Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Phil Hubbs So back in 1988 there was a highly quirky, sexy British crime heist movie with a mix of top cult British and American stars, it was a huge (and surprising) success. Nine years later the same team were back in this sort of sequel, or maybe prequel, no one was really sure. In the end it was just another comedy utilising the same cast, however, the novelisation of the film actually explains how both movies connect, but no one cares about the book so...The plot is radically different from the 'A Fish Called Wanda', this is not any kind of crime comedy but it still involves unscrupulous people. Its all about John Cleese's character Rollo coming to look after a small typically British zoo of mainly small harmless animals, which he then tries to convert into a zoo full of fierce creatures. He has to do this because the main company he works for (that own the zoo) wants better revenue from the attraction hotspot. Thusly he is instantly at odds with the zoo's team of caring keepers who obviously are against this. At the same time Rollo must contend with Willa Weston and Vince McCain (Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) who are overseeing this latest acquisition by the company to make sure it makes money.You see the problem with this comedy is the fact they have tried to basically remake 'Wanda'. Many of scenes in this film are rehashes from the original and are going for exactly the same laughs, the cast are playing virtually the same kind of characters and in the case of Jamie Lee Curtis her characters name has clearly been made as close as possible to Wanda (Willa). I really don't understand why they have done this because everyone knows this kind of thing hardly ever works, it doesn't matter how grand your cast roster is.Much of the said cast is of course taken from the first movie, and I don't just mean the main cast either, many smaller roles and cameos feature actors/actresses from the first movie. Does that somehow make things better? are these actors suppose to connect this story to the first movie somehow? Apparently not as this is supposed to be more of a stand alone movie...so why use the same cast then?? I mean sure the use of the classic British comedic legend Ronnie Corbett is very nice, a nice addition, but he barely does anything and is clearly there just to ramp up the star meter. Its an all British type affair so lets get some British gems of comedy...yeah OK but at least make use of them, at least make a good film with them.I mean watching Cleese in this is actually cringeworthy, he's doing all his usual typical funny little quirks he's done his entire career because that's what people expect, but its old hat now. He brings nothing new to the table here which isn't entirely his fault because (like I said) people wanna see that but you gotta try and break the mould guy! In short Cleese is basically Basil Fawlty in charge of a zoo...but not as funny, sweet idea, but like I said its not as funny as it sounds. At the same time watching Cleese trying to act sexy and dashing whilst cuddling up to Curtis (again) is horrible!! its like watching your aging dad trying to be sexy n cool with a younger woman, God no! As pointed out already Curtis plays the same character again too, a sexual female predator that is after Rollo but has to shake off the ever lurking Vincent (Kline), yet again. This leads to Kline who (as in the first movie) is head and shoulders above the rest giving the best performance. Kline seems to be really really good at playing the brash, pig-headed, egotistical Yank that won't think twice about being a complete sh*t no matter who's watching. He's rude, arrogant and cruel (yet again) and has his target set on Cleese's character Rollo (yet again), you notice I'm having to type 'yet again' quite often here. Do I have to mention Palin and his character that bares a remarkably close resemblance to his character in 'Wanda'? Nope, its the same character.Don't get me wrong this isn't a terrible movie, its not all bad, there are some nice moments of farcical humour, just not that much is all. It has everything you'd expect from a naughty British comedy that has two Pythons in it (no not the scaly reptilian kind). Characters running around in their underwear (Cleese again!), lots of sexual double entendres, silly visual gags, pratfalls, slapstick and the odd hint of violence which you of course don't actually see. Thing is, the first movie was a smart, witty, sexy, dark comedy aimed at adults. This movie is a childish, immature, infantile, watered down excuse of a comedy that isn't really aimed at anyone. The kids won't appreciate the performances (or at least what they were aiming for) and there's nothing too visually appealing going on for them either, whilst its way too dumb and soft for adults. There's no point having Jamie Lee Curtis looking all slinky if she's not gonna actually do anything.I think the idea for a quaint little British zoo battling against corporate suits is fine and has promise, but its been completely squandered here. For the first time ever I would have to say that the shenanigans of both Cleese and Palin actually bored and annoyed me at times. I've never really come across a movie that has tried to pretty much copy its predecessors formula so blatantly. I mean seriously! why would you even watch this when you have the first movie which is exactly the same and so much better.4/10

