I can't tell you how many times I've seen this movie; a rough estimate would be at least half a dozen times, just through three or four years. And amazingly enough, I laugh every single time. It may be that Michael Palin is just so damn funny and typically Monty Python-like in the film, it may be that Jamie Lee Curtis has a surprising amount of comedic talent, it may be that Kevin Kline is excellent in both of his roles in the film... heck, it may even be John Cleese's entertaining performance... and I'm not even a fan of him. The film manages to be incredibly funny despite being very tacky and downright tasteless in many, many scenes. The plot is pretty good, and, as far as I know, quite original. It deals with a multi-billionaire and a zoo, which (obviously) doesn't make a lot of money, like the billionaire wants it to. The film has a good pace and is rarely - if ever - boring. The acting is very good, but one wouldn't expect any less from such names as John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin. It was also a nice surprise to recognize Richard Ridings, who plays one of my favorite characters in the Luc Besson film, Jeanne D'arc: La Hire. I recognized him almost instantly by his very distinguished laugh. The characters are well-written, well-cast and well-acted, as well as credible. I thoroughly enjoyed most of them, even though they are mostly caricatures. That just added to the humor of the film, I think. As in several other of Kevin Kline's films, he plays two parts, and he, as always(well, nearly always, anyway) does so very well. I understand that this is, in some ways, apparently a sequel to the late-80's comedy A Fish Called Wanda; now, I haven't seen that film, so I can't really comment on how the two relate to each other, but if "Wanda" is in any way as funny as this movie, I'm gonna have to see it sometime. The humor is excellent; black, crude humor at its best. All in all, a very good comedy if you don't mind some tacky humor. I recommend it to fans of any of the actors, fans of tacky/crude/black humor and even fans of Monty Python, since both members involved in this are great. 7/10
106 Reviews
A Lemur Called Rollo
Galina_movie_fan7 July 2009
Let me take it out of my system first. There never will be another A Fish Called Wanda. That comedy was one and only, perfect, brilliant, mean, witty, the best film about culture clashes, the best backstabbing comedy, the best - everything. For me, Wanda is a Citizen Kane of the comedy. Period. What makes is outstanding, are the four partners in crime as written by John Cleese and played by Cleese himself, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Palin, and Kevin Kline that were simply incredible, and, let's face it, despite being criminals and back-stabbers, you would love them all. I know I did.
When Fierce Creatures was released 12 years ago, I ran to see it and I was bitterly disappointed. I expected Wanda, Part 2 - which is impossible because ...see the first paragraph. Last night I caught FC on TV and I have to admit that it IS a good and funny film. It knows that it is a follow up to A Fish Called Wanda. It references to the perfect predecessor, makes you laugh, and lets you meet again with the fabulous four and many supporting players from Wanda. Fierce Creatures has gained Cult Status with years, and I am now a part of its following. The script was written by John Cleese and the plot is convoluted and silly at the same time. The best, the funniest moments play off mistaken assuming that John Cleese's character Rollo, ex-cop appointed the London Marwood Zoo Director, is a sexy beast for whom one woman is not enough. The scenes between Cleese (Rollo Lee) and Willa Weston, an American business-woman (Jamie Lee Curtis) are the funniest. The weakest links in the movie are IMO Michael Palin who unlike his character Ken in AFCW can talk and he just would never shut up. His character became boring and annoying very soon. The same sadly should be said about Kevin Kline playing two roles, the Australian billionaire Ron McClain, ruthless, obnoxious, and vulgar, and his weakling loser son Vince whom his father despises. Needless to say there is not much love lost between an arrogant father and his estranged son. The film has so many hilarious jokes and witty references not only to A Fish Called Wanda but to Monty Python series that by the time of the conclusion, I had enough fun and laughs to tolerate and forgive the loud and messy final act.
When Fierce Creatures was released 12 years ago, I ran to see it and I was bitterly disappointed. I expected Wanda, Part 2 - which is impossible because ...see the first paragraph. Last night I caught FC on TV and I have to admit that it IS a good and funny film. It knows that it is a follow up to A Fish Called Wanda. It references to the perfect predecessor, makes you laugh, and lets you meet again with the fabulous four and many supporting players from Wanda. Fierce Creatures has gained Cult Status with years, and I am now a part of its following. The script was written by John Cleese and the plot is convoluted and silly at the same time. The best, the funniest moments play off mistaken assuming that John Cleese's character Rollo, ex-cop appointed the London Marwood Zoo Director, is a sexy beast for whom one woman is not enough. The scenes between Cleese (Rollo Lee) and Willa Weston, an American business-woman (Jamie Lee Curtis) are the funniest. The weakest links in the movie are IMO Michael Palin who unlike his character Ken in AFCW can talk and he just would never shut up. His character became boring and annoying very soon. The same sadly should be said about Kevin Kline playing two roles, the Australian billionaire Ron McClain, ruthless, obnoxious, and vulgar, and his weakling loser son Vince whom his father despises. Needless to say there is not much love lost between an arrogant father and his estranged son. The film has so many hilarious jokes and witty references not only to A Fish Called Wanda but to Monty Python series that by the time of the conclusion, I had enough fun and laughs to tolerate and forgive the loud and messy final act.
Enjoyable Fluff
rmax30482311 July 2013
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.
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.
