which we see in the opening scenes, as a Rube Goldberg contraption turns a huge boulder loose on the SUV of an arrogant developer who has just thrown his cigar stub into a pile of dry leaves.

Philosophers who have long sought the elusive white crow (as an example of trying to prove a negative) will be delighted to know that the producers of this nature epic did not blanch at depicting one, apparently figuring nobody in the audience would notice ... or maybe care.

This film reminds me of nothing so much as the conservative political pundit William Kristol. He's bright, well informed, charming, articulate, thotful, and well intentioned. And you know that every single time he's opened his mouth for the last quarter century, whatever comes out of it has been dead wrong. Reliably. Consistently. Every time. Without let or regret. And he just keeps on doing it!

I cannot imagine what anybody ever said to the participants in, or financiers of, this train wreck that made them think it would be a good idea. Redeeming thot? As long as you're still alive, things can always get worse.
67 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Brendan Fraser gets hurt, and nobody laughs.
DarkVulcan2910 May 2010
I thought this movie was insultingly bad next to Land of the Lost(2009). In fact watching the kind of movie this was, I wonder if it was written for Will Ferrell, but he was not available, so they went with Brendan Fraser instead.

This movie can't decide if it wants to be a family film, or edgy adult comedy, it blurs the line quite badly. Brendan Fraser is unfunny and uninteresting to watch, he is oftener enjoyable to watch, but he just was'nt this time. Usually I like movies about smart animals, but everything was too precise in this film. Not to mention the comedy was badly written, resulting to unfunny written slapstick. Brooke Sheilds who plays Frasers wife, looks amazingly bored through most of this, not to mention there is no chemistry between Fraser and Shields.

So if you are looking for a funny entertaining film, it's not Furry Vengeance
31 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Makes Daddy Day Camp Look Like The Godfather
Jackpollins30 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Furry Vengeance features talented people making fools of themselves as they lazily try to collect their paycheck. It follows the same route as Daddy Day Camp making stupid jokes about skunks and poop that don't even appeal to kids. At least Daddy Day Camp thought that kids would like these jokes, while Furry Vengeance is significantly more annoying because it knows that kids won't like this, but continue to make this so they can all make money. During this film, nothing in the actually film made me laugh, but I did laugh seeing the target demographic, a 5-year old boy falling asleep, not from fatigue, but from being plain bored. Brendan Fraser has actually been a talented actor in his career when he wants to be. Don't believe me? If you don't, watch Gods & Monsters, Crash, The Quiet American, With Honors & School Ties. If you want to prove me wrong, watch this film. Other talented people such as Ken Jeong, Brooke Shields, Angela Kinsey, and Wallace Shawn show up, but just blandly read their lines, walk off screen, and if I were to go out on a limb, collect their paychecks, and walk out of the studio. The animals don't talk, which should be refreshing, but is even more annoying than talking animals in live action films, and that's saying a lot. This is the worst film I have seen this year, and yes I have seen The Back Up Plan, The Bounty Hunter & Leap Year this year.
27 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
total failure
Tom Reves5 August 2010
The movie doesn't even worth to get 1 point out of 10; I would give 0.2 if I could. I would recommend this film maybe for children under 5 years old. The special effects were really poor. Acting was not that awful. I just cant understand why brandon frazer accepted the role in the movie. The plot and the script was quite primitive without any deep thought. I cant give high evaluation for directing too. The director should be ashamed that he made such movie. I would say that the movie should nominated for the worst movie of the year.

