Here comes the good news first: "The Adventures of Tintin" (aka "Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn") is overall entertaining as all get out. Steven Spielberg acts like a kid with a brand new giant bin of LEGOs in this movie, taking full advantage of the whole concept of a virtual camera and virtual settings. There's a stunning flashback to a pirate battle at sea where the camera spins and swoops and careens through space as the characters fly through the air and clamber over every inch of the two ships. Near the climax, that scene is topped by a chase through a city seen mostly from the point of view of a flying character. These scenes are hard as hell to describe adequately but, listen, they're well worth watching the movie for. The script is often fun as well and the story is a good old-fashioned wikkid fun hellzapoppin' globe-trotting adventure we just don't see anymore.
Visually, the film looks terrific. The cities, the vehicles, the effects, glowing treasure chests, sinking pirate ships, and fluttery pieces of parchment. All of them look varying degrees of fantastic.
The human and animal characters look good too, as long as they are not facing the screen and are sitting perfectly still.
Right. So let's talk about the motion capture.
Because this is what comes damn close to killing any good will I have for the film. Remember when the very first trailers for "Tintin" came out and they looked suspiciously reluctant to show the characters' faces? Well, surprise surprise, there's a reason for that. Now, to be perfectly fair, the characters look more appealing here than in most other mo-cap movies. But the filmmakers made the exceedingly odd choice of making the characters as utterly photorealistic as possible - while retaining their distinctive caricaturish features from the comics.
The result is, to say the least, jarring as f***. I have heard that there is no real evidence to support the theory of the Uncanny Valley, and yet I can confirm that there is a part of my brain that wigs out when confronted with the sight of a Creature That Looks Like A Man But Is NOT A Man, because it was going haywire every time a new character was introduced.
The weird thing is, this time it wasn't just the human characters who set this off. Snowy the dog (and best character in the movie) looks fine for the most part, probably since after decades of watching animation I am used to odd-looking dogs (what up, Pluto?) And yet it's unnerving when you start to notice his fluttery little tongue going in his mouth ALMOST -but not quite- like a real terrier. There's also a "falcon" that is, frankly, the worst-looking character in the entire movie. It looks, acts, and flies like no winged creature on God's green Earth. In twenty-one years, we went from Marahute to this thing. Yeah.
With all this in mind, and with the fact that Spielberg directed the ultimate (if I may repeat myself) good old-fashioned wikkid fun hellzapoppin' globe-trotting adventures we just don't see anymore as live-action films in the 1980's, I wonder what was even the point of making the "Tintin" films in motion-capture? I mean, if you're film is going to be essentially a live-action film with extensive animated effects populated with wrong-looking people, why are you even motion-capturing it? And notice I didn't say "why didn't you animate it", because this film very definitely has put me on Team "Motion Capture Is Not Animation" (Team MCINA? Team MoCapINAni? Whatever.) Now, Motion Capture is a very powerful effects tool. I rather liked "Avatar" (but mostly because of the world-building), and "Rise of the... Apes" made the water come out my eyes, enough said. But I guess if your entire movie is motion-captured, it just feels so... *pointless*.
I'd love to hear (well, read) other people's thoughts on this. But until then, "Tintin" is worth a look, though I don't know if I'll be on board with the next in the series.
-----
Sketch of the Day
While I was in the Uncanny Valley, I was asked by these friendly... people... to paint their portraits. (Seriously, I apologize for these.)
And suddenly, it is Autumn! So far the weather has been pretty mild and sunny, good for reading and ill-conceived still life setups. And musing about things that have recently caused major rifts in the areas of the Internet where I frolic. We'll start with something I am disappointed in (and lots of people appear to be largely in agreement with me) and go on to something I am unabashedly optimistic about (and lots of people appear to be largely in disagreement with me).
You know, it seems like only yesterday it was the day after the Superbowl and I was picking apart the trailer for "Terra Nova". In that post, I had a list of things I hoped the producers wouldn't do. Unsurprisingly, they didn't listen to me, but I was alarmed to see that most of those things were right there in the pilot. In hindsight, I wish I had added to my "don't do this" list things like, "no annoying children please", "no annoying teenagers either", and "seriously, guys, don't just be '"Lost" Meets "Avatar" - But They're in the Cretaceous!'"
Too Long; Didn't Read Version: "Terra Nova", I am Disappoint.
Extended Dance Remix: Let's begin in the Uncreative Sh**ty Future that the first ten minutes or so of the show take place in. It is basically the same old post-apocalyptic (post-"Blade Runner", more honestly) land of smog and traffic and overcrowded cities and fascist police and black clothing and in light of everything else absurdly easy to break rules and blah whatever. Since we leave the Uncreative Sh**ty Future and go to Terra Nova pretty quickly, I'm not even sure why it's even part of the plot, except that it supplies the Main Family with Angst. God, this series has Angst. So much Angst. Angst everywhere. Most of it comes from the kids and we'll get to them in a bit. By the way, way to talk loudly about your secret plans on the way to Terra Nova, Annoying Older Brother.
So through a series of events that is too stupid to recount here, the Main Family goes through the Totally Not a Stargate to Terra Nova (the place). This is where we must talk about how the hell time/dimension-travel even works in "Terra Nova" (the series). Through exposition that is way too easy to miss, we learn that this giant rift I guess formed out of nowhere and that things sent through the rift never came back. They assumed this rift must lead to another dimension (another easily missed bit that really only exists so time paradoxes aren't an issue even though it brings up a ton of other problems) because the signals from the objects were never received by the scientists who APPARENTLY HAVE A RADIO THAT CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THE DISTANT PAST HOLY SH*T! If you hope to have this magic radio explained, you will be disappointed. They also don't explain how anyone learned how, if the rift takes you to a different time and dimension on a trip that there is no returning to the future from, the rift led to a place that is even habitable for humans instead of, like, the bottom of the sea or inside a volcano or on a planet with a toxic atmosphere or no atmosphere at all or, hell, in the middle of nowhere in outer space. I'd go on and on and on about all this but I am starting to feel myself getting a nosebleed.
So Main Family go through the rift and immediately start Angsting at each other, like you naturally do when you are a human who is suddenly in the Cretaceous Period holy sh*t! And you have just escaped the horrible post-apocalyptic future. And you are experiencing the sun and the moon and clouds and stars and clean water and clean air and edible plants and trees and ferns and flowers and nonhuman animals other than cockroaches and Cher for the very first time ever. This freakin' series, my God.
Annoying Older Brother is mad because his father was in prison for two years, and now he's mad because his father is no longer in prison, and now he's mad because his girlfriend is back (?) in the Sh**ty Future, and now he's mad because there's nothing to eat but Duran Duran Fruit, and now he's mad because his iPhone doesn't work, and holy sh*t shut the hell up already Older Brother! By the way, raise your hand if you would rather see a series focusing on the first scientists to explore and build Terra Nova instead of focusing on this Boring TGIF Sitcom Family.
And then there is the youngest daughter. Sweet Raptor Jesus. Finally we Jurassic Park readers have our book-accurate Lex. I am so Goddamn happy about this you guys, you don't even understand.
So... we learn that there is a group of Other people who went through the rift and live in an Other part of the forest and want to do things in the Cretaceous Other than what Colonel Quaritch wants to do. They've adapted to the weird new world long ago and are in on the local Ontological Mystery (tm) involving mystery numbers. So, yeah, the show basically does look a whole awful lot like '"Lost" Meets "Avatar" - But They're in the Cretaceous!'"
Which brings us, finally, to the dinosaurs. Oh man. We got our first look at a motion-capture dinosaur and it looks bad. Like more herky-jerky in it's movements than something Ray Harryhausen would have animated. That bad. We also get our first look at one of Brannon Braga's invented dinosaur species and...
Goddammitsomuch, Braga.
It might actually be easier to post this, so here is your Art of the Day:
(Edit: Thanks for noticing this one, guys! [And see Albertonychus' comments below as well.] Can you tell at what moment I was done with this series?)
"But Trish, it's just a TV show! Plus something about how it isn't really the Cetaceous Period and how it's more about the human characters! You should, to borrow a phrase, really just relax!"
You know, I want to. I wish I could. But the sad, sad truth is that more people are going to watch Braga's bulletproof gorilla suit Oviraptor-things tear up tanks with their tail-blades and assume that what they're seeing is the Bakker's-honest truth than will ever pick up a book. Or visit a museum. Or listen to teachers and scientists.
Listen, there are still folks out there who have no idea Dilophosaurus didn't have a ridiculous frill-thing. To the point where you will see such things on cheap knock-off toys. And to the point where a sign in a zoo I once visited - and dear reader you cannot imagine how much I want to be making this up - assured everyone that it's actual alive Frilled Dragons do not spit poison. So when your much-hyped fictional species looks like a not-sarcastic version of Matt's Prehistoric TV Reconstruction Kitteh, that makes me very, very sad. People, dinosaurs were perfectly normal animals just like you and me, not something that looks more at home in a D&D Monstrous Manual. (And anyway, as has been established, the human characters suck.)
Man, to think a few weeks ago we were all complaining about a dinosaur documentary!
Ah well, speaking of things the Internet likes to complain about, how about the "Avatar"-based section of Disney's Animal Kingdom that was announced a little while ago? Here are my thoughts, which are edited from things I posted over at DisBoards' thread on the subject. (I do not recommend reading the whole thing, which is damn near fifty pages of mostly "Wah! This isn't what I would have done with this intellectual property I didn't happen to create or own the rights to! I know better than the people in charge of my favorite things!" Unless you have a very strong drink handy.)
Here we have Walt Disney World teaming up with James Cameron. Cameron is a filmmaker who is a notorious taskmaster who goes on many an ego trip -- but who ALSO goes big, shoots for the moon, wants to blow the audience's mind, wants to show people things they've never seen before, has created some of the best-selling films of all time with some of the most passionate fans you will ever meet, and who, above all, basically invents technology along the way just to get a movie made.
Hmm... just like Walt Disney did.
So I have no problem whatsoever with a Disney/Cameron Marvel Teamup.
Now as far as the film "Avatar". Very few people were enamored of the story, even the hardcore fans. Why did people keep coming back to the theater? Why were an alarming number of ordinary folks crying at night, wishing they could turn into Navi and live on Pandora? (To which I say, my God, pull yourself together and book an ecotour of Costa Rica. Earth is pretty too. And real.) I'll tell you why:
Pandora was built in excruciating detail from the ground up. Some of the most creative minds were put in charge of every detail. I was sold on the movie once I heard Wayne D. Barlowe and Neville Page were involved. (As you may have guessed, I am a creature design nutcase.) So this is indeed a world as detailed as, say, Hogwarts. (I'll give you Star Wars, since we're dealing with several planet's worth of Barlowe and Terryl Witlatch critters rather than one planet we haven't even seen the aquatic fauna of -- yet.)
So there are a lot of interesting opportunities to be had here. One possibility I like (aside from the fairly obvious "Trudy Lives!" flight simulator, "Soarin' on a Turok", and "Neytiri and her Forest Friends") is an exhibit of the real organisms who inspired the fictional creatures: Lemurs, Ocelots, Tube Worms, Birds of Paradise, Lanternfish, Butterfly Lizards, Tree Ferns, Raffelasia, Flower Hat Jellyfish, and a whole slew of plants and animals who are strange, awesome, and need more love.
I've got the same attitude I already had with the Fantasyland expansion: I'm trusting Disney can pull it off and am ready to enjoy something new. Because in the end, we are getting a new themed land out of this. You HAVE to agree that's worth getting excited over.
That said, here's an interesting thing to ponder that I didn't even think of until the folks over at another message board brought it up: If we're going to get a park-within-a-park based on a fictional planet populated with strange creatures and a fully realized ecosystem, why Pandora and not Barsoom? I mean really, Disney. You're usually so good at shameless synergy.