I have a sneaking fondness for this movie
krumski11 November 2001
Yes, I know it wasn't as good as A Fish Called Wanda (which it was the unofficial "sequel" to - being not a continuation of the same characters, but featuring all the same lead actors, in roughly the same configuration and relation to one another as in the previous film). And yes, it's clear that John Cleese has lost a step or three on his precision and comic timing (though John Cleese at half speed is still funnier than most comic actors working today). But this film has such a sweetness and a general good spirit to it that I find it impossible to dislike.
The story itself is rather convoluted, and one could make a fair claim that it seems more a hodge-podge of stitched together ideas than a seamless throughline. That is so, and yet since it is a hodge podge of almost entirely *good* ideas, it's harder to find fault with. Cleese stars as an ex-cop who is hired by a huge Rupert Murdoch-like conglomerate to run an English zoo that they have picked up in a mergers acquisition. Needless to say, the zoo has absolutely no inherent interest to the company, but they are willing to keep it going if it can return a profit at a certain rate. Cleese plans to do this is by appealing to people's bloodlust, and only keeping the most dangerous and fearsome of the animals (the "fierce creatures" of the title). Things change somewhat when Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline show up to take over Cleese's job (but keep him on as an employee). A brainstorm by Kline (playing a character every bit as hilariously slimy and petty as his counterpart in Wanda) introduces the notion of corporate sponsorship into the zoo-going experience. Eventually, all the employees are decked out in animal costumes (like mascots at a "Zoo Land" amusement park), and Kline has even begun the process of introducing animatronic creatures behind the bars. All the while, a budding romance between Cleese and Curtis is playing out behind the scenes, and the two eventually join forces to try and save the zoo from the clutches of the crass and evil conglomerate.
Any one of the comic scenarios the film-makers bring up would be worth exploring to the end. The fact that they cannot seem to keep one satirical conceit going for any stretch, and feel the need to overhaul the plot in a new direction every twenty minutes or so, definitely lessens the impact the movie could have had. And yet, for example: just because the writers beg off early on the "fierce creatures" idea doesn't make it any less hilarious - both as a concept and in execution. The scenes of the kindly zookeepers trying to sell their individual cute little animals as dangerous is one of the funniest scenes in the movie. But then, later, when that concept has been forgotten, and we instead see Kevin Kline leading around a group of potential financial backers, giving them his notions of how corporate sponsorship could work at the zoo . . . well, that's one of the funniest scenes too. What I'm saying is, though a strong focus is something the film lacks, it makes up for it by filling its running time with enough entertaining and well devised comic moments to make you feel like you got your money's worth.
The performances help. As in Fish Called Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is not particularly noteworthy as an actress OR a comedienne, but she gets by on her general sultriness and willingness to play cheerfully along. Most importantly, she keeps out of the way of the big boys and lets them do their stuff. As I mentioned, Cleese is a little moldier here than usual, but there's still no one who does high-strung fussiness better, and he holds down the screen nicely. As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants). The sheer *energy* he throws out is infectious, and his ability to "play off" himself - in the scenes between father and son - is nothing short of superb. Blessedly, the dual role bit is revealed as more than just an actor's stunt by the way the movie is resolved: had Kline not been playing both roles, the movie could never end the way it does. That, too, was a nice touch.
Genial, breezy, good spirted - this is Fierce Creatures. Nothing in the masterpiece league but, especially if you've seen A Fish Called Wanda, it's a nice evening spent with old friends - with some new and well devised jokes thrown into the mix.
The story itself is rather convoluted, and one could make a fair claim that it seems more a hodge-podge of stitched together ideas than a seamless throughline. That is so, and yet since it is a hodge podge of almost entirely *good* ideas, it's harder to find fault with. Cleese stars as an ex-cop who is hired by a huge Rupert Murdoch-like conglomerate to run an English zoo that they have picked up in a mergers acquisition. Needless to say, the zoo has absolutely no inherent interest to the company, but they are willing to keep it going if it can return a profit at a certain rate. Cleese plans to do this is by appealing to people's bloodlust, and only keeping the most dangerous and fearsome of the animals (the "fierce creatures" of the title). Things change somewhat when Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline show up to take over Cleese's job (but keep him on as an employee). A brainstorm by Kline (playing a character every bit as hilariously slimy and petty as his counterpart in Wanda) introduces the notion of corporate sponsorship into the zoo-going experience. Eventually, all the employees are decked out in animal costumes (like mascots at a "Zoo Land" amusement park), and Kline has even begun the process of introducing animatronic creatures behind the bars. All the while, a budding romance between Cleese and Curtis is playing out behind the scenes, and the two eventually join forces to try and save the zoo from the clutches of the crass and evil conglomerate.
Any one of the comic scenarios the film-makers bring up would be worth exploring to the end. The fact that they cannot seem to keep one satirical conceit going for any stretch, and feel the need to overhaul the plot in a new direction every twenty minutes or so, definitely lessens the impact the movie could have had. And yet, for example: just because the writers beg off early on the "fierce creatures" idea doesn't make it any less hilarious - both as a concept and in execution. The scenes of the kindly zookeepers trying to sell their individual cute little animals as dangerous is one of the funniest scenes in the movie. But then, later, when that concept has been forgotten, and we instead see Kevin Kline leading around a group of potential financial backers, giving them his notions of how corporate sponsorship could work at the zoo . . . well, that's one of the funniest scenes too. What I'm saying is, though a strong focus is something the film lacks, it makes up for it by filling its running time with enough entertaining and well devised comic moments to make you feel like you got your money's worth.