Generally, you should not spend one and a half hours watching this cheap piece of trash.
30 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not a train wreck after all
Zulu4211 May 2010
This is one of those movies where you just know that the acting by both humans and cgi modified critters will be over the top. Once you accept this fact and look at it as just a lighthearted piece of family friendly fluff that doesn't take itself too seriously, it's kind of amusing. There's no obvious profanity nor is there any nudity and when characters get into some wildly unbelievable scrapes that, realistically, would cause a lot of bodily damage, pain, or worse, death, it's glossed over because, THIS IS A KID-FRIENDLY MOVIE. It's made that way (in the old Disney-style tradition) to entertain with lots of cartoonish antics (particularly by Brendan Fraser's goofy real estate developer). It's nice to see Brooke Shields acting in something again but the real stars of this silly but often funny film are the animals, especially the ring-leader raccoon and his platoon of able and willing skunks. Don't expect the depth of Shutter Island or the amazing special effects of Avatar here; this is just a cute little film for parents with kids who are not interested in seeing giant robots blow the snot out of a city yet...they're still young and naive enough to find the cutesy antics of comical animals amusing enough. Check it out if you've got little ones or you just need a break from the rest of the stuff that's been churned out by ton from the studios out there.
31 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Cute, kid's movie
kiss_of_buddha14 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to take your kid's to a movie that is cute, has humor, contains no sex scenes, and no foul language, then take them to see Furry Vengeance. It's a good kids movie, not meant to be analyzed or taken too seriously. Honestly, tonight when I went to see it there were only middle aged adults in the theater. I noticed that they all enjoyed the humor in this movie and didn't hear any negative comments as we were leaving at the end of the film. There were some parts that were a bit over used, but there were still several funny scenes. And Brendon Fraser has to be given some respect for having the guts to put his 41 year old body, flaws and all out there for everyone to see and laugh at. This definitely was NOT the worse film I have ever seen. If you take anything serious about this film then take seriously the message to protect our forests. One thing that I thought was sad was that this film was supposed to be about Oregon but was filmed in Massachusetts. I could tell right away that it was not Oregon scenery. Anyway, it was cute and it was funny. Take your kids to see it.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Brendan Fraser Delivers!
borisreviews26 June 2013
From the always reliable and brilliant Roger Kumbles (College Road Trip, The Sweetest Thing), comes "Furry Vengeance" which might just be his masterpiece. Hilarious and laugh out loud funny from the first frame to the very last, "Furry Vengeance" provides the brand of intelligent comedy that has been lacking for the past few decades.

While the plot may seem simple on paper, it truly is an intricate story that unfolds with great pace and flow. Not once did I glance at my watch or take my eyes off of the screen. Simply put, this is very effective storytelling that blends in comedy very well with its engaging storyline.

And as we all know, a comedy cannot be truly great without a funny lead. Brendan Fraser provides just that. He adds a whole new dimension to his character that I can't imagine any other actor pulling off. But that's not to say there are no standout performances from the supporting cast. Mega-star Matt Prokop proves once more why he has become such a bankable star.

The other main component of the film is the visual effects, which is one of the best to date, if not THE best. You thought Avatar was great? Think again. Words cannot describe the achievement in visual effects this movie has managed to pull off. So I'll simply state: they're f**king amazing.

To say the least, I'm very content with my decision to attend the exclusive premier of one of the best comedies of all time. I recommend you check it out once it arrives at a theater near you.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
My kids loved it
Danielle14 December 2010
I have to admit that I thought this movie was incredibly stupid, but my kids loved it, and afterall, it was made for them, not for me. They laughed up a storm and gave it 10/10 when I asked them (my rating of 6 is an average of their score and mine!)

As other reviewers have written, you have to give the cast credit for giving it their all, even if it was in pursuit of a rather questionable goal. We watched the gag reel and Making Of video on the DVD, and they clearly had a ball making this movie. I also give them credit for shoehorning in a great message about protecting forests - it's never bad for kids to hear that.

If you're expecting a deep, meaningful movie experience, this ain't it, but if you and your kids want some cheap laughs, this is a safe bet.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A Disney-like Version of the Seven Plagues of Egypt
gjampol12 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Come on, folks. This movie isn't that bad. Forest animals taking vengeance on the employee of a real estate developer? Why not? I have to say that I sympathized with the little (and big) creatures in the woods that are trying to protect their home from the encroachment of a housing development.

Dan Sanders (Brendan Frasier) suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune in this kind of cute and kind of silly venture. I found myself chuckling as animals discharged their bodily fluids on Sanders and used a Rube Goldberg contraption to hurl large stones at his vehicle.