It's been a while since we looked at trailers for upcoming animated (or not) films together, hasn't it? Fortunately, there's a huge crop out in the wake of ComiCon and they include some unusual films indeed. And questionable book-to-film title changes. Lots of them.
First off, "Winnie the Pooh", a very unexpected and pleasant surprise in this overall dreadful summer, is in theaters now. This is worth mentioning because it was released on the same weekend as, and has been a teeny tiny bit overshadowed by, another movie based on a beloved British children's book.
By the way, great jarb there Disney.
Here, just to get it out of the way, is the full trailer for "Happy Feet 2: Farewell to the Flesh". You are probably already aware that I disliked the original "Happy Feet", and while I figured the sequel might improve things (this is the same George Miller who gave us the awesomely bizarre "Babe: Pig in the City"), this here trailer is... discouraging. Actually, there are several things I could say about it but I will instead say this: At about the twenty second mark, I figured the makers of this film are, in fact, f**king with us.
I love how this cute teaser for Aardman's "Arthur Christmas" openly acknowledges right from the start that it's hard to get excited about a Christmas movie in high summer. I also like how this reminds me a little of the late, lamented "Cranium Command" show at EPCOT.
One of the overlooked treasures of the young adult novel section at your local library is illustrator Brian Selznick's Caldecot winning semi-graphic novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. The film, directed by no less than Martin Scorsese, comes our way in November. The trailer is a bit heavy on the slapstick (and the love-it-or-hate-it stylings of 30 Seconds to Mars Frozen Embryos), but everything else looks gorgeous.
A second trailer for "Tintin" was trotted around the internet recently and... disappeared mysteriously. Hopefully, this French trailer will stick around for a while. Is it me or does it look like they're still suspiciously reluctant to show the characters' faces?
So... here's "Puss in Boots". After this is over, can we be done with "Shrek" and everything associated with same? Please? I'll be good!
And now for our most far-flung movies. Although the film doesn't hit theaters until March, Aardman has dropped the trailer for "Pirates!" already. You may have heard that they are no longer affiliated with Dreamworks. You may have also heard that Nick Park and company have been wanting to make a pirate movie since at least "Flushed Away" (which originally involved -yes- pi-rats and wound up a bit of a mess instead). I'm getting a distinct "Look at what we can do NOW" vibe from this trailer.
Finally -FINALLY!- we've got our first look at PIXAR's "John Carter" (which anyone reading a blog like mine probably already knows is, in fact, "A Princess of Mars". And yes, that is on my summer reading list.) Obviously most of the "big" effects aren't done yet, so this looks a little generic.
And Fridge Logic: Why not use "Kings and Queens" here instead?
And speaking of PIXAR, here's the teaser for "Brave". Seeing as one of PIXAR's hallmarks is the fact that they like to research their asses off, I am giddy with excitement over this one.
As far as series, and me being giddy with excitement, hey there, "Legend of Korra" trailer!
And just because I can, here's a very special find. A teaser trailer for a film that never saw the light of day. Originally, "Siegfried" was to be a full-length animated feature, but the funding was cut. The story was eventually made into a graphic novel, but the trailer, with a look somewhat similar to early period Don Bluth films, shows us we missed out on something amazing.
-----
Sketch of the Day!
I said recently I hadn't drawn enough dragons. Came up with this turtle-dragon.
Well first off, because this just occurred to me, let's marvel at the fact that an early 80's flop with a modest but very loyal cult following has been given a gigantic, ambitious, big-budget sequel (the first of a hopeful long-running franchise) by a massive mainstream studio. Whether or not you think the movie is good, that is pretty amazing.
And all things considered, I rather liked "TRON: Legacy". I've got a soft spot for the original and given how long this film has been in development and how much Disney has been crapping itself over the film promoting it, it's much better than I expected it would be.
