Furry Vengeance (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

Fmovies: 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.

sorry the other reviews expected more from this movie! did they read the summary?

i found it stupid, silly, and great fun! sometime silly is best when the actors know it is silly.

no the acting isn't grand and yes the plot is goofy but isn't that what this movie is all about?

put your expectation on the shelf, grab your favorite drink & snack, and watch something that is consistently silly and just plain dumb! the animals are a hoot and 'the family man' gets a real lesson from them.

and stay watching for the goofy closing credits! it's just plain fun to watch and the actors appear to have enjoyed themselves.

Furry Vengeance fmovies. This is nowhere near as bad as some of the reviews here are saying. The CGI is a bit poor but other than that it is a good family movie. If you watch the film right to the very end there is a very funny dance routine done by the cast. Good to see actors letting their hair way down and having a bit of fun. Brendan Fraser & Brooke Shields are clearly not egomaniacs. I got a few good laughs out of this and it would be a great movie to watch with the kids. I am going to be generous with my score as the 3.8 it has at the moment is very unfair. It is much better than that. Again, be sure to watch the cast dance routine while the end credits roll.

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.

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!.