The performances help. As in Fish Called Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is not particularly noteworthy as an actress OR a comedienne, but she gets by on her general sultriness and willingness to play cheerfully along. Most importantly, she keeps out of the way of the big boys and lets them do their stuff. As I mentioned, Cleese is a little moldier here than usual, but there's still no one who does high-strung fussiness better, and he holds down the screen nicely. As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants). The sheer *energy* he throws out is infectious, and his ability to "play off" himself - in the scenes between father and son - is nothing short of superb. Blessedly, the dual role bit is revealed as more than just an actor's stunt by the way the movie is resolved: had Kline not been playing both roles, the movie could never end the way it does. That, too, was a nice touch.
Genial, breezy, good spirted - this is Fierce Creatures. Nothing in the masterpiece league but, especially if you've seen A Fish Called Wanda, it's a nice evening spent with old friends - with some new and well devised jokes thrown into the mix.
Let's just hope there won't be a AFCW series like there was Halloween...
DJBlackSwan19 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
G/d forbid the Fish Called Wanda fundamentalists do like the Halloween 1 absolutists, and go around denying any existence or relevance of any subsequent films.
That doesn't mean this is a great flick or that the inevitable comparisons to AFCW will not or should not happen. But who could hate a movie that features baby ostriches and pocket-sized kangaroos?? Everyone loves a movie that makes fun of marketing people at corporatist companies. Especially me. So yes, I ended up enjoying the portrayal of McZoo as well as the oh-so-ironic product placement sight gags by Absolute, Guiness, Lego, Sunkist, etc.
Fans of the Jamie Lee Smirk and her trademark scene-stealing cleavage gimmicks will find plenty to amuse themselves, too. They could have left out the bonding moment with the gorilla, though. That was entirely too weird.
6/10. A nice letterbox version might have made it a 7.
That doesn't mean this is a great flick or that the inevitable comparisons to AFCW will not or should not happen. But who could hate a movie that features baby ostriches and pocket-sized kangaroos?? Everyone loves a movie that makes fun of marketing people at corporatist companies. Especially me. So yes, I ended up enjoying the portrayal of McZoo as well as the oh-so-ironic product placement sight gags by Absolute, Guiness, Lego, Sunkist, etc.
Fans of the Jamie Lee Smirk and her trademark scene-stealing cleavage gimmicks will find plenty to amuse themselves, too. They could have left out the bonding moment with the gorilla, though. That was entirely too weird.
6/10. A nice letterbox version might have made it a 7.
It's from the same people who gave the world "a fish called wanda"!!
Doc_Who31 December 1999
This movie is from the same people who starred in the english comedy "a fish called wanda"!!A tycoon takes over a zoo. Thre tycoon wants to promote the zoo by saying it has "fierce creatures". Of course the tycoon encountes some problems during the movie!The tycoon is played by Kevin Kline(in a dual role,yes like Wild,Wild West!!). Eventually the son and the zoo staff come up with a way to save the zoo!!If you Kevin Kline(in 2 roles),John Cleese(The Out of Towners,The World is Not Enough), Jamie Lee Curtis(True Lies,Halloween) and Micheal Palin(I dont know anything about him,Sorry!!) , then you might like this farce about a very strange zoo with the "fish called wanda" gang!!!
A Reunion Of The "Wanda" Cast In A Fun Movie With A Weak Story
sddavis6314 April 2012
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)
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)
A hoot and a half!
mallard-619 July 1999
This movie is fun, engaging, bright, and positive. In spite of some grave misgivings when I started to watch, I was definitely engaged with this farcical comedy. I have finally figured out why I was so taken with it--the animal actors!
Part of the appreciation of a work almost always is due to the sympathy one feels for the characters. That sympathy is won primarily by assorted Lemurs, Ostriches, Roos, etc. in this film.
Part of the appreciation of a work almost always is due to the sympathy one feels for the characters. That sympathy is won primarily by assorted Lemurs, Ostriches, Roos, etc. in this film.
Lots of harmless fun
Laitue_Gonflable12 April 2003
"Fierce Creatures" was marketed as a somewhat adventurous endeavour in teaming up much of the old team from the highly acclaimed "A Fish called Wanda" to do another film that was completely different and had nothing the same, except much of the cast.
Does this have the same sparkle? The short answer is no, but it is still good viewing. It tells the story of a highly greedy and successful business magnate, Rod McCain (Kevin Kline) who has just taken over a zoo in England. However, business regulations require that the zoo return 20% of revenue or it will be shut down. Put in charge is Rollo Lee (John Cleese), who is then somewhat overthrown by new recruit Willa Weston (Jamie Lee Curtis) and McCain's 'idiot' son Vince (also Kline). Essentially the film deals with the three of the new directors and their different schemes for making money and raising the revenue to 20%, but with plenty of sexual tension and comedies of error along the way.
It's a lot of fun, I think I've made that clear. It's by no means the best comedy put on film but it has a lot of the same laughs as a normal Cleese-written comedy; in some ways the character of Rollo Lee is very much like the character of Basil Fawlty. Kline is brilliantly hilarious as usual, he's the standout, while Curtis, Michael Palin, Robert Lindsay and Ronnie Corbett all give spirited performances. It's also nice for an Aussie to see Bille Brown making his big screen debut as the terrible right-hand man Neville.
