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)