Penguins of Madagascar Article: My REAL review on Inkoo Kang's "Review" on the POM Movie

2

My REAL review on Inkoo Kang's "Review" on the POM Movie

posted by peacebaby7

Okay. I just read the makala 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 wewe 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 au take that one statement about almost enjoying that one chase scene. If wewe wanted to give a proper review, wewe should've first aliyopewa much zaidi information on how the movie could've been improved and WHY the points wewe mentioned were wrong, rather than just stating WHAT was wrong. wewe want to talk big words and over-analyzing faults? Try this on, Ms. Inkoo Kang.

wewe 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.

wewe claim the penguins are "unfunny, unmoving, and uninspired," but wewe never explained why wewe think so. I'll have wewe know many think the penguins are funny at least at times. Whether it's a one-liner ("We killed 'em and ate their livers.") au 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." wewe 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, wewe 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 wewe didn't explain why wewe felt it was unmoving yourself.

"Uninspired"? Do wewe know not the meaning? Inspired; adjective: aroused, animated, au imbued with the spirit to do something, kwa au as if kwa Supernatural au divine influence (dictionary.reference.com). What makes wewe 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 wewe 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 au something, but I don't know yet.

Speaking of, wewe say the film has a "distinct lack of purpose." Which sinema do wewe think has a purpose? It would have been absolutely fantastic for wewe to have aliyopewa us some examples for why wewe believe the movie has no purpose (you have a right to uphold your opinion, but wewe have to support it if wewe want others to agree with you). Furthermore, what would've aliyopewa the movie purpose for you? Your thoughts on that would've been nice. wewe also mentioned that the movie "caters to an audience that doesn't exist" because of the references not many people would get. How would wewe know that? My best friend is a shabiki of a onyesha I've never even heard of until he told me he liked it. How do wewe 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 au not, but then again, not everyone has the same sense of humor as I.

wewe alisema 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 nyumbani isn't where wewe 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 wewe have to accept yourself and others to truly be happy. "Kung Fu Panda" sends a message in that to accomplish anything, wewe 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 wewe would've explained why wewe feel that way.

wewe mentioned that Dave's character is basically ruined because of his humor. Last time I checked, audiences upendo 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 wewe don't know the facts before wewe propose an argument, then you've basically ruined any chance of gaining support because people will believe wewe have no idea what you're talking about. Second, what makes wewe think Eva's only purpose is to be sexy? How do wewe 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. wewe 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 wewe 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 zaidi than just "taking the credit." How do wewe know he just doesn't want wanyama to be safe? How do wewe 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 wewe like the movie au not. But if you're going to post a review for the whole world to see, DO IT RIGHT.

Now, did wewe see how I presented my counter-argument? I used examples from the trailers, and even other sinema to present my case. I also mentioned your side of the argument to help onyesha 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 wewe would've just explained why it's bad, then wewe would've done just fine, and I wouldn't have alisema 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 makala was. Based on the few maoni 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 zaidi thought into her reviews. Your thoughts on my thoughts on her thoughts?

pmmom38 and 27Kowalski like this

27Kowalski I couldn't have said it better myself. *claps*

peacebaby8 I won't get into your review too much because you clearly went out of your way to misread Inkoo Kang's (and therefore find a way to justify your butthurt), but here are a few thoughts: 1. Inkoo Kang is a woman. 2. She's seen the movie; she's a professional (and respected) film critic. 3. She didn't call the penguins uninspired; she called the movie uninspired. Check out the context. (Reading! It's fundamental!) And here's a bonus fourth: She HAS seen the movie, not just the trailer. That's what pros do.

CaptSkipper Film critics often get to see the movie before it's released. I assume it wasn't mentioned (or she forgot) that Short Fuse was a seal. I do hope there are more feel-y moments than she mentioned. Honestly, my biggest concern of the movie was that they'd put comedy over development and plot. I really hope they flesh their characters out more than what this review seems to claim.

27Kowalski @peacebaby8: Hey, slow down there, mister. First, what's with your username? Are you trying to mock the actual peacebaby7? Is that what you're trying to do? Because it looks like that to me, and, to be honest, I think it's quite rude. (Also, I find it really hard to believe it's a coincidence, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) Second, how do you know all that? Do you know Miss Inkoo Kang personally or what? Did she tell you she's seen the movie? Because she doesn't say so in her so-called review. She talks about things everyone who's seen the trailers knows. Third, if she really saw the movie and paid attention to it she would've known the difference between a seal and an otter. Seriously, it's not that hard. Lastly, peacebaby7 (and I) might have misread the "uninspired Penguins" part, but all of her points still stand.