Robert J. Maxwell If you like "A Fish Called Wanda," you'll probably get a kick out of this farce, in which an Australian magnate sends two Americans to a British zoo to make it turn a profit. The bad guys are Kevin Kline, Jamie Lee Curtis, and John Cleese, at least until Curtis and Cleese fall for each other.Cleese intends to make money from the zoo by offing all the cuddly little animals and replacing them with "fierce creatures." The tree huggers who run the zoo and love all the animals try to convince the dim-witted Cleese that the cuddly things are in actuality deadly when provoke, telling him tales of people who have torn to shreds by an angry lemur and other nonsense.Cleese is persuaded not to kill the animals but he advertises them all as Dangerous to Man and, to boost profits, drags in merchandising in various forms. A fully grown Bengal tiger wears a kind of table cloth advertising Absolute Vodka with the logo Absolute -- FIERCE. A brand new panda is installed but it's a robot and all it can do is slowly raise and lower its head.Other absurdities abound, some funnier than others. Curtis, wearing a very low-cut dress and a smile, bends down to pet a coati mundi or something and the distracted Cleese mutters, "Yes, that's one of our breast mammaries -- er, best mammals." The whole set-up is in a way a distraction. Everything seems to rush by. People fall down. It's a little exhausting and lacks some of the earnest wit of "A Fish Called Wanda." There is no line here that's the equivalent of, "The philosophy of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.'" Still, it has some laugh-out-loud moments, at least for me. I think the one I enjoyed most appears near the end. Kevin Kline has been playing the grasping and nasty Australian billionaire with a farcical Australian accent, and also playing the billionaire's son. The elderly billionaire shows up at the zoo, discovers the fraud and confronts his son, whom he holds responsible. Says the ruthless magnate, "The last words you'll hear from me is --" A shot rings out from off screen and a bullet hole appears in the Australian's forehead. Without any change in his expression and after only the slightest pause, he continues, "you're fiiirrred." But his voice has slowed down and become baritone, like a tape recorder with dying batteries. Holding the same angry posture he slowly flops backwards to the grass, a mannequin, evoking images of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad.

sddavis63 The problem that "Fierce Creatures" has to overcome - and, to be perfectly honest, the problem that it doesn't and probably couldn't overcome - is the inevitable comparison to "A Fish Called Wanda." I thought "Wanda" was gut-wrenchingly funny; one of my favourite comedies ever. "Fierce Creatures" reunites basically the entire starring cast from that movie (John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Palin and Kevin Kline) but gives them a totally unrelated and original story to work with (although the very last scene of the movie does pay homage to the earlier movie, as Cleese's character inadvertently calls Curtis's "Wanda.") So this isn't a sequel in any way, shape or form. It's just the cast reunited in a different project. But if you've ever seen "A Fish Called Wanda" you're going to be painfully aware that this isn't as good.In this, Curtis is actually playing Willa Weston, an employee of a media mogul who's just bought a zoo in England and - unknown to Willa, who's sent to take charge of it - is planning to close it. Cleese played Rollo Lee, who had been in charge of the zoo and had planned to maximize profits (and thus hopefully save the zoo) by getting rid of all the gentle, timid animals and keeping only the frighteningly fierce creatures, believing that those animals are the only ones people come to see. (Cleese is perhaps the only one of the stars who I thought was as good and as much fun as in "Wanda.") Kline played both the mogul and his son Vince, sent with Willa, and in love with her (and equally convinced that she's in love with him) while Palin played one of the zookeepers, with a particular soft spot for tarantulas.It is, in fact, nowhere near as good as "A Fish Called Wanda." What I liked about it, though, was that it did make me laugh out loud several times - and many so-called comedies don't do that, and don't even come close to doing that. Some of the content is actually quite funny, especially some of the misunderstandings about Rollo's sexual activities that arise from people hearing only parts of conversations and not understanding what's actually happening. It's not really original, but it is funny enough. What doesn't work, though, is the story. There isn't enough to hold a movie together. This basic plot would have perhaps made for a great half hour TV sitcom episode. Trying to stretch it out over an hour and a half (and thankfully no longer than that) was overkill to say the least. To me at least, the story had no real cohesion. It's also exceptionally confusing at times. The beginning of the movie, for example, seems to set Rollo up as the bad guy, but then there's a sudden shift as Rollo turns out to be a softie, and Vince and his dad become the real nasty characters. The shift in the Rollo character was a bit too sudden for my liking, and Kline's Vince was too over the top in a way that wasn't really either funny or likable.I still liked this and had fun with it and laughed at it. But the weak story takes its toll, and the unavoidable comparison to "A Fish Called Wanda" makes this one suffer. (7/10)

bkoganbing If Fierce Creatures does not make you appreciate the number of people who volunteer to care for the exotic animals in today's zoos who were never asked if they wanted to leave their habitat to be on exhibit than I don't know what will. Even worse the thought of privatizing zoos to someone who is a philistine like the father that Kevin Kline plays.Kline plays the Rupert Murdoch like father who heads an international conglomerate and he also plays his wastrel and oafish son as well.Father Kline introduces what he thinks is a new policy, the zoo will only exhibit the most dangerous and Fierce Creatures to give the public thrills and chills. Obviously this lugnut has never heard of petting zoos. He sends new director John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis to run the place. Soon though they are on the side of the staff, but still have to make the zoo be a money maker to satisfy the boss.A lot of the humor in Fierce Creatures involves the various crazy marketing techniques designed. Since along with Cleese a whole lot of the Monty Python alumni are in this film you know it is going to be zany.Lots of Monty Pythonesque type humor in Fierce Creatures and that's always good.