Свирепые создания (1997) Online

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

...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.

Let's face it guys and gals, Animals are funny. So is John Cleese, Michael Palin, Kevin Kline and Jamie Lee Curtis.

Fierce Creatures is not a sequel to the hilarious A Fish Called Wanda from 1988, it just a film that contains the same main actors playing entirely different characters.

Cleese plays Rollo Lee a former Chinese policeman now Director of an English Zoo for a new parent company ingeniously named Octopus Inc. It is Octopus's policy to bring all businesses up to a rigid 20% profit margin or risk being closed down. Lee's philosophy is to get rid of all the sweet and cuddly animals and in his own words have 'a lethal weapon in every cage' Fierce Creatures only.

Willa Weston starts work for Octopus only to find that the arm of the business she was to control has been sold off by Octopus's head man Rod McCain (Kevin Kline). She asks McCain if she can go to England and run the Zoo. What she doesn't count on is that the boss's embarrassing son Vince McCain (Kevin Kline) is going with her.

Back in England the animal keepers are doing everything they can to convince that their animals are predatory killers in order to keep them at the zoo knowing that as placement in other zoo's are unlikely the animals face certain death.

Willa's intention is to run the zoo well while still bringing the profit margin to the required standard but Vince's constant interference sees the chances dwindling with not only his embezzlement of funds but his tacky and degrading sponsorship deals.

In A Fish Called Wanda, Michael Palin played Ken a guy who could hardly talk because of a debilitating stutter. In Fierce Creatures he plays Bugsy the Arachnid keeper who is an incessant talker the verbal contrast between the two characters is a bit of an in-joke but an hilarious one and I'm sure that this contrast was not lost on the audience.

Like in A Fish Called Wanda Kevin Kline totally steals the show with his double role as Father & Son. Rod McCain is a tough confident Australian mogul so obviously based on Rupurt Murdoch it's untrue while his son is relatively unsuccessful an embassement to his father and has real issues when it comes to dealing with people.

I found Fierce creatures very funny and in many ways far superior to 'Wanda'.

Some great appearances by other wonderful actors such as Ronnie Corbett, Maria Aitken, (who played Cleese's Wife in Wanda), Billie Brown as Rod's sycophantic Assistant Neville, Carey (yummy) Lowell and Robert Lyndsay. Cleese's daughter Cynthia also appears as she did in Wanda playing the small Mammals keeper. For those devotees of British Children's TV of the 70's and 80's look out for Derek Griffiths too.

Cleese once said that his two biggest regrets in his life were marrying his third wife and making fierce Creatures. I can say to Mr Cleese now that Fierce Creatures is nothing to be embarrassed about it's a great and funny movie and one he should be proud of.

Another in joke is that the zoo is called Marwood Zoo, which incidentally, is Cleese's middle name.

Enjoy!!!

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!

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.

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. (****/*****).

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.

this film is an underestimated masterpiece in the British comedy film file...cleese, Curtis,palin and Kline lead a British cast of legends....including the wonderful Carey Lowell(bond girl) and most of the cast from Wanda all making returns.

Set in a zoo that needs to make money brings on lots of set pieces that could be so easily lengthened..but they are tight and funny.

Ronnie Corbett, Robert Lindsay and Derek Griffith's lead the Brits with their usual aplomb and this works seamlessly with a bunch of people really enjoying their job and this shows.

it didn't get the acclaim that Wanda got...that is a shame... because its a different movie and i think the critics were expecting a sequel of Wanda...what they get is something even more original, even funnier and in keeping with British farce with a plot...we get good comedy, beautiful ladies and brilliant performances from the animals...

one of the funniest scenes is the hotel spider set always makes me laugh.

If u ever need to introduce a fierce creatures policy - watch this film on NOT how to do it.....its an education

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.

So back in 1988 there was a highly quirky, sexy British crime heist movie with a mix of top cult British and American stars, it was a huge (and surprising) success. Nine years later the same team were back in this sort of sequel, or maybe prequel, no one was really sure. In the end it was just another comedy utilising the same cast, however, the novelisation of the film actually explains how both movies connect, but no one cares about the book so...

The plot is radically different from the 'A Fish Called Wanda', this is not any kind of crime comedy but it still involves unscrupulous people. Its all about John Cleese's character Rollo coming to look after a small typically British zoo of mainly small harmless animals, which he then tries to convert into a zoo full of fierce creatures. He has to do this because the main company he works for (that own the zoo) wants better revenue from the attraction hotspot. Thusly he is instantly at odds with the zoo's team of caring keepers who obviously are against this. At the same time Rollo must contend with Willa Weston and Vince McCain (Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) who are overseeing this latest acquisition by the company to make sure it makes money.