Of course, what I mean by this is that "Legacy" is a worthy sequel to the original "TRON". And that is to say, it's basically CGI eye-candy. It has a few interesting ideas here and there and it bothered me a little in hindsight that it didn't really play around with the interesting sci-fi concepts it easily could have. But to be honest, I didn't really expect it to (then again, it is very sad that I'm conditioned to not expect interesting sci-fi from big franchise sci-fi movies). The film takes a little bit to find it's footing, the villain's evil plan is incomprehensible, and there is an early scene that rivals Jim Hawking sky-sailboarding in "Treasure Planet" in it's hamfisted attempt to show the kids in the audience how awesome the hero is. All things considered, those weren't the things that I disliked most about this movie. If you've read this blog for a long time you probably know already what I'm going to rant about in the whole next paragraph.
There are three characters in this movie who are brought to animated life via motion capture. Two of them are little virtual TRON people, so it isn't too distracting. And of these, one of them is seen only briefly and the other is the villain so it's fine that he creeps you out a little (but oh ye Gods, when he shouts near the end... )
The third character is a person from the real world at a younger age. He looks fine at first when he faces away from us and when he is completely obscured by shadows and such. When he finally faces us, he looks terrible. Completely terrible. Like, in the same year we got the Winkelvoss twins in "The Social Network", he looks like something out of "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within". No, worse than that. He looks like he was animated by somebody who had only the most vague idea of how human cheek muscles and jawbones work but has never ever actually watched someone talk before.
But other than this, the movie is really neat. Like the original, it's got a production design that doesn't really look like anything else that has come out of Disney, and I liked it for the sheer fact that the animation in the updated TRON universe is *really* pretty (hot dang, the new lightcycle transformation sequence!) Where the first "TRON" was basically, "Look at what we can do with computer animation!", this movie is, "Look at what we can do with computer animation NOW!" I'm genuinely sad that I didn't get to see this in IMAX.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Castor. I wouldn't dream of ruining the fun by explaining who he is or what to expect from him. Just know that Michael Sheen knew exactly what kind of movie "TRON: Legacy" should have been (a big retro cheesy meal). He comes in at just the right moment (after the movie almost grinds to a halt and nearly reaches a "9" level of Young Newbie: "Let's go actually do something" Old Fart: "No, everything must stay the same" wallbangery). And he steals the show right out from under Not Sam Worthington. Remember when we first saw Jack Sparrow in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" and wondered, "how the hell did Disney let this fly?" Yep, same deal here.
Quorra's another fun character and I like how she takes the old Cute Girl Who Saves the Boring Hero meme in some different directions and the little flashes of the "things humans take for granted that an alien wouldn't quite 'get'" part of her personality. The music is amazing and overall the movie is a fun ride for fans of the original. I am actually pretty curious as to where Disney's going to take this franchise from here.
ADDENDUM: As this just hit me, months later: The weirdest thing about me reviewing "TRON: Legacy" as part of the Disney Animated Canon is the fact that CGI eye-candy is EVERYWHERE these days. So why consider "TRON" part of the Canon and not, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean"? "G-Force"? "Sorcerer's Apprentice"? You cannot deny that all these films include computer animated characters.
Well, the reason why "Legacy" (and any possible future "TRON" movies although the future looks a bit dim there right now) makes the cut is simply because it's parent did. And the one and only reason "TRON" made the cut is because Disney considered it one of their animated films in the early 80's, back when it was the most impressive recent thing they had to brag about. I don't suppose anyone is going to necessarily complain that I am not reviewing "G-Force" et al, but I supposed I ought to say something about it to cover myself.
For more posts in this ongoing series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.
Quick post today since I'm a bit busy IRL and, tragically, haven't had a chance to upload any new art anywhere. I can assure you that I am finished with my antibiotics and am now starting to almost feel like myself. (Not to be too graphic, but I've been eating lots of yogurt. After taking an antibiotic for more than a week. Biologist friends, think about it. Yeah. Euwww...)
I would like to thank the random person on the animation message board I happened to be reading for bringing my attention to this short film. It's called "Thought of You". It is by animator Ryan Woodward. And it is kind of mind-blowing.
