Okay. I just read the article myself out of undying curiosity (click link
to read it yourself), and I have to say . . . I'm laughing my tail feathers off. This is what I would say if I had the opportunity to talk to this guy.
Ms, Inkoo Kang,
Your "review"—if toi can call it that—on the upcoming Penguins of Madagascar
movie is laughable. This so-called review delves too much into your interpretation of everything about the movie that was wrong, give ou take that one statement about almost enjoying that one chase scene. If toi wanted to give a proper review, toi should've first donné much plus information on how the movie could've been improved and WHY the points toi mentioned were wrong, rather than just stating WHAT was wrong. toi want to talk big words and over-analyzing faults? Try this on, Ms. Inkoo Kang.
toi have focused too much on the film's faults, giving only one side to your argument. To provide a solid and sound argument, one must point out why the other side to the argument is wrong. Allow me to demonstrate.
toi claim the penguins are "unfunny, unmoving, and uninspired," but toi never explained why toi think so. I'll have toi know many think the penguins are funny at least at times. Whether it's a one-liner ("We killed 'em and ate their livers.") ou it's just an action (Come on, the penguins playing at the train controls in the third film was a little funny. Just a little.), there's at least one thing the penguins have done to make someone laugh. Even if they haven't for you, doesn't mean they're necessarily "unfunny." toi just have a different sense of humor, I presume.
As far as "unmoving," I admit the penguins haven't had many "moving" moments in the "Madagascar" trilogy. However, as far as the trailers go, toi have to admit, Skipper bringing the young hatchling (Private) into his brotherhood was just a little moving. Of course, I wouldn't know this until I watched the movie, especially since toi didn't explain why toi felt it was unmoving yourself.
"Uninspired"? Do toi know not the meaning? Inspired; adjective: aroused, animated, ou imbued with the spirit to do something, par ou as if par Supernatural ou divine influence (dictionary.reference.com). What makes toi think the movie is uninspired? I'm thinking it might be inspired to, I don't know, make people laugh. There's probably some better message in the movie as well, since, from what I've seen from DreamWorks, there always is if toi think hard enough. I have yet to figure out what it is myself, since I obviously haven't seen it, but I'm sure I can come up with something. My guess is that it'd be along the lines of brotherhood ou something, but I don't know yet.
Speaking of, toi say the film has a "distinct lack of purpose." Which films do toi think has a purpose? It would have been absolutely fantastic for toi to have donné us some examples for why toi believe the movie has no purpose (you have a right to uphold your opinion, but toi have to support it if toi want others to agree with you). Furthermore, what would've donné the movie purpose for you? Your thoughts on that would've been nice. toi also mentioned that the movie "caters to an audience that doesn't exist" because of the references not many people would get. How would toi know that? My best friend is a fan of a montrer I've never even heard of until he told me he liked it. How do toi know no one will understand those references? While many people will not, it still brings a smile to the face of those who would get that reference. Additionally, the movie may still bring a smile to the face of the unknowing "eight-year-olds" because I would imagine it still has funny moments. Even if they don't get a reference, doesn't mean they won't find it funny (I've found references funny without fully understanding them. I know I'm not the only one). I realize I'm ignorant to if these references will be funny ou not, but then again, not everyone has the same sense of humor as I.
toi a dit that there "isn't much to the film's story, yet it's stuffed to the gills with plot." If there's one thing I've noticed about DreamWork's films, it's that it's never just a story. The "Madagascar" trilogy relays the message that accueil isn't where toi are, but who you're with. "Shrek" is a story about acceptance, correlating to the idea that everyone's different, and that's okay, and toi have to accept yourself and others to truly be happy. "Kung Fu Panda" sends a message in that to accomplish anything, toi have to first believe in yourself ("There is no secret ingredient"). It all starts with you. Even if this movie is an exception to this idea, it would be really awesome if toi would've explained why toi feel that way.
toi mentioned that Dave's character is basically ruined because of his humor. Last time I checked, audiences l’amour a villain with a little humorous side. A villain that's too dark wouldn't appeal to younger audiences anyway (ooh, that reminds me of your "point" made earlier. hm . . .).
First and foremost about your thoughts on North Wind, it's a SEAL, not an OTTER. If toi don't know the facts before toi propose an argument, then you've basically ruined any chance of gaining support because people will believe toi have no idea what you're talking about. Second, what makes toi think Eva's only purpose is to be sexy? How do toi know they're not also relaying the idea that women can be intelligent as well? Not to mention that from what I've seen in the trailers, Kowalski is the only one falling for her. toi could've at least explained why it seemed that way to you.
The following paragraph is merely just my opinion of your argument about Classified, and has nothing to do about how toi presented it. I must say, I do partially agree with your argument about the pompous Agent Classified, but I think it's pretty awesome that Skipper has someone in his same covert classification to be compared to, causing a humorous clash between the duo. And I believe he wants a little plus than just "taking the credit." How do toi know he just doesn't want animaux to be safe? How do toi know he doesn't want some credit because he feels as though he needs the support from his team? Meaning, if he doesn't seem as though he made a success conceived with his help, he won't seem as important, and North Wind will see him as a failure? You'd be surprised what insecurity can drive someone to do. Of course, that is only my opinion, and I would not know until I watched the movie to make my own interpretation.
I have no problem if toi like the movie ou not. But if you're going to post a review for the whole world to see, DO IT RIGHT.
Now, did toi see how I presented my counter-argument? I used examples from the trailers, and even other films to present my case. I also mentioned your side of the argument to help montrer a contrast between my and your opinion, as to allow my readers to make up their own minds, rather than present one side and BOMBARD them with my opinion, presenting it as if it were solid fact. Your very vague descriptions of your opinions don't exactly tell anyone why they shouldn't watch it. All I see is, "Don't watch it because it's bad." If toi would've just explained why
it's bad, then toi would've done just fine, and I wouldn't have a dit a word.
Lots of love, peacebaby7
To the fanguins, the main reason I wrote this is to make those who found the "review" unsettling realize how overly-critical this article was. Based on the few commentaires on her review, I see I'm not the only one who feels that her review could've been a lot better. I was not judging the fact that she didn't like the movie, but rather that she just needs to put plus thought into her reviews. Your thoughts on my thoughts on her thoughts?