Just saw this on a whim, and WOW what a pleasant surprise. Spectacular animation, killer sound-track and really moving.
One can be sure the political overtones will annoy some, but as far as I’m concerned it’s right on the money with its anti-fishing industry message. Even if you’re not a marine-life lover, though, you’ll probably get a kick out of this film – although you’re a heartless bastard and don’t deserve to!
We enjoyed it quite a bit too. Not enough sex, but otherwise I give it full marks.
I saw it long time ago.
It was pretty fun for the first half, but the theme became too heavy near the end.
The theme of environmentalism is important, but spoiled the pure fun.
I still like it though. It is good to listen to Hugh Jackman singing because he was once a really good musical actor.
I saw it with my friend’s kids. Even the 12 year old thought it was heavy and unsophisticated.
We watched it over the weekend, our 3yo spent most of the time attempting to tap dance like mumble.
What’s with all the penguin movies lately? What’s next, koalas?
Yeah there is another penguin movie coming out soon too - a surfer penguin…
Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy Happy Feet. It just seemed that there have been lots of penguin flicks, due to their naturally lovable and laughable looks. Don’t have to do much to make them entertaining.
And I enjoyed HF more than that awesome French one that won all the awards, because at least HF was in English so I could understand it, but I agree with the others that it was too heavy with its message. I did like the little Mexican homeboy penguins.
Well, to each his own, I guess, but I think all the criticisms of “heaviness” are kind of sad. First of all, the issue IS that heavy – actually far MORESO but this isn’t the politics forum so I won’t get into it. Second, that heaviness makes for great drama. Once they find out Lovelace is being choked by the can-holder it starts to build, and gets heavier and heavier until it culminates in a moment of down-right despair when Mumble bangs his head on the wall at the penguin pen.
That kind of despair is what creates such a touching moment when the little girl and Mumble connect and things spiral back to a happy ending. Humans aren’t just heartless, mass-fish-consuming “annihilators” – we are also empathetic and able to change for selfless reasons.
You may say, “Hey, I don’t go to a cartoon to see that kind of thing” - but maybe you should. What is it you want - a movie like “Cars” that gives you a nice comfortable little jerk-off and then you forget about it the next day? A movie that allows you to leave your heart and brain in the car when you walk in the theater. In that case, you really ought to see Tray Parker’s new movie “Idiopolis” to see where our culture is headed.
For me, I want drama. I want movies to engage my brain and my emotions, animated or no. And as for this being a kids’ movie, I don’t really think it exactly was – and if kids see it and based on that decide not to eat seafood because the fishing industry is EVIL, what the heck is wrong with that? It’s true!!! God forbid we actually get a little education with our all-important ENTERTAINMENT.
Goodness me! Penguin homage to 70s porn doesn’t sound very child-friendly AT ALL!
[quote=“Vay”]
For me, I want drama. I want movies to engage my brain and my emotions, animated or no. And as for this being a kids’ movie, I don’t really think it exactly was – and if kids see it and based on that decide not to eat seafood because the fishing industry is EVIL, what the heck is wrong with that? It’s true!!! God forbid we actually get a little education with our all-important ENTERTAINMENT.[/quote]
Well, my interpretation for the above statement is that you think those who said Happy Feet is heavy go for movies just for entertainment and they don’t know how to appreciate really good dramas.
I hope that is my over interpretation because it is really unfair to judge us by few words that we replied.
But my idea about the movie is completely different from yours.
Good movies make moviegoers think over messages; not force we accept the messages they delivers.
I think the theme of first half Happy Feet is about self-identity; the one of second half is about environmentalism.
The messages are important, but it is so funny in term of the how the messages were delivered.
The director, George Miller, presented his idea:
Human beings find the truth that those poor penguins are suffering because of the evil fishing industry.
Human beings go crazy for those cute dancing penguins.
The heads of states decide to change their policy so no more evil fishing industry.
Oh! Yah! No more suffering! Cute dancing penguins live happily ever after.
It is a ridiculously naïve fairy tale. Sorry…not fairy, penguin tale.
What do the scenes and story tell me? NO! It simplifies too many important issues.
So, it is neither a good drama nor a good entertainment for me.
I like a Japanese director, Hayao Miyazaki, very much.
I have seen all his works and it is oblivious for me that he concerns our environment very much.
In his long career, he presents his animations with subtlety and they make me think many things over and over.
You can see how he addresses his points in following films.
I think they are available on DVD with English subtitles.
Howl’s Moving Castle (2006)
Spirited Away (2001)
Princess Mononoke (1997)
Pom poko (1994)
Castle in the Sky (1986)
By the way, I am not an English native speaker so I hope my poor writing doesn’t confuse you.
Editor wanted.
