Buddy

One of the worst films I have seen in some time, this movie was all the more disappointing because it missed the opportunity to say something very important about man's relationship with animals.

There is almost no value to this film as it stands. It's never explained why Rene Russo's character wants to keep so many animals and turn them into humans, or why her husband, by all appearances completely sane, puts up with it. One meaningless scene follows another, none of them with enough humor or pathos to merit watching.

This was a nice, gentle film with no villains, pretty colors, nice surround sound, a nice recreation of the early 20th century and a fast-moving story. That's the good news.

The bad news is that for a story that is supposed to be "true," it is ludicrous. No animal understands human language as well as another human. Duh! Not in this movie; here they do, which leads the filmmakers into their gigantic plus for Darwinism. They even bring a priest into the picture who proclaims (while looking into "Buddy" the gorilla's eyes, "Those are not the eyes of an animal!"

Are you kidding me?They aren't even subtle about their evolution propaganda and it's some of the most ridiculous baloney I've ever heard.

Too bad because, as I said, it's basically a nice film with nice people. They even show a nice husband, played by Robbie Coltrane. Hollywood usually doesn't show husbands in a good light. In their twist political correctness, women are good and men are bad. Not here.

After growing dogs and chimpanzees, the eccentric millionaire Gertrude 'Trudy' Lintz (Rene Russo) raises a sick baby gorilla in her mansion as if it were a child, calling him "Buddy". When the animal grows, her husband, Dr. Bill Lintz (Robbie Coltrane), advises her to send it to its habitat or to a zoo. However, Trudy loves Buddy and believes she can keep it at home. After an exposition in the Chicago World's Fair, Buddy has a bad experience with the public and becomes violent, not obeying Trudy's orders anymore. "Buddy" is a reasonable family entertainment, more indicated for children. The story is not bad and focuses mainly in the relationship between Trudy and Buddy, but does not develop the characters, the place, the time. When and where the story happens? Why Trudy does not have a baby and has such abnormal behavior, preferring animals to children? How far this movie is based on a true story? With regard to the film itself, the production is not bad, but there is not "heart" in the direction and interpretation. This type of story is usually very well developed by Disney studios. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Buddy"

My Aunt Gertrude did own a gorilla named Buddy, but she also owned another named Massa, and they combined the lives of the 2 together.

First let me give you the true ending, Buddy was sold to the Ringling Bros circus, his name was changed to Gargantua, Massa was sold to the Philedelphia Zoo, and lived to be the oldest living Gorilla in captivity.

The story was hollywoodized to the extreme. If they had stuck to the facts, maybe it would have been better.

Gertrude also raised prize winning Saint Bernards, having over 100 on her estate in Brooklyn. She won the Westminster Dog show blue ribbon 5 times in a row. She helped to develop the "modern" pet foods. Since before then people just fed their pets scraps.

Also just one more minor note, my family is Jewish, yet in the movie, she wore a cross, and as far as I know, no-body in my family was paid or had given permission for the movie to come out.

Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his "mother's" wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average.