You see the problem with this comedy is the fact they have tried to basically remake 'Wanda'. Many of scenes in this film are rehashes from the original and are going for exactly the same laughs, the cast are playing virtually the same kind of characters and in the case of Jamie Lee Curtis her characters name has clearly been made as close as possible to Wanda (Willa). I really don't understand why they have done this because everyone knows this kind of thing hardly ever works, it doesn't matter how grand your cast roster is.

Much of the said cast is of course taken from the first movie, and I don't just mean the main cast either, many smaller roles and cameos feature actors/actresses from the first movie. Does that somehow make things better? are these actors suppose to connect this story to the first movie somehow? Apparently not as this is supposed to be more of a stand alone movie...so why use the same cast then?? I mean sure the use of the classic British comedic legend Ronnie Corbett is very nice, a nice addition, but he barely does anything and is clearly there just to ramp up the star meter. Its an all British type affair so lets get some British gems of comedy...yeah OK but at least make use of them, at least make a good film with them.

I mean watching Cleese in this is actually cringeworthy, he's doing all his usual typical funny little quirks he's done his entire career because that's what people expect, but its old hat now. He brings nothing new to the table here which isn't entirely his fault because (like I said) people wanna see that but you gotta try and break the mould guy! In short Cleese is basically Basil Fawlty in charge of a zoo...but not as funny, sweet idea, but like I said its not as funny as it sounds. At the same time watching Cleese trying to act sexy and dashing whilst cuddling up to Curtis (again) is horrible!! its like watching your aging dad trying to be sexy n cool with a younger woman, God no! As pointed out already Curtis plays the same character again too, a sexual female predator that is after Rollo but has to shake off the ever lurking Vincent (Kline), yet again. This leads to Kline who (as in the first movie) is head and shoulders above the rest giving the best performance. Kline seems to be really really good at playing the brash, pig-headed, egotistical Yank that won't think twice about being a complete sh*t no matter who's watching. He's rude, arrogant and cruel (yet again) and has his target set on Cleese's character Rollo (yet again), you notice I'm having to type 'yet again' quite often here. Do I have to mention Palin and his character that bares a remarkably close resemblance to his character in 'Wanda'? Nope, its the same character.

Don't get me wrong this isn't a terrible movie, its not all bad, there are some nice moments of farcical humour, just not that much is all. It has everything you'd expect from a naughty British comedy that has two Pythons in it (no not the scaly reptilian kind). Characters running around in their underwear (Cleese again!), lots of sexual double entendres, silly visual gags, pratfalls, slapstick and the odd hint of violence which you of course don't actually see. Thing is, the first movie was a smart, witty, sexy, dark comedy aimed at adults. This movie is a childish, immature, infantile, watered down excuse of a comedy that isn't really aimed at anyone. The kids won't appreciate the performances (or at least what they were aiming for) and there's nothing too visually appealing going on for them either, whilst its way too dumb and soft for adults. There's no point having Jamie Lee Curtis looking all slinky if she's not gonna actually do anything.

I think the idea for a quaint little British zoo battling against corporate suits is fine and has promise, but its been completely squandered here. For the first time ever I would have to say that the shenanigans of both Cleese and Palin actually bored and annoyed me at times. I've never really come across a movie that has tried to pretty much copy its predecessors formula so blatantly. I mean seriously! why would you even watch this when you have the first movie which is exactly the same and so much better.

4/10

"Fierce Creatures" is one of my favorite films. It might be because (unlike probably many Americans) I have seen a lot of English humor from childhood. It might be because I'm an environmentalist. It might be because I'm a Monty Python-fan. But this film, with finally an original plot line, an unlikely couple, a parody of modern multinational businesses and a lot of not-so-cliché animals really gets me. Yes, it is funny. And what's more, it happens to have a real message, unlike most of the supposedly hilarious Hollywood comedies. Not something like "be yourself" or "don't put work first", but a message about what we're doing to the environment, and what is our responsibility. In a way, this film is trying to do exactly what the zoo in the film is doing: using its form of communication not to satisfy cheap audience tastes (though that might also work with the gags and the superb acting) but to teach them a different way to relate to animals.

Some critics have decided this film to be a "flop." Pardon me, but I thought a flop was a film which had lost money. This one made over 11 TIMES the estimated $3.6M budget at $40M, and it's rated at a 6.1 by IMDb users. How is that, on any grounds, a flop?

All that not withstanding, this movie is extremely enjoyable, though it is a bit of an acquired taste. The wit found is for the delicate palette, for without appreciation of the quaint, one finds him/herself at a loss.

This movie has a clever and unique script, a dark and twisted sense of humor, and the same quality of well-timed comedic performances as did "A Fish Called Wanda," making for a truly wonderful comedic experience.

While I do like "A Fish Called Wanda" better, this attempt is still a beautiful example of cinematic comedy.

It rates a 8.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.

