User Reviews

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!.

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.

I am blown away that this has a 3.8 star rating currently! What more do people want? I've seen a lot of reviews saying things along the lines of "how could Brendan Fraser stoop so low?" I thought the movie and all the actors were perfectly fine and quite funny. Is there an alternate version of this movie I haven't seen or something that I'm getting mixed up with this?

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.

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 depicting one, apparently figuring nobody in the audience would notice ... or maybe care.

This film reminds me of nothing so much as the conservative political pundit William Kristol. He's bright, well informed, charming, articulate, thotful, and well intentioned. And you know that every single time he's opened his mouth for the last quarter century, whatever comes out of it has been dead wrong. Reliably. Consistently. Every time. Without let or regret. And he just keeps on doing it!

I cannot imagine what anybody ever said to the participants in, or financiers of, this train wreck that made them think it would be a good idea. Redeeming thot? As long as you're still alive, things can always get worse.

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.

I thought this movie was insultingly bad next to Land of the Lost(2009). In fact watching the kind of movie this was, I wonder if it was written for Will Ferrell, but he was not available, so they went with Brendan Fraser instead.

This movie can't decide if it wants to be a family film, or edgy adult comedy, it blurs the line quite badly. Brendan Fraser is unfunny and uninteresting to watch, he is oftener enjoyable to watch, but he just was'nt this time. Usually I like movies about smart animals, but everything was too precise in this film. Not to mention the comedy was badly written, resulting to unfunny written slapstick. Brooke Sheilds who plays Frasers wife, looks amazingly bored through most of this, not to mention there is no chemistry between Fraser and Shields.

So if you are looking for a funny entertaining film, it's not Furry Vengeance

... 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.

Once again. What is wrong with everybody?! I don't understand the low reviews. This movie was a hoot! Granted, kids are going to love the animals, but it wasn't kiddy at all. My husband and I sat there in front of the movie, and we cracked up. We love slapstick and situation comedy. For those who only love drama, no, this is not for you. For those who like Airplane, Night at the Museum, original Pink Panther, you will like this. I heard so much bad in reviews, that I put off watching it. Turns out, I got a comedic cleansing from it.

The casting was great, especially Brenden Fraser as Dan Sanders, and Ricky Garcia as Frank...PERFECT! One improvement I would make, and that would be to take some of the environmentalism out of it. It was a bit much. Couldn't the animals guard the forest without constant comments of green, etc. The other would be to tie the movie together a bit more at the end. Like have hikers and a tour guide. Loved the part before the credits!!!!! Brendan Fraser, you know how to make people laugh. More movies please! I will buying this movie.

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.

The movie doesn't even worth to get 1 point out of 10; I would give 0.2 if I could. I would recommend this film maybe for children under 5 years old. The special effects were really poor. Acting was not that awful. I just cant understand why brandon frazer accepted the role in the movie. The plot and the script was quite primitive without any deep thought. I cant give high evaluation for directing too. The director should be ashamed that he made such movie. I would say that the movie should nominated for the worst movie of the year.

Generally, you should not spend one and a half hours watching this cheap piece of trash.

Honestly, I had low expectations because of all these reviews and you know what? I was pleasantly surprised. Was it original? No. Was it predictable? Yes. Were the effects bad? Yes. But that was the intention because it's not a serious movie. It is a kids movie and while I am a 27 year old kid ready, I was crying with laughter and couldn't breathe. Maybe I have a bad sense of humour (but I really hope I don't) , but I found it pretty funny and cute. It is a great movie for a relaxing evening when you don't want to think too hard about the plot and want to escape everyday problems. Many people rate it as if they expected an Oscar nomination, but again, it is supposed to be a stupid cheesy fun movie, not a serious one.

So sue me, but if I cry with laughter when watching a movie, I'll give it 10/10

To be frank, FURRY VENGEANCE is one of those films where the best bits are all in the trailer, the film itself isn't bad but it has a knack for trying to hard to be funny, every attempt it makes at humor is flawed because you'll find yourself wondering many times, where's the joke?.

The good thing about it is that it never gets annoying like many other comedies especially the collection of spoofs like DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, MEET THE SPARTANS, DISASTER MOVIE and VAMPIRES SUCK, at least you'll be able to sit through this should you choose to watch it.

I'd recommend this film for kids, adults might find it a bit dry so there I recommend something else.

Furry Vengeance tells the story of animals that are trying to save their forest, by making Dan's life miserable. I have read some reviews about this movie and have this to say. It's a kids movie! Not Citizen Kane. Seriously though, I actually enjoyed this film. It had some genuinely funny moments in it, The Whak-a-Mole Gag, The Toilet gag, and had some great one liners. However, a few times, I found myself thinking, "All right. That's enough." The skunks were funny the first time, but not the fourth time. The senile lady didn't add that much either. But again, this is a kids movie. Kids I'm sure love this movie. The kids that were in my theater certainly did. I agree that this film is a mix between, "Home Alone" "Over the Hedge" and "Hoot" but it is not as bad as people make it out to be. Do you want my advice? If you can't stand any form of slapstick violence or cute little animals, then skip it. However, if you enjoy those kinds of films, maybe you should check out this film, or at the very least rent it when it comes out. Again, not the greatest film ever made, but it's not terrible!