Overall, it's an above average piece of writing, directing and performing that gives you a laugh. Perfect for a night in. 3 1/2 stars out of 5.
Does this have the same sparkle? The short answer is no, but it is still good viewing. It tells the story of a highly greedy and successful business magnate, Rod McCain (Kevin Kline) who has just taken over a zoo in England. However, business regulations require that the zoo return 20% of revenue or it will be shut down. Put in charge is Rollo Lee (John Cleese), who is then somewhat overthrown by new recruit Willa Weston (Jamie Lee Curtis) and McCain's 'idiot' son Vince (also Kline). Essentially the film deals with the three of the new directors and their different schemes for making money and raising the revenue to 20%, but with plenty of sexual tension and comedies of error along the way.
It's a lot of fun, I think I've made that clear. It's by no means the best comedy put on film but it has a lot of the same laughs as a normal Cleese-written comedy; in some ways the character of Rollo Lee is very much like the character of Basil Fawlty. Kline is brilliantly hilarious as usual, he's the standout, while Curtis, Michael Palin, Robert Lindsay and Ronnie Corbett all give spirited performances. It's also nice for an Aussie to see Bille Brown making his big screen debut as the terrible right-hand man Neville.
Overall, it's an above average piece of writing, directing and performing that gives you a laugh. Perfect for a night in. 3 1/2 stars out of 5.
Not as good as A Fish Called Wanda
andrewfleming-5789120 August 2018
Fierce Creatures is actually much funnier than it is given credit for. I think that it is compared to Fish Called Wanda so often that it becomes known as not being as good. However, if examined on its own merit it is actually very enjoyable. The characters are equally eccentric, particularly Michael Palins zookeeper. Kevin Kline goes from being the strongest link in Fish Called Wanda to being the weakest in this film. The whole film really lacks to chaos and confusion that makes Fish Called Wanda so enjoyable. However, there are still some funny scenes, such as the scene in the wardrobe and John Cleeses phone call that gets interrupted by the animals. In general, its another laughably silly film, but perhaps not as iconic or original as could be hoped for. 7/10
The Invisible Comedy !
elshikh425 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A comedy?! Maybe. But, for me, the misunderstanding points where (John Cleese) was considered as a loose stud went on and on and on. I only liked the first one of the telephone call. The matter of (Kevin Kline) playing 2 characters wasn't understood. Even the 2 characters were so silly themselves; especially the father's one; it gave us free farts along the way for nothing but exciting the nausea. Another character, the one played by (Michael Palin), was totally unfunny.
In fact, the comedy in this movie suffered from being nonexistent. The talking scenes are plenty with no ironic stuff; unless it's about (Cleese) being a playboy! Save the sequence of thinking (Cleese) as a killer, the action comedy was miserable as well. I freaked out due to the huge spider which they used more than once. Not to mention the idiot ending, where everything was simply solved by the death of the original owner. Ok, nothing here was entertaining or watchable.
Although I'm not of the ones who see how the first gathering of the four leads, (A Fish Called Wanda - 1988), was the greatest comedy, or a great comedy, but undoubtedly it's more thrilling and comedic than (Fierce Creatures). Maybe this one would be interesting to some middle aged, middle class men who would feel attached to (John Cleese)'s character, since the crazy situations make him win the love that he wishes and never had the boldness to achieve it. Otherwise, it's one heavy movie with empty circles that alleges being funny.
Saying that this is comedic is like saying that Tom & Jerry movies are violent; it's possible!
In fact, the comedy in this movie suffered from being nonexistent. The talking scenes are plenty with no ironic stuff; unless it's about (Cleese) being a playboy! Save the sequence of thinking (Cleese) as a killer, the action comedy was miserable as well. I freaked out due to the huge spider which they used more than once. Not to mention the idiot ending, where everything was simply solved by the death of the original owner. Ok, nothing here was entertaining or watchable.
Although I'm not of the ones who see how the first gathering of the four leads, (A Fish Called Wanda - 1988), was the greatest comedy, or a great comedy, but undoubtedly it's more thrilling and comedic than (Fierce Creatures). Maybe this one would be interesting to some middle aged, middle class men who would feel attached to (John Cleese)'s character, since the crazy situations make him win the love that he wishes and never had the boldness to achieve it. Otherwise, it's one heavy movie with empty circles that alleges being funny.
Saying that this is comedic is like saying that Tom & Jerry movies are violent; it's possible!
One of the funniest movies of all time
jamminec28 November 2004
...WAY funnier than "A Fish Called Wanda".
I enjoy "Wanda", but "Fierce Creatures" should get the acclaim that earlier film does. It has a few weak moments of sentimentality, but they're quickly forgotten; nearly every scene is packed to bursting with witheringly literate putdowns and rejoinders, performances given just the right amount of push over the edge, and someone's best-laid schemes unraveling in hilariously improbable fashion. Kevin Kline oozes handsome, clueless yuppie smarm from every pore; John Cleese plays a take-charge-but-eventually-beleaguered Basil Fawlty variation with his usual timing mastery.
A should-be comedy classic that doesn't get the praise it's due.
