En pata de guerra

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.

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.

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!.

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.

... and if you expect anything else than Brendon Fraser behaving goofily , cute little animals doing things that are impossible outside of a Warner Brothers Road Runner cartoon, and a generous helping of gross-out jokes that seem to have no lasting consequences, then you are in the wrong place.

I feel I need to defend this film. A 3.8 current rating? Seriously? And a 23 Metascore rating? And yet "Funny Games" (1997) about home invaders torturing members of a household gets a 7.6 rating and a 69 Metascore? And a Criterion release? And, no, I can't think of any circumstances under which I would want to be "challenged" by such material.

I have had a rough week. I had three refrigerators delivered to my house before I finally got one that worked, after one that was only two years old died. And my garbage disposal is broken and leaking. This was just the film to cheer me up. Because of all the gross-out jokes I don't think I would want kids to see this, and that must have hurt box office because I think kids might have been part of the target audience, but it hit the spot for this adult.

Citizen Kane it isn't, but if you just want to laugh and put your brain on hold I don't think another film could do a better job.