Comparing a ham-fisted amateur like Miller with a master like Miyazaki is a little bit unfair I think. Plus, you missed out Omohide Poro Poro. I know it’s actually by Takahata but still…
I just recently saw ‘Idiocracy’ by Mike Judge(creator of beavis and butthead, office space, and king of the hill.) It was pretty good and funny. Sorta weird that Trey Parker (creator of south park, team america, baseketball) would do a similar social commentary with a similar name so close behind Judge.
[quote=“superking”]Have you seen the gansta remix of ‘walk it out?’
youtube.com/watch?v=KCep9zmB … ed&search=[/quote]
:rolmao: :bravo: Now seriously, doesn’t that degrade pengins in some form? It’s hip hop…
POINT
[quote=“Vay”]Well, to each his own, I guess, but I think all the criticisms of “heaviness” are kind of sad. First of all, the issue IS that heavy – actually far MORESO but this isn’t the politics forum so I won’t get into it. Second, that heaviness makes for great drama. Once they find out Lovelace is being choked by the can-holder it starts to build, and gets heavier and heavier until it culminates in a moment of down-right despair when Mumble bangs his head on the wall at the penguin pen.
That kind of despair is what creates such a touching moment when the little girl and Mumble connect and things spiral back to a happy ending. Humans aren’t just heartless, mass-fish-consuming “annihilators” – we are also empathetic and able to change for selfless reasons.
You may say, “Hey, I don’t go to a cartoon to see that kind of thing” - but maybe you should. What is it you want - a movie like “Cars” that gives you a nice comfortable little jerk-off and then you forget about it the next day? A movie that allows you to leave your heart and brain in the car when you walk in the theater. In that case, you really ought to see Tray Parker’s new movie “Idiopolis” to see where our culture is headed.
For me, I want drama. I want movies to engage my brain and my emotions, animated or no. And as for this being a kids’ movie, I don’t really think it exactly was – and if kids see it and based on that decide not to eat seafood because the fishing industry is EVIL, what the heck is wrong with that? It’s true!!! God forbid we actually get a little education with our all-important ENTERTAINMENT.[/quote]
COUNTERPOINT
First, I admit that I liked HF, just as I liked Miller’s earlier movies. The animation in HF was spectacular, the soundtrack catchy, and at times I felt like getting up and dancing. But as a movie, there were definite flaws that prevent me from giving better than perhaps a 75.
For one, there were too many stories that didn’t mesh and some of which were never resolved. There was the theme of mumble’s independence and non-conformity, which seems a little odd in such a harsh environment where harmony and cooperation is crucial in so many ways for mere survival. There was the love story that abruptly ended 2/3 of the way through the movie, when he simply walked away from her. There was the story of father-son alienation and acceptance, which was miraculously resolved when the son comes home, converts everyone to dancing, and the dad suddenly gets boogie fever too. There was the multi-cultural aspect, with the homeboy rock carrying penguins, thrown in for kicks. There was the take on superstition and religious fundamentalism, as seen in mumble’s elders’ absurd belief that a shortage of fish was caused by his dancing and in the line of followers seeking wisdom from the Robin Williams’ guru penguin.
And of course there was the environmental message, which came across as overly blunt, simplistic and preachy. Unless I’m going to a flick like Al Gore’s movie (which I haven’t seen yet but would like to) I generally go the movies for entertainment – for good plot, character development, dialogue, humor, scenery, music, etc., and even theme, which can be positive, uplifting and inspirational, or dark and morbid. In a good movie those elements all work together subtly and seamlessly, so the viewer is carried along through the experience, entertained, moved, saddened, gladdened, educated, enlightened or whatever, without feeling that the writers, producers, directors, etc. have gone out of their way to manipulate his emotions.
There’s nothing wrong with heavy issues in a movie. I enjoyed Apocalypse Now, Psycho, Fargo, Dr. Strangelove, Blue Velvet, etc. But the environmental message in Happy Feet rose up suddenly like a giant GreenPeace billboard midway through the movie. I suspect even my 3 year-old girl sensed that suddenly something was different – not different in that a heavy theme had developed, but different in that the movie suddenly changed from entertainment to preachy indoctrination. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for protecting the environment, I’ve seen firsthand how quickly the world’s fish supplies are being depleted and it concerns me greatly, I believe the word should go out to all, so people can act for the good of the planet, BUT, I don’t want someone to rise up suddenly in the middle of a perfectly entertaining movie to hit me over the head with that.
Beg pardon. I’m lousy with names – I tend to focus more on the message. Point is what it is though.
Kate.lin, your English seems pretty darn great to me. I’d be hard pressed to express what you did in Chinese!
I haven’t seen any films by the director you mentioned, but will have a look.
As for your criticism of naivety and schism within the film, well, it’s a subjective consideration, but I didn’t see it that way. I thought it was a rather subtle play on the theme of humans as merciless and technologically-advanced aliens from the perspective of an isolated species – which ultimately transforms via the main character’s perseverence in trying to communicate with us into a more benign “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. This theme gets brought in right off with the initial outer space shot that focusses in on first Earth, then Antarctica. We have a sort of space/Earth; Earth/Antarctica parallelism there that sets the stage for the dynamic that will be developed. Very quickly, it is more concretely manifested with the sea-gull’s story of alien abduction, and it plays out from there.