I enjoy "Wanda", but "Fierce Creatures" should get the acclaim that earlier film does. It has a few weak moments of sentimentality, but they're quickly forgotten; nearly every scene is packed to bursting with witheringly literate putdowns and rejoinders, performances given just the right amount of push over the edge, and someone's best-laid schemes unraveling in hilariously improbable fashion. Kevin Kline oozes handsome, clueless yuppie smarm from every pore; John Cleese plays a take-charge-but-eventually-beleaguered Basil Fawlty variation with his usual timing mastery.
A should-be comedy classic that doesn't get the praise it's due.
Great funny film
JanetCostumeSupervisor27 March 2012
Any one of the comic scenarios the film-makers bring up would be worth exploring to the end. The fact that they cannot seem to keep one satirical conceit going for any stretch, and feel the need to overhaul the plot in a new direction every twenty minutes or so, definitely lessens the impact the movie could have had. And yet, for example: just because the writers beg off early on the "fierce creatures" idea doesn't make it any less hilarious - both as a concept and in execution. The scenes of the kindly zookeepers trying to sell their individual cute little animals as dangerous is one of the funniest scenes in the movie. But then, later, when that concept has been forgotten, and we instead see Kevin Kline leading around a group of potential financial backers, giving them his notions of how corporate sponsorship could work at the zoo . . . well, that's one of the funniest scenes too. What I'm saying is, though a strong focus is something the film lacks, it makes up for it by filling its running time with enough entertaining and well devised comic moments to make you feel like you got your money's worth.
The performances help. As in Fish Called Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is not particularly noteworthy as an actress OR a comedienne, but she gets by on her general sultriness and willingness to play cheerfully along. Most importantly, she keeps out of the way of the big boys and lets them do their stuff. As I mentioned, Cleese is a little moldier here than usual, but there's still no one who does high-strung fussiness better, and he holds down the screen nicely. As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants). The sheer *energy* he throws out is infectious, and his ability to "play off" himself - in the scenes between father and son - is nothing short of superb. Blessedly, the dual role bit is revealed as more than just an actor's stunt by the way the movie is resolved: had Kline not been playing both roles, the movie could never end the way it does. That, too, was a nice touch.
Genial, breezy, good spirted - this is Fierce Creatures. Nothing in the masterpiece league but, especially if you've seen A Fish Called Wanda, it's a nice evening spent with old friends - with some new and well devised jokes thrown into the mix.
The performances help. As in Fish Called Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is not particularly noteworthy as an actress OR a comedienne, but she gets by on her general sultriness and willingness to play cheerfully along. Most importantly, she keeps out of the way of the big boys and lets them do their stuff. As I mentioned, Cleese is a little moldier here than usual, but there's still no one who does high-strung fussiness better, and he holds down the screen nicely. As with Wanda, though, it's Kevin Kline who really steals the show - this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis's pants). The sheer *energy* he throws out is infectious, and his ability to "play off" himself - in the scenes between father and son - is nothing short of superb. Blessedly, the dual role bit is revealed as more than just an actor's stunt by the way the movie is resolved: had Kline not been playing both roles, the movie could never end the way it does. That, too, was a nice touch.
Genial, breezy, good spirted - this is Fierce Creatures. Nothing in the masterpiece league but, especially if you've seen A Fish Called Wanda, it's a nice evening spent with old friends - with some new and well devised jokes thrown into the mix.
Superb comedy from start to finish...
CerebraX16 September 2004
I rather fail to see how anyone couldn't find this film funny. It still makes me laugh uproariously every time I see it, and I've seen it many, many times.
Special congratulations must go to Cleese and Kline, both of whom give exceptional performances, and there is a real sense of joy that comes through from the various situations in which these characters find themselves. Although Cleese's character is somewhat 'Fawlty-esque', and let's face it - this is what he does best, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
Jamie lee Curtis and Michael Palin do equally well, though Palin's character is almost as frustrating / annoying as was his role in 'Wanda', but I don't think this detracts from the enjoyability factor of the film.
This is an uplifting, and heart-warming affair, packed full of laughs, but with a more than reasonable plot line, and I really liked the ending, which cleverly capitalizes on Klines excellent character acting.
If I had to level any sort of criticism at 'Fierce creatures', it would be in the soundtrack department - i just didn't think it was as good as it could have been - but this makes little difference to the overall flow of the film, and I have no hesitation in awarding it 9.5 out of 10, and recommending it to anyone that enjoys a well made and endearing, quality comedy.
Special congratulations must go to Cleese and Kline, both of whom give exceptional performances, and there is a real sense of joy that comes through from the various situations in which these characters find themselves. Although Cleese's character is somewhat 'Fawlty-esque', and let's face it - this is what he does best, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
Jamie lee Curtis and Michael Palin do equally well, though Palin's character is almost as frustrating / annoying as was his role in 'Wanda', but I don't think this detracts from the enjoyability factor of the film.
This is an uplifting, and heart-warming affair, packed full of laughs, but with a more than reasonable plot line, and I really liked the ending, which cleverly capitalizes on Klines excellent character acting.
If I had to level any sort of criticism at 'Fierce creatures', it would be in the soundtrack department - i just didn't think it was as good as it could have been - but this makes little difference to the overall flow of the film, and I have no hesitation in awarding it 9.5 out of 10, and recommending it to anyone that enjoys a well made and endearing, quality comedy.
