![]() ![]() ![]() How dare a movie about singing penguins also deal with notions of faith and belief? And how dare that movie take anything other than the easiest of positions on the subject? If you were one of the people who simply wanted singing and dancing and nothing else, then you should be aware that Miller’s dealing with many more subjects this time, like the responsibilities of fatherhood, the urgency of keeping your promises, the interconnectivity of an ecosystem, and, in what may be the master stroke of the sequel, one Krill’s quest to move up the food chain and become a predator. The first film dealt with the idea that Mumble’s faith in the Great Penguin In The Sky was shaken by the reality of the world he lived in, and that seemed to upset some people. This new film seems like it was designed to turn up the stakes and also to ask even bigger questions, and while I’m not sure it all works together, there’s so much about it that is good and smart and genuinely reaching for something that I would say it is a film well worth your time, with or without a child in tow. The original “Happy Feet” was very much about the music that was so central to the film’s premise, and I loved the fact that the film smuggled in some big ideas in the midst of what is essentially one penguin’s search for his voice. I love that Miller’s film was almost completely different from the original, which seemed appropriate since the setting was so different. When audiences saw “Babe: Pig In The City” the first time, it must have been a real shock, and it seems like some people (Ron Meyer, I’m looking at you) still haven’t gotten over it. I know that when I first saw “Max Max Beyond Thunderdome,” it threw me because I wanted more of “The Road Warrior,” not a story about the Lost Boys of the Outback. I may love “The Road Warrior” on a nearly-chemical level, but if you were a fan of “Mad Max,” it must have felt jarring to go from this personal revenge story to what is essentially a spaghetti western set after the end of the world. When he makes a sequel, it seems like he goes out of his way to avoid simply rehashing the film we’ve already seen, and that has thrown people consistently throughout his career. George Miller obviously doesn’t think so, and thank god for that. But should a lack of ambition be the thing we reward in films? And should ambition be considered a bad thing when a movie is trying to do something different? Yes, many of them are about as deep as a puddle. The thing is, I can’t just switch off the analytical part of my brain when I watch something, and I don’t believe anyone should. As I expected, I’m already getting yelled at by “Twilight” fans because I dared to dig into the text created by Stephenie Meyer, whose name always appears in red as I write a piece about her or her “Twilight” series because she spells it wrong, and I dared to dislike the film based on what her books say about who she is. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |