Furry Vengeance Reviews

Oh, boy, where to begin?

For reasons far beyond me, in the time since I first compiled a list of Movies I've Streamed on Netflix in 2015 (which is where I originally commented on 'Furry Vengeance'), I decided to subject myself to a second viewing of the 2010 Brendan Fraser/Brooke Shields disaster. My opinion of the movie didn't change... much. But I DO have a few additional thoughts after watching a second time -- so I guess I'll start with my original comments, then follow those up with my amended ones.

FIRST VIEWING:

After attempting to watch the ridiculous mess that is 'Furry Vengeance', it was easy to see why the movie was so critically bashed. I felt profoundly embarrassed while watching for everybody involved with the movie (especially Brendan Fraser), which is every bit as bad as all of the reviews say it is (and possibly even worse).

The movie was SO painful, in fact, that I could only tolerate about 25 minutes before I started fast-forwarding through the rest of it. However, I did randomly stop on several scenes (between pauses in the fast-forward game), long enough to notice such cringe-worthy moments as: Fraser flailing around in a pink jogging suit as he was attacked by animals or some such nonsense; a raccoon playing "whack-a-mole" with a character that I think (?) was supposed to be a typical bumbling villain; and virtually every human character screaming at the top of their lungs (the animals don't talk, but instead have corny thought bubbles). Needless to say, I immediately pushed the fast-forward button again after about two seconds of each of these scenes.

As if the above wasn't bad enough -- I also watched enough of 'Furry Vengeance' to notice that the usual gross-out jokes and gags that you'll find in most kids' movies these days are, naturally, found here in spades (but, unlike in actual good children's films, without any cleverness or charm to help balance the lame "bathroom humor").

And I watched the stupid ending -- which made me think fleetingly of the "Joey Gladstone" character from "Full House". For the record, I DON'T mean that as a compliment (but, come to think of it, Dave Coulier might as well have played the lead in 'Furry Vengeance'; it's hard to think of much else that could make this movie even worse). (2/10)

SECOND VIEWING:

Strangely enough (mainly because I've known of him for over 20 years -- and for most of that time have barely thought of or had much of an opinion about him one way or the other), I've recently come to appreciate Fraser, and think he gets a bad rap. Which I suppose is what prompted my second viewing of 'Furry Vengeance'.

I can't excuse Fraser's appearance in this... silliness (and I *really* don't need to see him taking a bath in tomato juice after being sprayed by angry skunks, or flailing around in those stupid pink "Yum Yum sweats" EVER again). But, well, it could have been worse; what if Coulier really HAD played the lead? That could have been Joey Gladstone bathing in tomato juice, or flailing around in those pink sweats (*shuddering at the very thought*).

Really -- while it's easy to see how such a masterpiece might have helped contribute to Fraser's current career slump (which, aside from this misstep, I wouldn't say he deserves) -- I have a hard time imagining ANY actor making 'Furry Vengeance' (or Fraser's character, "Dan Sanders") any less ridiculous than the movie or character turned out to be, nor can I imagine any actor managing to escape scorn for appearing in such a role. And Fraser, at least, seemed to have a good time making the movie; the same can be said for the rest of the cast, as well.

Speaking of Fraser's co-stars, it was kind of funny to see Wallace Shawn turn up in a brief role as a therapist who tries to help stupid Dan with his perceived "fear of animals" (Shawn was probably relieved to find that the therapist character comes across as positively distinguished compared to the rest of the them).

Sadly, I can't say that very much else about 'Furry Vengeance' amused me; but while watching for the second time, there were a *few* random lines and moments here and there that made me at least snicker (I'm not sure why, but I even laughed out loud once -- during a scene where some crow was loudly hitting its beak against the roof trying to keep Dan awake or somesuch; the crow's giant shadow on the wall struck me as funny for whatever reason).

And, going by some reviews that I read, I guess there are a few young kids out there who genuinely enjoyed 'Furry Vengeance' -- considering that it's aimed at, what, 7-year-olds?, at least that means the movie wasn't a *total* bomb. But that's about all the praise I can muster up for this one.

I'll add, however, that (for what it's worth) I was able to watch the movie all the way through the second time around without fast-forwarding -- perhaps because I was already prepared for the most embarrassingly awful scenes.

So I suppose it's only fair to point out that, during my second viewing, the characters didn't seem... QUITE as "yelly" as I'd remembered them. Also, the villains, who do NOT in fact get bonked on the head by raccoons in a whack-a-mole game (although a couple of other characters briefly do) are only... sort of bumbling.

