hannahma57 I haven't seen it, but it was reviewed in the Gold Turkey Awards as abominably bad, mostly due to the outrageously bogus kangaroo suit with a stunt man inside it. One movie house employee recalled that for one showing nobody showed up. "I mean, we didn't sell one ticket," he repeated. "The theatre was completely empty. They had to run it for the ushers and the popcorn girls."

national_bouton-1 I was fortunate as a 12-year old to see this film at Radio City Music Hall, as one of the last regular engagements before the Music Hall converted to a concert hall. I don't remember much about the film and won't try and defend it, but it was exciting to see it in the context of a Radio City presentation, complete with Rockettes and organ and all!It's a shame that there haven't been more films shown on that great and grand screen. I don't know why films like TITANIC and THE DARK KNIGHT and WALL-E wouldn't have worked a treat there for short runs at the start of their lives. It is a blessing that the theatre is intact and still gloriously vibrant and active. What a joy to experience, even peripherally, the thrill that our parents and grandparents felt when going to the movies.

Wizard-8 American-International cancelled its plans to widely market and release this movie after disasterous test runs - a wise plan, but upon seeing the movie you have to wonder why they even bothered with test runs. I have no idea how the tale of a boxing kangaroo played in the original Paul Gallico novel, but nothing works about it translated into a movie. Kids won't like it - they will be confused half the time with details like sports corruption and boxing rules/regulations, and the other half of the time they'll be finding the events remarkably unfunny and unengaging. Adults will be finding the events remarkably unfunny and unengaging *all* the time!It's not just the script that's bad. Though the movie had something of a budget, the production looks remarkably cheap and tacky. Obviously, that includes the kangaroo animatronic costume, which looks so phony that even a two year-old will recognize it's a man in a costume. Though there are also things like sets that look like, well, SETS, and dirty and unfocused cinematography. Nobody behind the scenes seems to have put any heart and passion in the production, and it's no wonder the actors are dragged down with it. Gould (who further killed his career with this movie) does put in some effort despite the fact you can see in his eyes that he knows he's in a stinker, but his broad performance ends up adding to the feeling the movie is mocking the viewer. At least it is a performance; Robert Mitchum doesn't even TRY putting in any effort in his scenes (which were clearly knocked off in a couple of days at most!) Still, the movie clearly could have been worse. That's because there are signs that the movie was originally LONGER! One example: take the scene where the mobsters are attempting to jump the kangaroo for the first time - one of them utters "This time we'll...." - indicating there was originally another scene earlier when they tried to get the kangaroo. Think about it: somewhere in some vault, there exists a longer version of this movie! Scary!

otter Extremely bad, deservedly one of the biggest financial disasters of the decade. There was little potential in a supposed feel-good kiddie movie about a boxing kangaroo trying to beat the human world champion, but it didn't have to be this bad. For instance, they could have trained a real kangaroo instead of using a ham actor in a cheap, heavy, molting kangaroo suit that bears no resemblance to an animal, even with the animatronic facial expressions. And if you've ever wondered why Elliot Gould's career tanked in the late seventies, this is a big reason. He tries to make up for the bad kangaroo by hamming it up and desperately trying to be cute. And they didn't have to have such an annoying, sexist romance subplot either.Incredibly bad, but not enjoyably bad like an Ed Wood film. For serious Bad Film buffs only.