See it as a movie on itself, rather than to compare it to "A Fish Called Wanda"
philip_vanderveken25 August 2005
Despite the fact that this movie isn't a sequel to "A Fish Called Wanda", many people like to compare this "Fierce Creatures" with it. Some even seem to see that as enough reason not to like this movie. Personally I wouldn't go that far. For as far as I know the only comparison that can be made between the two is the fact that its story deals about animals and that most actors from the first movie also played a role in the second one. I don't think that's reason enough to like or dislike this movie and since I try to see it as a new and separate movie, I'll not make any further comparison between the two.
When a massive company - which is active in all kinds of industrial and commercial branches - takes over the failing London Marwood Zoo, the cruel tycoon Rod McCain is only interested in bringing more business to the zoo or in case that isn't possible, to sell it to Japanese owners who will turn it into a golf course. Octopus Inc. (that's the well-chosen name of the company) hires a new manager, called Rollo Lee, who almost immediately comes up with a plan that will definitely attract more customers. The zoo will have to get rid of all animals that aren't ferocious or dangerous enough, because according to him the audience is only interested in dangerous things. This new policy shocks the zookeepers, who will do anything possible to make him change ideas. But in the meantime Rod McCain wants to see results and when he doesn't get them quickly enough, he sends in his son Vince McCain and the up-and-coming business executive Willa Weston. They will have to take over control from Rollo Lee, but once they are there, Willa's views on zoo management completely change. While Vince comes up with a lot of merchandise, fake robotic animals, a lot of publicity boards all over the place,... she starts to realize the true value of these animals. Together with Rollo and the staff, she tries to prevent that the McCain's will completely destroy this zoo...
Overall the quality of this movie is quite good and the acting has a lot to do with that of course. I guess not everybody appreciates it as much as I do, but I really like John Cleese's style and in my opinion his interaction with Jamie Lee Curtis really works. Also interesting is Kevin Kline in his double role, Michael Palin as the bug-loving zookeeper,... I'm certainly not going to say that it's the best comedy I've ever seen, but I had a good time with it. Even though not all the jokes and gags worked perfectly, there were enough good ones to make me forget about that. And being a marketeer myself, I had even more fun with the jokes about the publicity. In our business it's very easy to go too far and that's something that was shown very well in this movie. Now don't think that I believe they should show this in every class about the do's and don't's in publicity, but it worked for me and that's all that counted when I was watching this movie.
Overall I had a good time watching this movie, but I can understand that not everybody appreciates it as much as I do. Personally I love all animals, but many people don't and may therefor not be that interested in this movie. Seeing so many of them in this movie, together with those fine and famous actors, really gave me a good time though. Add to this a simple, but decent story, some fine jokes,... and you know why I liked this movie. I give it a 7.5/10.
When a massive company - which is active in all kinds of industrial and commercial branches - takes over the failing London Marwood Zoo, the cruel tycoon Rod McCain is only interested in bringing more business to the zoo or in case that isn't possible, to sell it to Japanese owners who will turn it into a golf course. Octopus Inc. (that's the well-chosen name of the company) hires a new manager, called Rollo Lee, who almost immediately comes up with a plan that will definitely attract more customers. The zoo will have to get rid of all animals that aren't ferocious or dangerous enough, because according to him the audience is only interested in dangerous things. This new policy shocks the zookeepers, who will do anything possible to make him change ideas. But in the meantime Rod McCain wants to see results and when he doesn't get them quickly enough, he sends in his son Vince McCain and the up-and-coming business executive Willa Weston. They will have to take over control from Rollo Lee, but once they are there, Willa's views on zoo management completely change. While Vince comes up with a lot of merchandise, fake robotic animals, a lot of publicity boards all over the place,... she starts to realize the true value of these animals. Together with Rollo and the staff, she tries to prevent that the McCain's will completely destroy this zoo...
Overall the quality of this movie is quite good and the acting has a lot to do with that of course. I guess not everybody appreciates it as much as I do, but I really like John Cleese's style and in my opinion his interaction with Jamie Lee Curtis really works. Also interesting is Kevin Kline in his double role, Michael Palin as the bug-loving zookeeper,... I'm certainly not going to say that it's the best comedy I've ever seen, but I had a good time with it. Even though not all the jokes and gags worked perfectly, there were enough good ones to make me forget about that. And being a marketeer myself, I had even more fun with the jokes about the publicity. In our business it's very easy to go too far and that's something that was shown very well in this movie. Now don't think that I believe they should show this in every class about the do's and don't's in publicity, but it worked for me and that's all that counted when I was watching this movie.
Overall I had a good time watching this movie, but I can understand that not everybody appreciates it as much as I do. Personally I love all animals, but many people don't and may therefor not be that interested in this movie. Seeing so many of them in this movie, together with those fine and famous actors, really gave me a good time though. Add to this a simple, but decent story, some fine jokes,... and you know why I liked this movie. I give it a 7.5/10.
A Stellar Cast, Lackluster Comedy,
lesleyharris3017 August 2017
Fierce Creatures is a decent movie with a poorly developed plot, albeit a terrific comedic cast. I would certainly be rating this film much lower if it was not for the undeniable chemistry and comic timing between Kevin Kline, John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin. It is a pleasure to see them all together again after their stellar work in A Fish Called Wanda, it is just a shame they could not have been given better material. Kline is certainly the breakout performance here, playing two characters, one of which I was not aware was him until the end of the movie, it is always a pleasure to watch this versatile performer.