A real estate developer played by Brendan Fraser uproots wife Brooke Shields and teenage son to a house in the middle of the woods to start a new development complex. This angers the local wildlife and they start attacking and hurting Fraser in purportedly humorous ways.

Terrible comedy. Poor Fraser is constantly being attacked and humiliated by the animals that are lead by a murderous raccoon (seriously). All the jokes involve seeing Fraser in extreme pain and yelling or screaming. What is funny about seeing a man sprayed by a bunch of skunks, stung in his face by bees, attacked by an eagle, attacked in a Porto Potty by a bear and getting bitten all over by the raccoon? In the "hilarious" climax a bunch of birds do their duty all over a crowd of people. The movie has a good message--don't destroy the forests--but it's just sick and unfunny. I'm trying understand why Fraser did this. Seriously is his career THAT bad???? The few things that make it bearable are the special effects having the animals "talk" and do things animals can't do are flawless, some of Shields reactions to Fraser are actually amusing and the closing credits which has the cast clowning around. When the best and funniest part of the film is the closing credits there's something seriously wrong. Horrible comedy. Skip it.

If the main actors had been Alice Drummond and Billy Bush, rather than having them as bit parts, this film would've been infinitely more entertaining.

Of course, then you would also need some writers with at least SOME presence of mind between them. Someone also needed to tell the director that animals with CGI mouths that move, and constantly make whining human noises, are just CREEPY. And CHEESY. They're CHREEPY. Leave them out. Let them be their real animal selves -- just as cute, just as funny.

As for the other actors, Brooke Shields' performance as the wife/mother is embarrassing to watch, as is that of the son. I swear that in some of Brendan Frasier's scenes, you can actually see a glimmer of self-consciousness in his eyes, of a properly mortified "Have I come to this?".

The occasional humorous moments are quickly drowned in extravagance. It's as if the writers became so enamored with their own comedic genius that when they wrote a single, small funny moment they immediately tried to top it, over and over -- the results, being something like having your older brother's friend come over and make increasingly louder farting sounds in his armpit, over and over, even though no one is laughing.

There is a message of "green" or "environmental preservation" in this film, but it is so hypocritical and diluted that its presence feels more like the blatant leeching of a trend, rather than sincere feeling or conscious action. I like to imagine what this film would've been if it had been made as a horror or disaster film, rather than a would-be family comedy.

Still, the worst thing one can say about a movie is that it was boring. This one did at least hold my attention long enough to be mentally present for the few-and-far-between humorous moments (almost all belonging to Alice Drummond and Billy Bush).

I have to admit that I thought this movie was incredibly stupid, but my kids loved it, and afterall, it was made for them, not for me. They laughed up a storm and gave it 10/10 when I asked them (my rating of 6 is an average of their score and mine!)

As other reviewers have written, you have to give the cast credit for giving it their all, even if it was in pursuit of a rather questionable goal. We watched the gag reel and Making Of video on the DVD, and they clearly had a ball making this movie. I also give them credit for shoehorning in a great message about protecting forests - it's never bad for kids to hear that.

If you're expecting a deep, meaningful movie experience, this ain't it, but if you and your kids want some cheap laughs, this is a safe bet.

I don't usually bother with reviews but when I logged into IMDb and searched for Furry Vengeance I was astonished to find the movie was actually lounging in the bottom 100 of all time I was simply stirred into action to defend this movie. I have put two and two together and decided that the low rating this movie has accrued has probably everything to do with a bunch 20 something nerdy tech heads who have yet to enjoy the pleasure of having children, I watched this film with 3 young children of various ages and they had a ball as I did, there was several laugh out loud moments and not just for young children but adults too, but if you're a twenty something adult you might find it so uncool inverted commas! so seriously you view life. When you have children of your own movies like this will become so much more enjoyable believe me!. I'd give this movie a 7 rating from an adult with children perspective but I rated it a nine because the children in my presence absolutely adored it and would probably have gave it ten if they could rate it themselves. Some people should really learn to enjoy life sometime?

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.

Ah, "Furry Vengeance"... this is a classic case of a terribly-made film, with terribly-likable actors. Brendan Fraser and Brooke Shields lead the cast with good performances, and the film does have some fun, quirky characters played well by actors including Ken Jeong, Rob Riggle and Angela Kinsey.

The film is your basic "save the rainforest" kids movie, where cute animals torment our main character (Fraser as Dan Sanders), whom is plowing down parts of a forest to make room for urban development. Shields (gorgeous and talented, and surprisingly good in this movie considering the material she has to work with) plays his wife, while Matt Prokop plays his son, whom doesn't like what he is doing.

The script is quite a mess. It's essentially "Home Alone" with animals, as Fraser, who looks like he's having fun in his role, is hit with various almost Rube-Goldberg-like traps set by the animals. It is very cartooney and outlandish.

The film also sports some abysmal special effects. The CGI for the animals is cheap and unpolished, and the animations look like generic tests. It was like the studio ripped the film away from the CG artists halfway through making the effects- they look unfinished.

I dunno... the script is awful, the effects are bad, the direction is generic, the jokes are often unfunny. But somehow, I can't give this a 1 out of 10 as I should, because I really liked the cast, and they made it just bearable to sit through.

I'm giving this a 4 out of 10. Bad movie, great cast and just a few laughs that worked.