Rating: 
Summary: SNORRRE!
Review: I loved the film and cast of A Fish Called Wanda. I heard that the sequel had nothing to ndo with the origonal, except for the main actors. Well, John Cleese, when unfunny, is a pain. He was a pain. Leigh-Curtus gave a decent job. Kevin Kline gave a Kevin Kline job, however he was perfect in "Wanda." MICHAEL PALIN! My favorite Python, you are a bad actor in this one. Ka-Ka-Ka-Ken was the best character. By the way, I found this film boring and unwatchable, even the version with redone scenes (The initial press release hated certain scenes, including the ending, so they spee-re-filmed them. John Cleese, I cant believe you wrote this awful script! This DVD is in p&s, and this one should be seeen in widescreen, even if your a VHS user.
Rating: 
Summary: wierd
Review: I really like Cleese and Palin but this movie was realy ----ing stupid
Rating: 
Summary: The crazy "quartet" at it again.
Review: I saw 'A fish called Wanda' a while back but didn't know there was a sequel. You can imagine my joy when I found out that Cleese, Curtis, Kline & Palin had teamed up again. I won't bore you with the details of the plot as it will just be a rehash of what previous reviewers have said. The main thing you must be wondering if you've seen the first film is: Is this movie funnier? Or if you haven't seen "A fish called Wanda," Is it worth watching? The answer to both questions is yes. However it depends to a large extent on what you consider to be comedy. If you like Monty Python, Yes Minister, Fawlty towers, BlackAdder (generally British humor) etc...then this movie will definitely appeal to you. If you are more into the American-style 'action-comedies' this movie may not be as funny to you. Although most people think Kleese was the funniest, I liked Michael Palin as the loquacious know-it-all the best. I had to press pause a couple of times so that I could stop laughing before I continued with the movie. As in most other comedies there are the 'dry' parts, fortunately though, this movie has very few of those. My only gripe was that Kline's accent sounded more Australian than New Zealand, and he was supposed to be a Kiwi. This is not noticeable to those unfamiliar with these two accents, but it would be like having an American (U.S) actor use a Southern accent when playing a Canadian. Even with that petty 'grievance' I would highly recommend this movie. If you can, you should also watch "A fish called Wanda" which is equally funny.
Rating:
Summary: The crazy "quartet" at it again.
Review: I saw `A fish called Wanda' a while back but didn't know there was a sequel. You can imagine my joy when I found out that Cleese, Curtis, Kline & Palin had teamed up again. I won't bore you with the details of the plot as it will just be a rehash of what previous reviewers have said. The main thing you must be wondering if you've seen the first film is: Is this movie funnier? Or if you haven't seen "A fish called Wanda," Is it worth watching? The answer to both questions is yes. However it depends to a large extent on what you consider to be comedy. If you like Monty Python, Yes Minister, Fawlty towers, BlackAdder (generally British humor) etc...then this movie will definitely appeal to you. If you are more into the American-style `action-comedies' this movie may not be as funny to you. Although most people think Kleese was the funniest, I liked Michael Palin as the loquacious know-it-all the best. I had to press pause a couple of times so that I could stop laughing before I continued with the movie. As in most other comedies there are the `dry' parts, fortunately though, this movie has very few of those. My only gripe was that Kline's accent sounded more Australian than New Zealand, and he was supposed to be a Kiwi. This is not noticeable to those unfamiliar with these two accents, but it would be like having an American (U.S) actor use a Southern accent when playing a Canadian. Even with that petty `grievance' I would highly recommend this movie. If you can, you should also watch "A fish called Wanda" which is equally funny.
Rating:
Summary: A flop? PAH!
Review: I thought this "sequel" to "A Fish Called Wanda" was far superior and funnier than the original. Complete with the orignial cast to "Wanda", John Cleese stars as Rollo Lee who is in charge of an English Zoo financed by an insideous American company known as Octopus Ink which has told the Zoo they either make the animals more exciting or they'll be shut down. Jamie Lee "I'm in love with my body" Curtis and Kevin Kline play Willa and Vince, a couple of Octopus Ink exects who have come to oversee the companies demands on the zoo are carried out. Although, Vince would rather spend the time overseeing Willa. Michael Palin also returns as Bugsy, a chatterbox zoo worker that has a fascination with creepy crawly insects. This movie kept me laughing from beginning to end. Some of the best scenes are the most suttle and even the sexual innuendo's were tastefully done which I think is a rarity for a movie to achieve something like that nowadays. And Kevin Kline does a fantastic job as the conniving Vince. John Cleese also shamelessly pays homage to both Monty Python and Fawlty Towers which makes this movie a treat for fans to watch. So I recommend this movie highly.