I even felt sorry for them when Sanders and company exacted their own revenge. All in all it's a funny and lovable movie, and Frasier gives a bravura performance as the put-upon salesman/pitchman.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
It's a kids film. What did you expect?
jj02093 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
That's right. A kids film. A film aimed at kids. Young ones at that. If you were expecting hard hitting, thought provoking commentary on saving the rain forests then more fool you.

Sure, some of the technical aspects were a little off. But does that matter to a child? I took my 8 year old and he loved it. As did most of the young audience judging by the laughter and the chatter on the way out. And that is what I judge my view on. It appealed to the target audience and successfully passed an hour and a half.

Some reviewers on here really need to remove their heads from their backsides. Re the comment about when the lead character falls into the bush and ends up in wasp/hornet stings or whatever but is clear the next day. So what? Did that reviewer ever watch Wile E Coyoye blowing himself up all the time whilst trying to catch Road Runner yet emerge unscathed? It's the same thing. The kids laughed at the skunk poop jokes, they giggled at the raccoon orchestrating the battles and cheered when the birds crapped on people. It's good to see children laugh you know. There's plenty of other stuff in the world to be serious about.

And at the end of the day the message came across that you shouldn't destroy forests for suburbia. Job done.
17 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
An 'Evan not-so-Amighty' rehash
gregeichelberger30 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The ongoing battle between over-the-top environmentalists and the rest of us continues as Hollywood stakes out its side with the release of "Furry Veneange," a supposed comedy from director Roger Kumble ("Creul Intentions," "The Sweetest Thing") and starring Brendan Fraser (the "Mummy" franchise, "Journey to the Center of the Earth").

Okay, here's where the positive things I have to say about this picture ends - it is populated by a lot of cute (some real, some CGI) little woodland creatures. There, that's it.

Basically nothing more than a live action version of "Open Season," with a smattering of "Over the Hedge," "Are We Done, Yet?" and "Evan Almighty" slopped about, this is another tale where a bunch of cuddly little vermin connive to thwart a major development project.

Oh yes, the lines are drawn very clearly. For example, the head of the project, Neal Lyman (Ken Jeong, "The Hangover," "The Goods"), brags openly about all of the forests he has - well, deforested. His henchmen are equally disrespectful of the environment. Hey, I'm no developer, but wouldn't an intelligent one utilize both aspect of construction a certain care for the surrounding area? And aren't there many, many laws on the books - both local and national - to prevent wholesale rape of the land?

Anyway, Lyman's point man for the new project is Dan Sanders, who with wife, Tammy (Brooke Shields), and Earth Firster son, Tyler (Matt Prokop, "High School Musical 3"), get to live in the first prototype home in the area. Since the trailers all show it (and the film's title is "Furry Vengeance"), there's no need for a spoiler alert here.

Yep, the little creatures begin to put together a plan not only to drive out the Sanders, but to keep their sanctuary as human being-free as possible. This begins with little annoyances such as keeping Dan up at night (it's funny that only HE - and the audience - sees what's happening, but his clueless wife does not) to total war on the encroaching developers (i.e. birds dive-bombing, bears trapping Dan in a port-a-potty, etc.).

We're supposed to universally root for the animals, but I could not support ANYONE or ANYTHING in this mess. The creatures were creepily unrealistic, the actors were abysmal, dialogue ridiculous and the direction non-existent. That, and there wasn't a solid laugh in the whole enterprise. And this is what passes for comedy in Hollywood today?

In fact, the past two years have been a vast wasteland in the humorous film category. A wasteland littered with the decaying bones of "Year One," "I Love You, Beth Cooper," "Our Family Wedding," "Cop Out," "Hot Tub Time Machine," "Post-Grad," etc., etc., etc. Now add this lame effort to that ever-growing list.

Brief political rant: Okay, I know destroying the environment is bad. We ALL know that. It's also bad to wipe out forests for nothing else except to build a mall. But that mall had to go SOMEWHERE. After all, if there was no mall, there would be no venue for suckers out there to pay good money to watch crap like this.
13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
This film FOR KIDS seems strangely familiar...
Neil Welch12 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is about a decent man who unwittingly finds himself acting to displace innocent forest dwellers from their home so that big business can destroy the forest in pursuit of profits: ultimately he realises that he has been playing for the wrong team, and joins the forest dwellers in fighting back to preserve their homes.