peacebaby7 @CaptSkipper: I did wonder about that, but she didn't seem to explain herself in such a way that made me think that. Personally, I think the movie will have some feel-y moments because of a couple of the small snippets in the trailers, but of course I won't know until I see it. @peacebaby8: Nice username. Nice to know I have an admirer. And you made an account just to waste your time with me, too? I'm touched. I'll have you know that I had no "butthurt" when I read her review (yes, I realized she was a woman after I'd written, and just didn't have the motivation to change it). I have no problem that she didn't like the movie, as I clearly stated in my argument. One of my closest friends doesn't even like it. Anyway, let's just say she saw the movie. Why did she not make this more clear? An awesome opening statement would've been something along the lines of, "I had the opportunity to view the [i]Penguins of Madagascar[/i] movie recently blah blah blah . . ." to let people know. Even without saying that, a proper review would've made it blatantly obvious that she'd seen it. If you think she's a respected film critic, that's your opinion. But if she really wants to give people insight on a movie, whether it's good or bad, she should really put more thought into her "reviews." If I had never been a fan of POM or the [i]Madagascar[/i] movies, reading her review on the movie wouldn't have let me know much about it. While you say I "went out of [my] way to misread" the article, I think she went out of her way to over-criticize the movie without telling anyone really anything about it. You're absolutely right! Reading is fundamental! Which is exactly why she should've clarified that she was talking about the movie itself instead of just the penguins, because it seemed more like she was talking about the penguins in the THREE times I read it over to fully understand her argument, or at least what I got out of it. If you're going to write a review, or write PERIOD, it's important to speak clerically if you want the majority of audiences to understand you. As someone who enjoys writing and reading, that's something I'm pretty certain I would know. Or is it just common sense? You be the judge. And to be fair, most of what I said still stands. She should've given a much better argument if she wanted people to take her seriously, and she definitely should've known the facts (again, seal, not an otter). If she would've supported herself better, I would've had nothing to say other than she has a right to her opinion. Lastly, your second and fourth thoughts are basically the same thing. (What was that about reading is fundamental again?)

peacebaby8 My first choice as username was "Ugh." It was taken, so I went with peacebaby8. It's not rude. Irreverent, maybe. But try not to get upset about something that doesn't matter, OK? It's akin to getting bent out of shape over a review of a movie you haven't seen. Ton answer your questions: I know all that because, yes, I know Inkoo personally. Not well, but I've been in a room with her on several occasions and had conversations with her. She's smart and she knows more about movies than most people, even other critics. It's not a "so-called review." It's a review. I can't speak to the seal/otter thing, but lots of film critics - including the great Roger Ebert, and Manohla Dargis, and A.O. Scott - get the occasional fact wrong in a movie review. That's what happens when you're watching a movie and writing notes in the dark. Or maybe she just thought the seal looked like an otter. On that you'd have to ask her. But even if I hadn't known she saw the movie, this line in her review kind of gives it away: "Ten seconds might be the longest length of time allowed to pass between nonstop nattering in “Penguins of Madagascar.” Not "...the longest length of time allowed to pass between nonstop nattering in THE TRAILER FOR 'Penguins of Madagascar.'" Or this line, which implies she knows how it ends: "Sure, there's a muddled lesson at the end, as tacked on as a Post-It on a piece of week-old cake." Or this line: "There isn't much to the film's story, and yet it's stuffed to the gills with plot." Like I wrote before: Reading! It's fundamental. And there's also this thing called context. I even looked it up so you'd get it: "[T]he circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed." You know, like referencing moments from the movie that aren't in the trailer. Like the ending. And, lastly, I'm trying to think how often film critics write explicitly in a review "I saw this movie" or some other relatively interchangeable phrase. Ugh. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

peacebaby8 Ugh (my preferred username!). I repeated myself because I wanted to make sure someone who has as hard a time reading as you do understood that point. And apparently it worked! You even brought it up! Maybe they'll accept you in AP English next year.

