There’s a chance that someone involved with the creation of Furry Vengeance anticipated viewers over the age of ten would enjoy it, but I rather doubt it. Already hopelessly trashed by critics, and racking up a whopping 2% Fresh at Rottentomatoes.com, the film is on course to become a laughing stock, and is possibly a lock for the Razzie.
While not something I would overly encourage on a normal basis, I invite you to visit the reviews of as many film critics as you can stomach, and get a clear picture of Furry Vengeance and film criticism.
Should you care to take me up on that, you will find countless reviews detailing the myriad ways in which this film is… and let’s not beat around the bush… incredibly stupid. You will also learn that Brendan Fraser is not exactly giving a performance to rival those of past Oscar winners, and you will probably hear more than a few people bemoan the fate of Ken Jeong for being involved.
I’m not sure of your reaction to these reviews, of course, but I object.
The question to ask yourself after spending some time perusing a few dozen reviews of this film is, “Did that tell me anything I didn’t already know?”
You may also wonder how many reviews were really written sight unseen.
Now, to be fair, it might not be very likely that anyone reviewed the film without seeing it… but a lot of them could have.
If you’ve seen the trailer, which gives you the general idea that the wildlife is fighting back against plans to develop their forest home, you know it’s stupid. It’s stupid by design. To say that Fraser isn’t delivering a great performance is on par with calling into question the skills of Wile E. Coyote. To even say he (either of them) is meant to act at all is stretching things somewhat. He’s just supposed to stand there and get hit with things.
That said, if you’re over twelve, don’t watch this movie for any reason.
The film’s main problem seems to be some sort of breakdown in theory, because it is simply that it isn’t animated that somehow makes it hopeless. This isn’t really because it can’t be “good,” but because those criticizing can’t let it be of some class that should be left to the very young. It’s live-action, and it’s in theaters, so the poison pens fly, and without realizing that to really take this movie to task is a kind of self-insult. Like throwing a film theory textbook at Sigmund & the Sea Monsters, at some point you have lost the battle of wits simply in starting it.
If you look at it as a film for kids though, you have to give the thing some credit. My son (nearly 9) loved it, and while some part of me rather hoped he wouldn’t, I had to let him have it. It’s nine year-old funny. The comic, super-slapstick destruction of Fraser’s, well-meaning, in over his head character is practically the definition of making kids laugh.
Had this one come out directly on DVD, it would have gone in the mix of other such titles and those who bothered to review it at all would have given it three stars (give or take a star), and the reviews would have said, “You know… it’s one of those. Your kids will laugh hysterically, and you won’t want to be in the room.” But, because it had the audacity to come out in theaters, critics feel they have to unite and amp up their hatred.
It’s the kind of movie that is actually somewhat meaningless to review. You know everything you need to know from the trailer, except that your kids will enjoy it. It’s a harmless, if utterly goofy kind of fun for them to have too, and if the Green message is a little overbearing, that may have something to do with it being for the very young as well. You may have to try rather hard to get past the fact that it truly is unbearable to watch with kids, but if you can, they’ll probably like it.
Over 10 – [xrr rating=.5/5]
Under 10 – [xrr rating=3.5/5]
Related articles by Zemanta
- Film: Review: Furry Vengeance (avclub.com)
- Movie Review | ‘Furry Vengeance’: Brendan Fraser Battles a Forest of Animals (movies.nytimes.com)
- Furry Vengeance (cinemablend.com)
- Review: Furry Vengeance (cinematical.com)