The plot is entirely ineffective, following a group of people struggling to run a zoo. We see them trying to keep their business alive, but are never given a reason to truly care about these characters or their situation.
The characters themselves are very poorly developed, literally as two dimensional as comedy film characters can get. We learn extremely little about everyone bar Vince, they are never given anything such as a distinguishable trait to make them more interesting.
Could have been gold, but it falls flat. As much as it is a pleasure to see these four on screen once again, Fierce Creatures is a let down for fans of both Monty Python and A Fish Called Wanda, if you see it on television it is worth a watch, but do not go out of your way to see it.
A self centred director takes over a zoo, much to the staffs dismay.
Best Performance: Kevin Kline
The plot is entirely ineffective, following a group of people struggling to run a zoo. We see them trying to keep their business alive, but are never given a reason to truly care about these characters or their situation.
The characters themselves are very poorly developed, literally as two dimensional as comedy film characters can get. We learn extremely little about everyone bar Vince, they are never given anything such as a distinguishable trait to make them more interesting.
Could have been gold, but it falls flat. As much as it is a pleasure to see these four on screen once again, Fierce Creatures is a let down for fans of both Monty Python and A Fish Called Wanda, if you see it on television it is worth a watch, but do not go out of your way to see it.
A self centred director takes over a zoo, much to the staffs dismay.
Best Performance: Kevin Kline
McCain Family Values
bkoganbing13 February 2012
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.
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.
Animal crackers
=G=25 October 2002
"Fierce Creatures" is a fun little romp about a tycoon who dispatches a couple of exec's to England to shore up the profitability of one of his lesser properties, a zoo. The film works much of it's comedy around zoo animals and the core cast waxing increasingly vaudevillian as it wears on. A gag a minute with a minor romantic thread, this wacky flick is less than sophisticated, quite tame, and very slap-sticky. An okay couch potato watch those in need of comic relief. (B-)
only good if it makes money...
lee_eisenberg6 May 2007
The first thing that you have to understand about "Fierce Creatures" is that it isn't a sequel to "A Fish Called Wanda". Rather, it makes fun of the notion that things aren't good unless they make money. Specifically, John Cleese plays a zoo owner who thinks that violence draws big crowds and thus wants to get rid of all cute-cuddly animals. Kevin Kline plays a double role as a media mogul (obviously based on Rupert Murdoch) and the mogul's parasitic son, totally indifferent about animals; both characters will probably make your skin crawl.
Most of the humor here involves things such as men getting caught with their pants down and Freudian slips. But no matter what happens, it comes out as a great movie, maybe better than "AFCW" (the former was sort of silly, this one makes a political statement). Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin play the only two 100% respectable characters in the movie, but you gotta love the other stars' performances. Definitely one that I recommend.
A vampire cop. Indeed!
Most of the humor here involves things such as men getting caught with their pants down and Freudian slips. But no matter what happens, it comes out as a great movie, maybe better than "AFCW" (the former was sort of silly, this one makes a political statement). Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin play the only two 100% respectable characters in the movie, but you gotta love the other stars' performances. Definitely one that I recommend.
A vampire cop. Indeed!
A Pythonesque Poke at Big Business
The-Sarkologist31 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Should have been put down.
AnnieKay22 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It's no good saying "Don't compare it to Wanda" - the makers rode on Wanda's coat-tails for publicity and there's an in-joke about it at the end between Cleese and Curtis. Also, some scenes are virtual remakes of others from Wanda (Cleese caught in state of undress! My aching sides.)
Even without its brilliant predecessor, this movie stinks on ice. If you find silly animal costumes, "flustered man sex jokes" ("Titsbits! I mean tidbits!" - repeat ad nauseam), repeated shots of JLC's cleavage (not on as good form as in Wanda, it has to be said) and fart gags entertaining then hallelujah! You've found your ultimate movie. For my part, I find all of the above tedious, hence my antipathy towards this movie. Cleese does his Fawlty schtick AGAIN ("SORRY!!" "WHAT?!?" etc), Palin does the same routine he's been doing throughout Python, Life Of Brian, Wanda etc. Kline is almost always funny, but even he labours in this. He gets marks for his "suicidal" line towards the end, but he seems in a state of panic throughout.
The recurring theme of Cleese being caught in compromising positions and as a result being thought a sex-maniac was old when the Carry On team did it to death in the Seventies. Similarly in Barbara Windsor territory were Curtis' lines in front of the Lemur cage - "Aren't they beautiful? Don't you just want to fondle them?" - while Cleese gurns like Sid James eating a nettle. We're entitled to expect better from these people.
Avoid.
Even without its brilliant predecessor, this movie stinks on ice. If you find silly animal costumes, "flustered man sex jokes" ("Titsbits! I mean tidbits!" - repeat ad nauseam), repeated shots of JLC's cleavage (not on as good form as in Wanda, it has to be said) and fart gags entertaining then hallelujah! You've found your ultimate movie. For my part, I find all of the above tedious, hence my antipathy towards this movie. Cleese does his Fawlty schtick AGAIN ("SORRY!!" "WHAT?!?" etc), Palin does the same routine he's been doing throughout Python, Life Of Brian, Wanda etc. Kline is almost always funny, but even he labours in this. He gets marks for his "suicidal" line towards the end, but he seems in a state of panic throughout.
