Watch Fierce Creatures For Free

Excellent but underrated film

Admirable film.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

A follow-up to the wildly popular 'A Fish Called Wanda', starring the same four legendary actors, John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin. 'Fierce Creatures' is a Decent Flick, that hasn't managed a cult following, that is because, it's comparison is to a really mighty film! If a direct sequel, I also would've been a tad underwhelmed. But, as it plays it safe by claiming it as a follow up, I didn't go thinking of watching another 'Wanda'. To be honest, 'Fierce Creatures' is dumb, but at the same, it's funny, nonetheless.'Fierce Creatures' centers around a British zoo which has recently been acquired by New Zealand businessman Rod McCain played by Kline and put under the management of Rollo Lee played by Cleese. In order to boost profits, Lee decides to institute a "fierce creatures" policy that means, that only potentially deadly animals will be featured in the zoo.Clesse's Writing is funny at parts, but at times, it's dumb. Yet, I found the climax to be fairly entertaining. Fred Schepisi and Robert Young direct this comedy well. Cinematography, Editing, Art Design, are proper.Performance-Wise: Kline is excellent in both the roles, and truly is the funniest of the lot. Clesse, like always, gets his timing right. Jamie Lee Curtis is good. Michael Palin doesn't get much scope here. Robert Lindsay is passable.On the whole, A Decent One-Time Watch.

John Cleese is much more enjoyable as characters who more closely resemble the refined, innocent man finding himself turning to sinful desire and being conflicted about the entire process (such as he played in a fish called wanda) and is not nearly as interesting to watch as the fast talking, sarcastic, hyper, off-the-hinge, raspy voiced, domineering man in charge (such as he played in fierce creatures and rat race). Sadly the latter has become his go to role and it lacks depth of some of his former roles of conflict over innocence and desire.Kevin Kline was much more interesting to watch as the dangerous, manly, cunning, jealous, criminal airhead that he played in a fish called wanda more so than the character he played in this movie which was more less masculine, more effeminate (scarf wearing entrance), metrosexual, suit and tie, submissive, airhead, incompetent son who pervertedly and awkwardly pines for dates with the ladies.

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 !!