peacebaby7 @peacebaby8: I don't doubt her intelligence. I don't doubt her criticism. I doubt her review itself and its lack of clarity. Okay, fine. It's a review. You're absolutely, one hundred percent correct. It's just not written well. And to be fair, there weren't JUST trailer releases. There were two teaser scenes as well, which is what I thought she may have been referencing to. As far as the line about the ending, I did have my doubts on my argument with that as well, I'll admit. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. But I wasn't wrong about everything, either. As far as the "stuffed to the gills" line, anyone can watch a few trailers and a couple teaser scenes and make an assumption about that. I also find it quite surprising that you feel as though you fully understand the word "context" when you didn't seem to have applied it to my thoughts. How much did you really read everything I'd previously stated, backing up all the way to the beginning of my article? Okay, she saw the movie. I was absolutely wrong about that. But I still stand my argument that she should've written a better review, one that presented more of a solid argument in why she didn't enjoy the movie. She never fully explained why she felt the way she did about most of her points. Why did she think it was uninspired? Unmoving? Unfunny? Short on fun? The only points she explained was her disliking of the references and her main reason she didn't like Dave. If she could've given a little more insight on that, that would've been fantastic, and this whole thing wouldn't have gotten started because, as I said, I uphold her right to her opinion. One has to give more clerical compensation to their own opinion if they want other's support. Yeah, you're right. Simply stating that a critic saw the movie is a bit ridiculous. She [i]obviously[/i] saw it if she's a "respected movie critic," right? But just because she saw it, it doesn't mean her review was good or commendable. Aw, how beautifully ignorant you are. No, I didn't call you stupid. Ignorant just means you don't know. I'll have you know I have no problem reading at all. In fact, as a JUNIOR in high school, I'm ALREADY in AP English, and acing it. Normally, seniors would be the ones taking it, but I'm just so advanced in reading and writing that I was accepted into the honors course. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care if you believe me or not, nor if you even think I deserve to be in the course. I know more about me than you do. And I think a knife is pretty good compared to a finger gun.

xDark_Angelx Mhh, I wouldn't really judge her review yet until we get the chance to see it. As of now, there's not much to go off of to either deny or agree with her claims. Next week, we can certainly determine if the review is appropriate judgement of the movie. Until then, as I said, simply ignore whatever is said about the movie. Yes, critics get a chance to see it beforehand, but I rarely read those because they either raise my expectations or lower them, unless I feel a movie is gonna bomb. And with expectations, they all drift away when we see the final project. I do hope it's good, honestly. They certainly deserve it. Based on the trailers, I'm not expecting anything epic or touching, simply a comedic film with unique characters. I really hope we get some heartwarming scenes, though. The four penguins basically being brothers would be great for the movie touch on.

peacebaby7 @xDark_Angelx: Yeah, I agree. I never denied her claims, per se. As I said at the end, my purpose in writing this was just to hopefully make some of the fanguins on here that were upset about it feel a little better. I also agree with your last statements. The over-judging some of her opinions mainly came from my first-reaction thoughts that she hadn't seen it. Despite that she has, I still would've liked to have known more "why" than just "what." I won't drag you into that, though.

peacebaby7 There we go, peacebaby8. I fixed my review to accurately align to the mistakes that I compelled you point out. Thanks again for being oh so helpful. I hope it satisfies you.

SJF_Penguin2 When I read Inkoo Kang's review two days ago (before this review of the review), my first thought was that I couldn't put much stock in the opinion of someone who thought Short Fuse was an otter. We all make mistakes, but we should all do our research and thoroughly proofread before making something public too. I tweeted the error directly to the author yesterday, but I have not heard back and I don't expect to. As for the content of the review, I think Kang didn't go into detail about why she didn't like something, because she didn't feel a need. She thought the film was "unfunny" probably because she didn't laugh in the theater; "unmoving" because it did not move or touch her personally; lacking purpose because she didn't think the [i]Madagascar[/i] franchise (or the world) needed it; et cetera. Her opinions are her opinions, and while I disagree with them based on what I have seen in the trailers and clips, she is entitled to leave the theater feeling nothing and to write a review about feeling nothing. What is most important is not what a critic who watches [i]Penguins of Madagascar[/i] once and then moves on to watching the next movie thinks but what the fans of the franchise, particularly fans of the penguins, think. DreamWorks did not make this spin-off to become the next [i]Wizard of Oz[/i] or [i]Citizen Kane[/i] or [i]Schindler's List[/i]. It wasn't made with a realistic expectation of winning a wheelbarrow full of the most prestigious Hollywood awards, and it won't. It was created mainly to appeal to those who already love the penguin characters, to those who already appreciate the humor of these cute and cuddly birds. From what I've seen so far, DreamWorks seems to have succeeded and will have a commercial success even if the movie gets only mixed critical reviews. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if we see [i]Penguins of Madagascar 2[/i] hitting theaters by the end of the decade.

peacebaby7 @SJF_Penguin2: Well said. I guess I just personally think going into a little more detail would've made her review a little more solid. Like I said, I mainly wrote this because I noticed a few fanguins on here upset about it, and I was only hoping to make them feel a little better. I also agree with what you said about the movie appealing to those who already love the penguins. The main reason I was defending myself earlier wasn't necessarily to prove my argument right, or hers wrong, but because I felt as though my intelligence was wrongly questioned. I may not be the smartest person on earth, but I'm not an idiot. And to have someone make an account for that purpose really set the fuse. I apologize if I seemed a bit boarish in my taking up for myself.