magiccircle I've never written a review on here before, but I was quite honestly surprised at the negative reviews on here and also on other sites. This show has the very best mix of hysterical and quirky and I just love the way creators (Mike and Phil) and their alter-ego "animal" characters all interact, also with the guest cast members/comedians of the week. It really captures the light and shade of urban New York perfectly, and even manages to make it all look somewhat edgy, with a killer soundtrack to boot, (honestly, the music is awesomeness!!) In essence, this show does perfectly what recent New York based show "Vinyl" was trying to do. Vinyl could really take notes from these guys, they are doing it right. I love it, it's a fantastic show. Watch and enjoy! You're welcome🙂

Jeremiah Togstad If you're a fan of South Park, Archer, Rick and Morty, or other irreverent adult cartoons, then you might like Animals. Keep in mind that Animals is a dialogue-driven cartoon, and the animation kind of takes a backseat. The writing and improv drive this show to hilarious places. The animal characters are all voiced by funny actors, some of whom you'll quickly recognize. Some voices I remember are Aziz Anzari, Adam Scott, Chelsea Peretti, and Jason Manzoukas (the dude who plays Rafi in The League - such a funny actor). The real stars, however, are relative unknowns. Mike Luciano and Phil Materese are the main writers, directors, and voice actors. They have great chemistry playing different versions of Mike and Phil thru all the Animals episodes. It sort of reminds me of the great dynamic that Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland have in Rick and Morty. I saw Animals advertised on HBOgo and decided to give it a try. The first two episodes (Rats, Pigeons) can drag here and there, but they're still really funny in their own right. The payoff comes at Episodes 3 (Cats) and 4 (Dogs). Those episodes are some of the funniest television I've seen in years. I don't want to spoil anything. I'll just say this show will make you see your dogs and cats in a different light. In a good way though. You might empathize with your dogs or cats a little more in a strange, acid-trippy, "I can now speak with animals" sorta way. It's a bummer seeing the relatively low IMDb ratings of this show (as of 2/27/16). I only watched the first 4 episodes and am eagerly waiting to watch the rest once they're released. I never write reviews of shows, but this one compelled me to say something. Imaginative and well-written, well-directed shows like this aren't easy to find. Animals is more of a slow burn. There is an over-arching story involving human characters intertwined in all the animals' episodes. In this world, the human characters don't speak. The animals don't shut up. The humans are despicable. The animals are complicated. It's fun. I recommend this show if you enjoy some cheeky banter between animals. You'll never see a dogpark in the same way again.

sebastiannelson "Animals" is a show that I can see those less keen on understatement and subtlety being confused and angered by, and try-hard critics taking easy punches at, but don't be fooled, what you have here is a nice, smooth stone, even if it's in a bed of jagged rocks.The animation budget of three pennies and a moldy piece of bread is initially off-putting, but it serves its purpose, as with shows like this and Bojack Horseman, the main reason it's even in animation to begin with has to do with something in the overall concept being something that would just be too ugly or downright offensive to look at if it were live action. If this were live action what would it be? Best case scenario would be the actors wearing costumes while in meticulously built sets, both of which cost more money than the wages of a small team of animators. So instead of going that route or the route of making a high budget, highly animated series, with lots of pomp and flash, tightening all the Animation enthusiasts pants, it went with the more sensible and budget-conscious route, knowing that it would still be successful on a technical level, and read well visually.This show knows that everything in it needs to ride on the dialogue, because HBO doesn't give a *poo* about animation, and usually kills off low-rated comedies after only a couple seasons. And that's what it does right. The characters in this are easily relatable, animal characters, in easily relatable, human situations. I AM PHIL. I KNOW FINK, AND I *frigging* HATE FINK. And these characters, in the hands of writers who know just what makes everyday life so laughable, and what makes peering into everyday life through the eyes of an animal remind you how different we really aren't. We all make mistakes. We're all *frigging* idiots. But even still, we try every day to be better. Or we don't. Sometimes we don't want to be better, so we just try something different. The only difference is that when an animal like a pigeon makes a mistake, it's likely to cost him his life.Now this, in and of itself isn't terribly difficult to write, just look around you and give it your take. That's the first lesson in writing. Its ceiling for hilarity also isn't exactly high, and a lot of things that make us human don't make for very highbrow entertainment: everybody poops, everybody has sex, everybody eats food, and everybody dies. So it does lose some points there, if only for being unoriginal in a narrative style which inherently makes everything seem unoriginal.But that said, this kind of narrative still needs to exist in some form in television, and if it didn't, then TV would just be a cold, emotionally distant box with laughing and colorful bright lights. And if something needs to fill that space, then I'd still take this over the tired and uninspired likes of modern "Simpsons", "Family Guy/American Dad/The Cleveland Show", and whatever Comedy Central is trying to push to us this season (at time of writing, "Moonbeam City" comes to mind) In summation, "Animals" knows exactly what it is trying to be, so it pulls out all the stops and goes for broke on a channel where if you use too many dimes, you'll be dropped like a bunch of nickles right on your pennies. That said, it would make a nice quarterly comic, even if nobody would ever notice it. And I'd pay a dollar for that.

darktowerrulz After the surprisingly good "Bojack Horseman", I had an open mind going into "Animals.", but after viewing the first episode, I have my doubts. The animation is off-putting, but the dialogue at least somewhat saves it.The show's main plot (at least for this episode) focuses primarily on two rats - one of which is still a virgin and strongly desires to change that status. There are two other pointless sketches involving police horses and two bed bugs, both of which are forgettable and remarkably unfunny. The rat's story, however, actually had me laughing out loud; poor Phil's awkwardness was hilarious. The visual gags were phenomenal, if you can stomach the animation.Speaking of the animation - while I support expressing yourself artistically in whatever way you seem fit - is very unattractive. It doesn't seem juvenile, but comes off as gross, especially on the humans. The opening made me a little sick, but I felt better about it once I got used to it. An argument could be made that the gross animation adds to the atmosphere of the pathetic lives of these rats, but it was just unpleasant in the bed bug scene. All in all, it seems like a true pilot - I hope it will come into its own as the season progresses, but for now it seems unremarkable. The jokes that land are not many, but at least had me laughing out loud. The miscellaneous sketches were unfunny and dull, and seemed to drag the show on.