Hang on, didn't I already see this back in December? Well, yes, I did - only this time our protagonist is Brendan Fraser not Sam Worthington, and the forest dwellers are all sorts of animals, not big blue people with bows and arrows.

This is Avatar for tinies, and no-one should lose sight of that. It is NOT a film for grownups. There is lots of slapstick as the CGI-assisted wildlife knocks 7 bells out of Fraser while no-one believes him that a raccoon is masterminding the fight back (I wonder why).

Fraser overacts dreadfully (but entirely appropriately given the nature of the material), there are entertaining turns from Wallace Shawn, Ken Jeong, and Billy Bush. And Brooke Shields has become an extremely attractive older woman.

The sequence which accompanies the closing credits is brilliant - I loved it.

And it appears to have been produced by an Abu Dhabi company which raised my eyebrows a bit.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Ready to be force-fed some hot, steamy garbage? Open wide.
chrismsawin29 June 2011
Somewhere over that rainbow that we call life there's going to be a family film that gets bashed by everyone and it won't be as bad as they all make it out to be. But Furry Vengeance sure as hell isn't the type of movie to lead that revolution. It actually ranks up there as one of the worst movies I've ever sat through. Even the bad horror movies I've seen look like masterpieces compared to movies like this. Calling it garbage seems like an insult to garbage. It's like being forced to eat the contents of a dirty diaper even though you know what the outcome is, you hope and pray that there's something enjoyable about it. But it turns out it's just feces. That's Furry Vengeance.

So you sit down and start Furry Vengeance because for whatever reason, you have to sit through it. You try to be open minded. "Maybe the animals will be cute," you say to yourself. "Maybe it'll be kind of funny in a 'I'm never going to tell anyone I actually laughed at this' kind of way." But the extremely lame opening crushes those thoughts almost immediately. You'll notice right away that real animals are used in the film but computer graphics are used to enhance their facial features. Eyeballs are widened, eyebrows stretched and crunched, and weird mouths are added to raccoons and ferrets more than anything. Then there's the way they speak to each other. The animals don't speak English for once, but they use this gibberish to speak to one another like humans doing animal impressions while also adding grunts, moans, and familiar themes being hummed that you'll probably recognize. If that wasn't bad enough, when one animal speaks to another, while they're "talking," an animated cartoon word bubble pops up to show what they're talking about. Except for the one time it's used to show what Fraser is dreaming about and then its symbolism gets kind of confusing. It is really, REALLY more awful than it sounds.

They had to just run with the first storyline that came to mind. There's no way this took actual time to develop. It's the basic story of man versus animal except every animal seems to be smarter than every human around them. A national forest is being torn down to make way for a mall and a living community. Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser) is the man who plays second fiddle to the man making it all happen. The forest creatures take it upon themselves to keep Dan from doing his job and save the forest. Blah blah blah, silly things occur, Dan goes crazy, orders the animals be caged up, but relates to the raccoon after realizing it has a family, Dan does the right thing, bad men get what's coming to them, and everyone is happy. The end. If you could combine the story of the Yogi Bear movie along with the cornball, over the top performances from Cats & Dogs 2 that is what you'd have with Furry Vengeance.

Dan Sanders isn't even a likable character. He's supposed to this dad and husband that cares about the environment and wants to stay green, but he makes all the wrong decisions for what he thinks are the right reasons. He's also a total wuss. Everyone walks all over him, he doesn't stand up for himself, and basically just backs down from anything that crosses his path. His pathetic antics aren't humorous or amusing in the slightest. It's just sad.

The special effects get even worse as the movie progresses. A computer generated vulture has a nervous twitch in the sky while a bunch of furry blobs throw a party and dance in Dan's kitchen. Everything just looks so completely fake that you can't get into it. What was with every animal spraying a weird mist every time they screamed at Dan? The skunk spray made sense, but what in the world is coming out of the mouths of raccoons and bears? Here's another example of urine being used in a family movie when it shouldn't be. It's a pretty gross gag, especially animal urine. Throw in feces too and you've pretty much got the knockout combo. All you're missing is animals mating in the woods and you'd have the trifecta. A raccoon puppet knocks out Brendan Fraser like six different times and then urinates on him later. This can't be funny to anyone. There's no way.

