Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

baronrock Given that the central premise is shaky - animal-lovers resisting the commercialization of leisure time, in this case zoos? - this gentle, well-meaning film still ought to be a lot funnier than it is. It's quite cleverly written, chock full of funny actors and fierce creatures, but the whole thing comes across as a trifle half-hearted, especially amongst the supporting cast. The animals certainly play their part, but there ought to be more gags, really. Is the film trying to make a serious point? If so, it rather gets lost in the edit. Cleese reprises his Fawlty-esque persona to good effect and Kevin Kline is brilliant, as ever. But the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Maybe the director wasn't snappy enough? Still, it's all good fun - and on re-viewing seems rather better than the first time you saw it.

bowmanblue After the massive success of A Fish Called Wanda, there was a lot of pressure on the four main stars to reunite. Then, when the 'sequel' (which isn't actually a sequel, simply a new story with new characters, played by the original four actors) came out, it was a bit of a let-down (apparently).I can see where the negatives reviews came from, not because Fierce Creatures is a bad film (it isn't - I find it hilarious!), but because it's so radically different from its predecessor. A Fish Called Wanda was dark and adult in nature, plus its plot of double-crossing bank robbers and corrupt barristers was definitely suited for adults into black comedy. Therefore people expected Fierce Creatures to offer something similar. It doesn't. It's a bit of a mish-mash of comedy styles, but I see it more like a modern form of a 'Carry On...' film.It's light-hearted, it's bawdy, it's corny, it's basically a farce of a film and it never tries to take itself seriously. I almost expected Benny Hill to run on at any stage, followed by a small bald man having his head patted - it's that sort of level. However, if you're into that (and the great Benny Hill proves that that sort of humour has international appeal), you should enjoy it.Seriously, it's also as clever as Wanda, poking fun at a large 'News Corporation-style' company buying a British zoo and trying to use awful mass-marketing techniques to try and increase revenue. It's just a totally different form of humour. Fans of Monty Python will revel in (the much underused) Michael Palin's character and although Kevin Kline didn't deserve another Oscar for his performance, he was almost rivalling Cleese in his madcapness! If you've seen and loved A Fish Called Wanda, don't judge Fierce Creatures too harshly. It was never meant to be a sequel, just some harmless fun with animals (and only the one bullet to the head).

david-sarkies My first impression of this movie is that it is very Monty Python. This is not surprising considering that John Cleese wrote it. The film comprises of the actors from A Fish Called Wanda, but unlike the previous movie, the comedy in Fierce Creatures is much more Pythonisque. The most Pythonish part of this movie is the first part where the zookeepers are trying to convince Cleese that these cute, cuddly, animals are actually vicious creatures.An executive, Willa, quits her job to go and work for the most powerful businessman in the world. The problem is, is that the company that she was going to oversee he had already sold, so she decides to take up the offer of running a zoo. The bosses son, who likes Willa and wants to sleep with her, goes over to England with her to help run the zoo. The rules are that the zoo must make a 20% profit margin or it is deemed too useless and is torn down. This is a problem because there are a lot of animals in the zoo that will be killed with it. But the tycoon doesn't care, he just wants his money.Fierce Creatures is a poke at big business and the way that it sacrifices that which makes life interesting for money. The boss is willing to kill all of the animals in the zoo, and in fact didn't fire Cleese because he thought he did kill some of the animals. It also has a go at Rupert Murdoch because the Tycoon is a New Zealander and has a very bad Australian accent. In fact, the minute the boss enters the movie you immediately know that he is an Australian, though the claim to be a New Zealander really bad because New Zealander accents are nothing like Australian accents (well, okay, they are, but listen really closely when they say six).It is also cute the way Cleese is set up in a way that he seems to sleep with multiple women. One can see a set up happening, and it is always done in a way that it seems he has multiple women, which is quite cute. The thing is that Cleese does not have any women in the movie except for Willa at the end. And of course the bosses' son is quite jealous about this.Fierce Creatures is a pretty good movie and sticks to what is expected from Monty Python. Those who appreciated Monty Python will find that this movie is just as enjoyable.

bigverybadtom A little background first: I remember reading a magazine article where John Cleese talks up this movie as being very funny. But later on I would learn that the original movie, after being shot, got a bad reception from preview audiences so they redid the whole thing. The revised version is hardly good either.A trite premise: a conglomerate head (based on Rupert Murdoch but not resembling him) happens to obtain a failing zoo as part of a major package purchase and wants to make it profitable by eliminating the "cuddly" animals and retaining the "fierce", and therefore supposedly exciting ones. (He's never heard of petting zoos?) Of course the people at the zoo try to resist the plan.A confusing plot, recycled and overused jokes, and poor performances by all involved make this a dud. I didn't like "A Fish Called Wanda" that much but it was certainly far better than this.