This movie failed at the box office because it was mistakenly assumed to be a sequel to "A Fish Called Wanda," just because it contained the same starring cast. That's a crying shame, because not only is it irrelevant to Wanda, it's a good 10 to 15 times better. Wanda was about two pairs of crooks(American and British) with annoying hang-ups who try to pull off a huge heist in London. In this movie, the cast tries to protect a zoo from a corporate takeover which will ruin it. The company in charge wants the zoo to get rid of all their cuddly animals and focus completely on,...well you can guess by the title. Michael Palin's character is nowhere near as pathetic as in "Wanda," and Kevin Kline's character(or at least one of them) is someone you can be far more sympathetic with. Plus the ending is much happier.

Pick this one over "A Fish Called Wanda" the next time you're browsing through the DVD sales rack. You'll be better off with it.

Rollo is the director of a London zoo which is not making enough money for billionaire Rod McCain, who doesn't need the money but doesn't care. His idea is to get rid of all animals that are not "fierce creatures" because the less dangerous animals don't produce enough revenue. The zoo employees try in vain to persuade Rollo that some of the animals are in fact fierce, but it doesn't work. Rollo's solution turns out to be quite hilarious, and not as demented as it might seem.

But Rod is not happy with the job Rollo is doing, and he sends Vince and Willa to make improvements. With hilarious results. The zoo employees look like NASCAR drivers and every exhibit appears to have a sponsor.

Add to that a naughty sense of humor. For example, while Rollo is hiding some of the less desirable animals in his sleeping quarters, Willa (on the phone) thinks he has numerous women with him. Plenty of other evidence of Rollo's supposed womanizing gets him in even more trouble. And then there is the time the woman falls down steps and needs an ambulance. One has to forget the concern that might be felt for characters in pain in most movies or TV shows, and just enjoy the moment.

John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis both do fine jobs here. Cleese has an insane sense of humor, though his consideration for others lacks the outrageousness of Basil Fawlty. That's probably a good thing; Kevin Klines's two characters do enough of that sort of thing. Curtis does her best work when not even saying a word, making expert use of facial expressions. Plus she has a hot body and shows it off in tight and often revealing outfits.

I don't think I'd recommend this for children. But it might appeal to the Monty Python fans.

This film is an obvious cash in on the success of 'A Fish Named Wanda', using many of the same actors, playing very similar roles.

Lightning however rarely strikes twice, and this is a film that never moves from being 'sort of funny' to 'actually funny'. Cleese seems, as he always has, incapable of playing a role that isn't Basil Fawlty, so now we get Basil Fawlty running a zoo. How funny. Not.

Depressingly, there's actually some very funny people in this film (Kevin Kline, Robert Lindsay, Ronnie Corbett) but they are either not supported by the script, or given very little to do.

Even Cleese himself said that this film was a mistake. How right he truly is.

Willa Weston (Jamie Lee Curtis) is the new executive in Octopus Inc. run by Rod McCain (Kevin Kline). She joins with Rod's son Vince (Kevin Kline) to manage the newly acquired zoo. Rollo Lee (John Cleese) starts out as the director sent by Octopus to raise profit margin to 20%. His idea is to have only fierce creatures. The shocked zookeepers dare Rollo to kill some of the non-fierce creatures. He pretends to and instead keeps the animals at his place. Willa and Vince mistakenly thinks that Rollo is a ladies man. After an incident, Rollo is demoted. Willa is still fascinated by Rollo's supposed womanizing and Vince has even crazier ideas for the zoo.

This is a real disappointment and a giant step down from the same crew that made 'A Fish Called Wanda'. It's a lot of wackiness without being funny. The story is completely stupid without being funny. The characters are all crazy without being funny. It's like the gang decided to pile on wacky things on top of wacky things. But none of it is funny. If it has any chance, the movie should have started in the zoo. The opening at the corporate office is a waste of time that achieved nothing.

Spoilers herein.

Just a collection of skits, mostly misses. But here is Jamie Lee as a redhead. Pretty much the whole enterprise revolves around her reactions. This is a very specific type of film humor. Pretty hard to do it seems. Wonder why Jamie Lee never was a big success, given how she holds this together, keeping up with Cleese and Kline.

My theory is that some actors depend on very specific conditions to thrive. Just look at her few scenes without Kline or Cleese to see how ordinary she usually is.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

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. If one thing was watchable and entertaining then we're talking about seeing (Carey Lowell) while being just in her black underwear. 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 he wishes and never had the boldness to achieve it. Otherwise it's one heavy movie with empty circles that alleges being funny. Therefore saying that this is a comedy is like saying that you saw the Invisible Man in no Invisible Man movie; it's possible !!

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.

After A Fish called Wanda i knew that the team, especially John Cleese would have a tough job beating it. Although this is very different from Wanda i found it absolutely hilarious.

Michael Palin yet again stole the film with his chatterbox insect keeper. But the best scene of the movie involved Terry the tarantula.

Overall this movie has cheered me up and will do so every time i watch it

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!!!