Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
47 Views No comments

It... could have been worse

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.


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)


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...

Added by thaskett
4 years ago on 5 September 2015 04:42