Furry Vengeance is like the inbred, forsaken lovechild conceived during a night at a drunken barn dance between Yogi Bear and Cats & Dogs 2. It is absolute torture sitting through the movie in its entirety. It's not funny, the CGI is terrible, and you're sick of Brendan Fraser's trite performance as soon as he shows up on screen. With a simple minded storyline and fascination with animal bodily fluids, Furry Vengeance is about as entertaining as being kicked in the balls and having that pain in your stomach last an hour and a half.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What Doctor Dolittle would have been if Uwe Boll directed.
Grissom6623 May 2010
After transplanting his family from Chicago to the Oregon woods for his new job overseeing the construction of a supposedly "eco-friendly" housing development, Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser) thinks his biggest problem will be helping his city-loving wife Tammy (Brooke Shields) and nature-phobic teenaged son (Matt Prokop) adjust to their new surroundings while pleasing his demanding boss (Ken Jeong). But Dan's troubles have only begun once the local animals discover his leadership role in the destruction of their habitat. He soon lands atop their Most Wanted list, and realizes how much trouble a few feisty forest creatures can cause! The clever critters bedevil Dan night and day, sabotaging his work, his peace of mind—and even his wardrobe. Under this concerted attack, Dan soon finds his once perfect life in ruins. He completely fails in his efforts to trap, deter or even photograph the animal assault team and without proof of the covert woodland conspiracy against him, no one believes Dan's claims. With his wife and son poised to abandon him, and his construction project in jeopardy, Dan escalates the feud to all-out intra-species war that can only have one winner. Furry Vengeance 1/10
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Poor Brendan Fraser! Reduced to THIS?
preppy-38 April 2012
A real estate developer played by Brendan Fraser uproots wife Brooke Shields and teenage son to a house in the middle of the woods to start a new development complex. This angers the local wildlife and they start attacking and hurting Fraser in purportedly humorous ways.

Terrible comedy. Poor Fraser is constantly being attacked and humiliated by the animals that are lead by a murderous raccoon (seriously). All the jokes involve seeing Fraser in extreme pain and yelling or screaming. What is funny about seeing a man sprayed by a bunch of skunks, stung in his face by bees, attacked by an eagle, attacked in a Porto Potty by a bear and getting bitten all over by the raccoon? In the "hilarious" climax a bunch of birds do their duty all over a crowd of people. The movie has a good message--don't destroy the forests--but it's just sick and unfunny. I'm trying understand why Fraser did this. Seriously is his career THAT bad???? The few things that make it bearable are the special effects having the animals "talk" and do things animals can't do are flawless, some of Shields reactions to Fraser are actually amusing and the closing credits which has the cast clowning around. When the best and funniest part of the film is the closing credits there's something seriously wrong. Horrible comedy. Skip it.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Way Underrated
Fred VanOlphen4 December 2010
This movie is funny and entertaining. After starting to watch about four other movies at least this is one I can finish. It's also one your kids can watch. O.K. maybe it's not my favorite movie of all time but it is well done.

I really wonder how this movie ended up with less than a 3.0 rating. Thank God I take ratings with a grain of salt. This one's either being sabotaged or perhaps it says something about who is doing the ratings. If sex and violence is a requirement for you to think a movie is great don't bother with this one.

Brendan Fraser is great. Brooke Shields is great. Ricky Garcia is great. Eugene Cordero is great. Patrice O'Neal is great. Jim Norton is great. Matt Prokop is great. Billy Bush is great. Ken Jeong is great. Angela Kinsey is great. Samantha Bee is great. Alice Drummond is great. Toby Huss is great. Skyler Samuels is great. Gerry Bednob is great. And let's not forget all the great animal actors! I always love it when the animals win.

Hope this offsets some of the negativity.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews