Peluda venganza

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!.

... 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.

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 just had to post my own review because if nothing else it has a lot of negative reviews here and now I disagree with those. I almost skipped this movie because of these even, but I'm glad I gave it a shot and watched it anyhow.

My wife and kids liked it too. There was a lot of cute and silly moments that brought every thing from chuckles to full on LOL's.

IMHO comedy is a hard thing to pull off for movies (and stand-up comics alike). The timing has to be right, can't be too deliberate, generally can't be too silly nor too dull, has to fit the audience and culture, etc. I feel like they pulled it off well the majority of the movie.

If I had only one complaint, I would say it's the title. At first glance it doesn't say, or give much of a hint to the genre.

Relax, have some popcorn.. If you are considering this movie to watch with your family, give it a shot.

OK, so I had free tickets to watch Furry Vengeance and despite all the negative reviews, I decided to give it a chance. You see, I've enjoyed my share of cinematic disasters in the past (The Adventures of Pluto Nash, anyone?) and so I thought: how bad can it be? So yeah, the story of animals getting revenge on a real estate agent that's tearing down their forest won't exactly win any Oscars or be forever cherished as a modern classic. However, Furry Vengeance was - in its own dumb way - fluffy (and dare I say furry) fun. Sure, it was stupid and shallow - but I found myself smiling and even releasing an occasional laugh, so as a whole it wasn't as bad as some people made it up to be.

To sum things up - if you walk into the film expecting nothing but Brendan Fraser's crazy hijinks, you'll get exactly what you paid for.

I gave it 5 stars out of 10.