The recurring theme of Cleese being caught in compromising positions and as a result being thought a sex-maniac was old when the Carry On team did it to death in the Seventies. Similarly in Barbara Windsor territory were Curtis' lines in front of the Lemur cage - "Aren't they beautiful? Don't you just want to fondle them?" - while Cleese gurns like Sid James eating a nettle. We're entitled to expect better from these people.
Avoid.
This comedy is a lot of fun, if you are a fan of "A Fish Called Wanda".
hu67512 September 2005
When a old farting heartless corporate mogul (Oscar-Winner:Kevin Kline) takes over a failing Zoo. The mogul is hoping to make money out of it by hiring a new Zoo director (John Clesse) by making the animals fiercer under the supervision of a bright business woman (Jamie Lee Curtis) and the dumb mogul's son (Played by Kline also). The new Zoo director has to deal with a resentful staff and other complications.
Directed by Robert Young (Splitting Heirs) and Fred Schepisi (Mr. Baseball, Roxanne, Six Digress of Separation) made an uneven but entertaining fitfully comedy that doesn't quite pays off as it should but it is Kline's comedic dual performance comes off best. The sexual tension between Clesse and Curtis is quite funny also. The film was originally filmed in 1995 by Young and then largely re-filmed by Schepisi. Then they edited Young's and Schepisi's version together into one film. Clesse, Curtis, Kline, Michael Palin, Maria Aitken and Cynthia Clesse. Which the six actors are in this film, also were together before in the instant classic comedy "A Fish Called Wanda". Panavision. (****/*****).
Directed by Robert Young (Splitting Heirs) and Fred Schepisi (Mr. Baseball, Roxanne, Six Digress of Separation) made an uneven but entertaining fitfully comedy that doesn't quite pays off as it should but it is Kline's comedic dual performance comes off best. The sexual tension between Clesse and Curtis is quite funny also. The film was originally filmed in 1995 by Young and then largely re-filmed by Schepisi. Then they edited Young's and Schepisi's version together into one film. Clesse, Curtis, Kline, Michael Palin, Maria Aitken and Cynthia Clesse. Which the six actors are in this film, also were together before in the instant classic comedy "A Fish Called Wanda". Panavision. (****/*****).
"It's not a sequel, it's an equal"
safenoe14 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I and so many others loved A Fish Called Wanda, and the question was whether there would be A Fish Called Wanda 2, as the whole world wanted to see Cleese, Kline, Curtis and Palin reunite because of their fantastic chemistry. I read that John Cleese was hoping a "sequel" would be along the tradition of the Carry On movies where the same troupe of cast members would be in a different setting but kind of the same comedic style. Maybe focus groups were conducted and the audience were kind of confused about the concept behind Fierce Creatures, so a genius make up with the line in the cinema trailer "It's not a sequel, it's an equal." Kind of neat if you know I mean.
The IMDb plot line for Fierce Creatures is: "Zookeepers struggle to deal with the policies of changing directors." Not sure if it's a coincidence, but Australian Fred Schepsi was brought in as the new director following initial test screenings, as the original director Robert Young was unavailable for reshoots. Also a new director of photography, Australian Ian Baker came on board, replacing the legendary Adrian Biddle, who had an impressive resume as director of photography.
Who knows, maybe one day Cleese, Kline, Curtis and Palin can reunite for a third film in the tradition of the Carry On movies. It's never too late when it comes to sequels, I mean equals.
The IMDb plot line for Fierce Creatures is: "Zookeepers struggle to deal with the policies of changing directors." Not sure if it's a coincidence, but Australian Fred Schepsi was brought in as the new director following initial test screenings, as the original director Robert Young was unavailable for reshoots. Also a new director of photography, Australian Ian Baker came on board, replacing the legendary Adrian Biddle, who had an impressive resume as director of photography.
Who knows, maybe one day Cleese, Kline, Curtis and Palin can reunite for a third film in the tradition of the Carry On movies. It's never too late when it comes to sequels, I mean equals.
What a waste!
macpherr30 March 1999
A group of really talented people and all those beautiful animals, the director and producers of this movie could avail themselves and make a good movie. Movies are about story telling. There is nothing in this movie that merits the audience's time and money.
Farcical, entertaining comedy with some genuinely funny moments.
Silverzero14 February 2003
This isn't a very important film so I'll be brief in what I have to say. Fierce Creatures is a generally amusing and quite enjoyable comedy. It stars the same four leads as did the 1988 hit, `A Fish Called Wanda' and even contains some in-jokes on that same film.
While never groundbreaking or thought provoking, Fierce Creatures does what it says it should do. The concept is quite imaginative, the four leads perform their roles superiorly and there is an impeccable comic timing.
Those with low expectations will come out very satisfied, and while it's easy to nit-pick and find faults, Fierce Creatures is a very good film that's not to be taken very seriously. 6.9 out of 10.
While never groundbreaking or thought provoking, Fierce Creatures does what it says it should do. The concept is quite imaginative, the four leads perform their roles superiorly and there is an impeccable comic timing.
Those with low expectations will come out very satisfied, and while it's easy to nit-pick and find faults, Fierce Creatures is a very good film that's not to be taken very seriously. 6.9 out of 10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
