Buddy

I just watched Buddy for the first time on TV. I thought it was great! I am a big animal lover and yes, I too treat them more like my children than animals.

Buddy is a movie that will delight animal lovers. I really felt that Rene Russo portrayed the bond between her and the gorilla. The loved each other.

When Buddy ran free at the fair, it was the frightened screams he was met with that frightened him. It was just cruel when people threw things at him. It very much saddened me when the inevitable happened. I cried and cried. I do not understand anyone who does not love this movie. The only thing I can think of, is that if you don't like this movie, you don't like animals.

My Take: More proof that decent special effects and pretty sets can't tell the story.

BUDDY is the film that BABE could have easily been, but while that harmless, little achievement took to a different direction (and succeeded as a great, little film), BUDDY takes off on the wrong track. The story elements are easily predictable, but that's rarely the worst part since the film, despite some imagination and style which went into the production design, the story drags on. It's dully paced and slow-moving, it's pretty hard to care for a somewhat interesting character (a domesticated ape, no less).

Rene Russo plays, and is actually fine as, eccentric wealthy animal lover Gertrude Lintz, who adopts all sorts of animals, chimpanzees mostly, and grooms them into civilized beings, dressing them up and teaches them to walk upright and eat on a table (with a spoon and fork, no less). Alongside her and her menagerie of trained (and well-dressed) apes is her husband (Robbie Coltrane), a helpful maid (Irma P. Hall) and her assistant (Alan Cumming). But when she decides to adopt a harmless orphaned gorilla, her confidence is slowly loosing as Buddy, as groomed and as attentive an animal he is, he's still an animal.

Russo and co., thankfully given some decent roles, are actually good, and the ape (cheesy as ape suits are today) is pretty endearing. But unlike BABE, the focus pitched on the animals are pretty tedious. This time, I think, giving the animals the gift of speech is a welcome asset. Director Caroline Thompson seemed to be distracted by the overall look of the film (the production design, from costumes to sets, are spontaneously elaborate) to strongly develop the script. The story lags a long in a drowsy, monotonous pace that could even put a few children to sleep.

What could have been an eagerly acceptable fantasy with touches of engaging tragedy is an elaborate and fancy bore. BUDDY isn't a failure, but it fails more than it succeeds. At best, it's a promise that never really got off the ground.

Rating: **1/2 out of 5.

My tastes may be a little more refined or educated than some previous reviewers. This is not a candidate for the Academy Awards, but still, it is a lovely movie. It is based on a true story and played by a capable and entertaining cast. The first half of the movie is hysterically funny.....the humor is simple, but very entertaining........(if you tastes lean toward juvenile humor such as "Bevis and Butthead", you may not agree). The rest of the movie is very "heart-warming" and even suspenseful. All actors deliver superb and energetic performances. Most of the staging is beautiful and wonderfully period with the exception of some computerized scenes at the World's Faire. Even Paul Ruebens is perfectly cast and does a perfect job! It was captivating and involving for family viewing and for those whose tastes are not limited to high-tech imagery and gory destruction. While I am also a big sci-fi fan and adore murder mysteries and suspense, I still found this to be a pleasing movie that truly involves the watcher in the story.....that is to say....those of us without narrow minds and tastes. If you dislike animals, this movie is not recommended.

It was really bad. So much focus on main actress instead of animals and the characters didn't feel likable.

This was a nice, gentle film with no villains, pretty colors, nice surround sound, a nice recreation of the early 20th century and a fast-moving story. That's the good news.

The bad news is that for a story that is supposed to be "true," it is ludicrous. No animal understands human language as well as another human. Duh! Not in this movie; here they do, which leads the filmmakers into their gigantic plus for Darwinism. They even bring a priest into the picture who proclaims (while looking into "Buddy" the gorilla's eyes, "Those are not the eyes of an animal!"

Are you kidding me?They aren't even subtle about their evolution propaganda and it's some of the most ridiculous baloney I've ever heard.

Too bad because, as I said, it's basically a nice film with nice people. They even show a nice husband, played by Robbie Coltrane. Hollywood usually doesn't show husbands in a good light. In their twist political correctness, women are good and men are bad. Not here.