What you guys saw as a giant Greenpeace sign (when the fishing trauler is first seen by the penguins), I saw as the citizens of New York and LA looking up at the giant alien ships enveloping their entire cities in shadow in “Independence Day”. They are getting their first “real” view of the “annihilators” that have been described to them. (When you consider the methods employed by the fishing industry these days - drift-nets, bottom-trauling, 2-mile-line fishing and so on to catch an ever-dwindling supply of sea-life for the bottomless stomachs of nations like Japan and China, I think the depiction is accurate).
This portrayal is tempered, however, by the child at the zoo, who, unlike the headless adults, is able to make a connection that establishes communication through Mumble’s quirky method of self-expression. (Come to think of it, this aspect calls to mind the children in [url=World-class violinist performs in Wash. subway at rush-hour story[/url], who kept craning their necks to see the virtuoso violinist as their parents pressed on, headlong and headless.)
The “second part” of the movie is not just about environmentalism, it’s about Mumble’s not backing down – neither to his own kind, nor to an alien menace, nor to the mind-numbingly huge distance that separates them (That distance, and the isolation it creates, is the reason that penguins were the proper casting choice for this movie - although admittedly they have been kind of trendy ever since “Madagascar”). Moreover, this portion of the movie - as in “Close Encounters” - is about establishing communication when words or voices fail.
I think when we get down to it, what makes people uncomfortable about this movie is not “heaviness”, but that it portrays all-too-accurately our race as it would initially be perceived by a species that first came into contact with us. With the whole “self-esteem” movement in education and Doctor Spock in parenting, feeling guilty is definitely “out” these days – “Don’t preach to me” is everybody’s slogan – whether they need preaching or not.
Beg pardon. I’m lousy with names – I tend to focus more on the message. Point is what it is though.
Kate.lin, your English seems pretty darn great to me. I’d be hard pressed to express what you did in Chinese!
I haven’t seen any films by the director you mentioned, but will have a look.
As for your criticism of naivety and schism within the film, well, it’s a subjective consideration, but I didn’t see it that way. I thought it was a rather subtle play on the theme of humans as merciless and technologically-advanced aliens from the perspective of an isolated species – which ultimately transforms via the main character’s perseverence in trying to communicate with us into a more benign “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. This theme gets brought in right off with the initial outer space shot that focusses in on first Earth, then Antarctica. We have a sort of space/Earth; Earth/Antarctica parallelism there that sets the stage for the dynamic that will be developed. Very quickly, it is more concretely manifested with the sea-gull’s story of alien abduction, and it plays out from there.
What you guys saw as a giant Greenpeace sign (when the fishing trauler is first seen by the penguins), I saw as the citizens of New York and LA looking up at the giant alien ships enveloping their entire cities in shadow in “Independence Day”. They are getting their first “real” view of the “annihilators” that have been described to them. (When you consider the methods employed by the fishing industry these days - drift-nets, bottom-trauling, 2-mile-line fishing and so on to catch an ever-dwindling supply of sea-life for the bottomless stomachs of nations like Japan and China, I think the depiction is accurate).
This portrayal is tempered, however, by the child at the zoo, who, unlike the headless adults, is able to make a connection that establishes communication through Mumble’s quirky method of self-expression. (Come to think of it, this aspect calls to mind the children in [url=World-class violinist performs in Wash. subway at rush-hour story[/url], who kept craning their necks to see the virtuoso violinist as their parents pressed on, headlong and headless.)
The “second part” of the movie is not just about environmentalism, it’s about Mumble’s not backing down – neither to his own kind, nor to an alien menace, nor to a mind-numbingly huge distance. And as in “Close Encounters”, it’s about establishing communication when words or voices fail.
I think when we get down to it, what makes people uncomfortable about this movie is not “heaviness”, but that it portrays all-too-accurately our race as it would initially be perceived by a species that first came into contact with us. With the whole “self-esteem” movement in education and Doctor Spock in parenting, feeling guilty is definitely “out” these days – “Don’t preach to me” is everybody’s slogan – whether they need it or not.
Ok, I just blasted this off. Sorry if it’s incoherent, but that’s all the time I can spend on it now.[/quote]
Wasn’t Mumble cute!
And that, according to the movie, is precisely why we should take drastic measures to protect the environment. As far as I could tell, that was the message. If a species is cute and can dance well enough to capture the attention of a small child, perhaps some day scientists and the general public can recognize that cuteness and be moved enough to act. Pity the endangered snakes, slugs, worms and mites, that are crucial to the interconnected web of species, but can’t dance to save their literal and metaphorical asses.
Hilarious. All that I wrote elicits no response whatsoever, but his little sarcastic one-liner merits your “conclusion”.