User reviews

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.

This movie is fun, engaging, bright, and positive. In spite of some grave misgivings when I started to watch, I was definitely engaged with this farcical comedy. I have finally figured out why I was so taken with it--the animal actors!

Part of the appreciation of a work almost always is due to the sympathy one feels for the characters. That sympathy is won primarily by assorted Lemurs, Ostriches, Roos, etc. in this film.

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.

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.

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 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!!!

When "A Fish Called Wanda" came out, the movie was smash success. It was a silly little movie, with a great cast, made for little money but it made a huge profit and earned Kevin Kline a deserved "Best Supporting Actor" nomination.

So with this team of talented actors who had genuine chemistry with each other, it was thought to put them together in another movie. Enter "Fierce Creatures" a movie that shows you can't always recapture the magic.

That's not to say the movie is bad. Far from it. It's pretty funny but it's not the gut-wrenchingly funny movie that "A Fish Called Wanda" was. The actors are great, they work well together but the script just seems flat.

One amusing little bit is that again John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis wind up as lovers as they did in their previous movie. And it's a bit of a callback when John calls her character "Wanda" before he's corrected. Unfortunately while that seemed to be an ad-lib from John, it just came too little too late.

"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.

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.

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!

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)

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.

Fierce Creatures is actually much funnier than it is given credit for. I think that it is compared to Fish Called Wanda so often that it becomes known as not being as good. However, if examined on its own merit it is actually very enjoyable. The characters are equally eccentric, particularly Michael Palins zookeeper. Kevin Kline goes from being the strongest link in Fish Called Wanda to being the weakest in this film. The whole film really lacks to chaos and confusion that makes Fish Called Wanda so enjoyable. However, there are still some funny scenes, such as the scene in the wardrobe and John Cleeses phone call that gets interrupted by the animals. In general, its another laughably silly film, but perhaps not as iconic or original as could be hoped for. 7/10

Fierce Creatures is a decent movie with a poorly developed plot, albeit a terrific comedic cast. I would certainly be rating this film much lower if it was not for the undeniable chemistry and comic timing between Kevin Kline, John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Palin. It is a pleasure to see them all together again after their stellar work in A Fish Called Wanda, it is just a shame they could not have been given better material. Kline is certainly the breakout performance here, playing two characters, one of which I was not aware was him until the end of the movie, it is always a pleasure to watch this versatile performer.

The plot is entirely ineffective, following a group of people struggling to run a zoo. We see them trying to keep their business alive, but are never given a reason to truly care about these characters or their situation.

The characters themselves are very poorly developed, literally as two dimensional as comedy film characters can get. We learn extremely little about everyone bar Vince, they are never given anything such as a distinguishable trait to make them more interesting.

Could have been gold, but it falls flat. As much as it is a pleasure to see these four on screen once again, Fierce Creatures is a let down for fans of both Monty Python and A Fish Called Wanda, if you see it on television it is worth a watch, but do not go out of your way to see it.

A self centred director takes over a zoo, much to the staffs dismay.

Best Performance: Kevin Kline

If Fierce Creatures does not make you appreciate the number of people who volunteer to care for the exotic animals in today's zoos who were never asked if they wanted to leave their habitat to be on exhibit than I don't know what will. Even worse the thought of privatizing zoos to someone who is a philistine like the father that Kevin Kline plays.

Kline plays the Rupert Murdoch like father who heads an international conglomerate and he also plays his wastrel and oafish son as well.

Father Kline introduces what he thinks is a new policy, the zoo will only exhibit the most dangerous and Fierce Creatures to give the public thrills and chills. Obviously this lugnut has never heard of petting zoos. He sends new director John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis to run the place. Soon though they are on the side of the staff, but still have to make the zoo be a money maker to satisfy the boss.

A lot of the humor in Fierce Creatures involves the various crazy marketing techniques designed. Since along with Cleese a whole lot of the Monty Python alumni are in this film you know it is going to be zany.

Lots of Monty Pythonesque type humor in Fierce Creatures and that's always good.

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

My Age: 13

A cruel tycoon, Rod McKain, played by Kevin Kline, purchases a zoo which isn't profiting enough. He hires a new manager, Rollo Lee, played by John Cleese, who has an idea about how to raise the profits - get rid of all the animals except for the fierce ones - which satisfies the people's violent minds. Naturally, the animal holders at the zoo, led by Adrian "Bugsy" Malone, played by Michael Palin, are horrified by this. Soon, Rod McKain's son Vince, also played by Kline, and Willa Weston, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, take control and return the zoo to normal. Vince comes up with some zany ways of bringing in profits - unauthorized celebrity endorsements, animatronic animals - he is also stealing, and his father threatens to turn the zoo into a Japanese golf resort.

Fierce Creatures is often quite irritating, for example Rod McKain and Adrian "Bugsy" Malone's voices, and also quite often has some stupid plot points, for example Willa Weston's "contact" with the gorilla, but the film is also quite often funny, for example Vince McKain's perception of Rollo Lee's bed habits. Overall, I think the funny parts overwhelm the stupid and irritating parts, and I must admit that I enjoyed the film's hilarious finale quite a lot.

Australian Classification: M 15+: Low Level Coarse Language, Sexual References

Rating: 69 out of 100

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.