Rating:
Summary: A flop? PAH!
Review: I thought this "sequel" to "A Fish Called Wanda" was far superior and funnier than the original. Complete with the orignial cast to "Wanda", John Cleese stars as Rollo Lee who is in charge of an English Zoo financed by an insideous American company known as Octopus Ink which has told the Zoo they either make the animals more exciting or they'll be shut down. Jamie Lee "I'm in love with my body" Curtis and Kevin Kline play Willa and Vince, a couple of Octopus Ink exects who have come to oversee the companies demands on the zoo are carried out. Although, Vince would rather spend the time overseeing Willa. Michael Palin also returns as Bugsy, a chatterbox zoo worker that has a fascination with creepy crawly insects. This movie kept me laughing from beginning to end. Some of the best scenes are the most suttle and even the sexual innuendo's were tastefully done which I think is a rarity for a movie to achieve something like that nowadays. And Kevin Kline does a fantastic job as the conniving Vince. John Cleese also shamelessly pays homage to both Monty Python and Fawlty Towers which makes this movie a treat for fans to watch. So I recommend this movie highly.
Rating: 
Summary: Not-So-Beautiful plumage
Review: I won't compare this movie to Wanda, I promise. But while Fierce creatures has many hilarious moments, that doesn't really help classify it as a 4 star movie - 3.5 at the most.
My main problem is that most of the jokes simply seem too weak - I find this hard to explain, other than trying to compare it with Oscar - both have funny moments, but most of the humor simply falls flat.
And while I promised to leave Wanda out of this, I must say that had I rented this movie first, and had it not been a "sequel" to one of the funniest comedies, I would not have bought it (even though I'm a big fan of Monty Python and the great John Cleese).
Rating:
Summary: Calm down, people. The movie wasn't that bad.
Review: I'm reading some of the reviews on here, and some of them are just a little nasty. I mean, this wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't a bad one either. I loved "A fish called Wanda," but I think the super quality of that movie set expectations a little too high for this one, which is part of what is causing these nasty comments. It's very hard to recreate something of the same caliber as "Wanda," especially when you've got the same cast, without repeating yourself. But give it a break! This movie was funny, the acting was good, it wasn't that bad! It just wasn't as good as it's prequel. I think fans of the first movie should see this, if only to see John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, and Michael Palin all reuinted again - and because of the fact that it was GOOD!
Rating:
Summary: Calm down, people. The movie wasn't that bad.
Review: I'm reading some of the reviews on here, and some of them are just a little nasty. I mean, this wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't a bad one either. I loved "A fish called Wanda," but I think the super quality of that movie set expectations a little too high for this one, which is part of what is causing these nasty comments. It's very hard to recreate something of the same caliber as "Wanda," especially when you've got the same cast, without repeating yourself. But give it a break! This movie was funny, the acting was good, it wasn't that bad! It just wasn't as good as it's prequel. I think fans of the first movie should see this, if only to see John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, and Michael Palin all reuinted again - and because of the fact that it was GOOD!
Rating:
Summary: Funny and worth it in its own right
Review: I've three things to say about this movie: 1. Anything with Michael Palin is worth renting or buying. 2. Too bad this movie suffers from the inevitable "Fish Called Wanda" comparisons. "Fish" appears in many "Top 10 Comedies of All Time" lists. In comparison, "Fierce Creatures" is just a clever little movie. Accept it at that and you'll have a lovely time. These four actors know comedy. 3. Kevin Kline as the Rupert Murdoch-like takeover artist? Maybe the most side-splitting characterization ever seen on film. Why don't more people talk about that portrayal? It's astoundingly great acting. You could watch the scene where he "does the deal" 20 times in a row and laugh every time. Just the best.
| 
