|Page 1 of 9:||        |
|Index||84 reviews in total|
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!.
*** This review may contain 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
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.
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?
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.
Furry Vengeance (1:30, PG) Other: Talking Animals, 3rd string,
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.
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.
*** This review may contain 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.
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
*** This review may contain 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.
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.
|Page 1 of 9:||        |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|