Because some footage of Fraser signing a DVD copy of the movie for a little girl smiling shyly back at him made my grinchy heart grow just a bit, because some kids actually liked the movie, and because of the oddly amusing scene with the crow's giant shadowed head pecking away at Dan Sanders's roof, I'll go ahead and raise my original rating -- to an "impressive" 3/10.

But I can't rate 'Furry Vengeance' any higher than that; I just can't. Maybe if I was 6 instead of 36...

"The animals are out to get me!"

The premise behind 2010's Furry Vengeance - a live-action cartoon featuring woodland mammals - is tolerable. However, the film is rendered insufferable due to its soulless, mean-spirited, moronic script as well as the repetitive, obnoxiously unfunny slapstick comedy, and the ill-conceived attempts to inject this cinematic stool sample with an environmental message. Furry Vengeance is a film with no redeeming qualities at all - it's the opposite of art, the opposite of entertainment, and the opposite of funny. It's not so bad it's good, but so bad that it'll make you lament how far Hollywood - and mankind in general - has fallen. If you reach the end of Furry Vengeance without being reduced to a depressed soul who has lost the will to live, it's impossible for you to be a sentient being.

Dan Sanders (Fraser) is a dithering land developer who has moved to the middle of nowhere with his science teacher wife (Shields) and Jonas Brother clone son (Prokop). Trying to suck up to his boss Neal Lyman (Jeong), Dan reluctantly accepts the job of assuming control of a massive community expansion which necessitates the removal of all trees and wildlife from the area. Due to the demands of the plot, the animals become clued into Dan's plans. Determined to thwart his efforts, the animals declare war on Dan; tormenting and attacking him in secret, leaving his colleagues and family to assume he has lost his mind. Predictably, Dan has an epiphany towards the end of the film, as he realises that there's something wrong with demolishing a wildlife preserve and executing a bunch of animals. And the catalyst for Dan's epiphany is the sight of his raccoon nemesis with its family. Who knew raccoons were so monogamous and loving? This leads to a heartfelt apology to his family, an admonition of his boss, and a contrived career change.

Without an ounce of hyperbole, it can be stated that Furry Vengeance is the most loathsome and moronic family film to hit cinemas in years. For goodness sake, the film consciously supports and encourages terrorism! It's apparently acceptable for the animals to murder if it means saving their habitat. In the film's opening moments, a land developer is sent careening off a cliff by the animals. Minutes later, a viewer gets treated to a disturbing photograph of a human corpse who has been bitten by a poisonous snake. Are you having a good time yet?! The animals are never cute or cuddly in this fucking awful movie, but instead outright monsters that are just as bad as the humans. Speaking of the humans, Dan is an absolute stiff and his wife is unsupportive and sassy. Dan's son, meanwhile, is an effeminate bitch of the highest order - he alters his perceptions to appease a girl he likes, and he complains like a 17-year-old slut unable to find her hair extensions. And Neal Lyman is a super-villain who flies around in a corporate jet with nothing but bad intentions. Everyone in this film is insufferable.

Beyond the fact that Furry Vengeance is populated with unredeemable bastards, the film fails as a comedy as well. In order to generate "comedy", Dan is repeatedly bashed in the nutsack, and a raccoon takes a piss on his face. At one stage, a flock of birds machine-gun the forest-demolishing antagonists with runny, white globs of poo. This is all joyless, humourless slapstick, and every gag is repeated a couple of times just in case you missed it the first time around. This type of material constitutes a solid 80 minutes of the 90-minute runtime - the remaining 10 minutes or so are dedicated to arguments between Dan and his family, a soulless romance between Dan's son and a classmate, and an end credits montage wherein the cast frolics and sings along to a cover version of Cypress Hill's pop anthem Insane in the Brain. Meanwhile, the blend of CGI and live-action is appalling. At times the digital manipulation is decent, but this all breaks down during the scenes where there are a lot of animals - hardly anything looks real at all. One must feel sorry for Brendan Fraser, too, who is awkward and hopelessly out of shape with a pot belly. The only thing which can be said in the film's favour is that the director at least tried to make this bullshit palatable.

One supposes that the intended moral of this empty, miserable, heartless cinematic abortion is the importance of forest and wildlife conservation. This notion is overshadowed, however, by the wrong-headed message that physical force and life-threatening violence is the answer for getting what you want. Furry Vengeance is also nothing more than another in the long line of family films which mistake stupidity for storytelling and noise for excitement. Children deserve far better than this dreadful movie, and they're far too smart for it. Furry Vengeance is an insult to anyone with a functioning brain. About midway through the movie, Dan's wife remarks "I just don't think this can get any worse." She was wrong.

1.8/10