And this is because, as far as I can determine from scouring Woodward's website, the whole thing is hand-drawn. This is worth watching in fullscreen, and while the song is a little blah, it is astonishing to realize that there's no rotoscoping, no motion capture (go look at that still from the "Tintin" trailer again, or better yet wait until Friday), just obsessively gorgeous observational drawing based off live dancers. There are no words for how simple and beautiful this is.
Speaking of little treasures of animation, it's incredibly rare to see any "news" about "The Brave Little Toaster". Thank Heaven I stumbled upon this interview with the film's director, Jerry Rees, and voice actress Deanna Oliver.
It's an hour long, but it's worth it for their stories of the symbolism of the characters, the absurdly small budget, the very strange release schedule, the deeply infuriating reaction of the judges at Cannes, sequel denial, deleted scenes that will never see the light of day (shades of "The Land Before Time"), and (Yes!) that scene with the flower. Obviously, don't watch this if you haven't seen the movie yet. But for longtime fans, it's a reminder of why "BLT" was one of those rare movies that feels like it appeared right out of the blue, in complete defiance of everything you know about mainstream animation, like a gift just to make you happy.
CHUD.com, a movie news website I enjoy, has been listing their choices for the worst instances of CGI animation in (usually) otherwise live-action films. They range from Wolverine's "Roger Rabbit" claws in "X-Men Origins" to the forty-two sauropod pileup in Peter Jackson's "King Kong". As a person who has blogged quite a lot about animation, I figured I should share it. Right now, they can all be found accumulating here, or you could start with part one and work your way through. I have to say, I agree with most of the selections (Part One in particular, as it covers the Scorpion King sequence in "The Mummy Returns", which is easily one of the most downright embarrassing and Narm-tacular things ever put on a screen.) I have to nitpick, however, that many of the sequences were done with the best animation available at the time and simply have not aged well. That said, a fair number of them were... not. And I agree with their argument that we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if the sequences that could have been done practically were. Take entry ten, the "Burly Brawl" in "Matrix Reloaded". Now, when I saw that at the theater I thought it was awesome. Then when I watched it again last summer it was still awesome... up until a point. There is a moment, and you can tell exactly where it is, when the film-makers eschewed practical effects and stuntwork for motion capture. This is about the only scene in the entire trilogy where they do so and... man, it just sticks out like you can't imagine. It looks like something out of "Happy Feet' and happens to be the only really badly animated scene in the trilogy.
Yes, even though, ages ago, I said I didn't feel like I'd ever need to. Because this movie about a penguin who tap-dances to bad covers of popular songs can't possibly be a fraction as entertaining as reading the message boards and discussion threads where people, people who are probably reasonable adults in real life, have ridiculously intense arguments about (just as a reminder) a movie about a tap-dancing penguin.
As you may recall, the animation-enjoying population of the internet was essentially ripped asunder when this thing won Best Animated Feature. If you do not recall, or you want to relive the magic and wonder of that experience, here's the relevant Cartoon Brew thread. (Bring marshmallows. Lots of them.)
It was partially that and partially rereading this Onion AV Club review of "Babe: Pig in the City" that inspired me to add it to the ol' Netflix Queue. I rented "Pig in the City" as well and was able to watch both films back to back. (It is three-thirty in the morning as I write this fresh off the experience.) My reaction to "City" was nearly identical to that of Scott Tobias and his readers. It is a brilliant, criminally underrated, beautiful film that is also batsh*t insane in all the right ways; "the stuff of impeccably choreographed nightmares". The animals are better actors than most humans and, best of all, the voice-over acting is refreshingly understated with help from a witty, oddly moving script. Naturally, I was pumped for "Happy Feet".
As I mentioned, it is very early in the morning as I write this. I could probably just say that I can see why people were, shall we say, opinionated about this movie.
Let's get it out of the way: the Mo-Cap is ugly. There's something off-putting about human eyes and giant, humanlike mouths and tongues in an otherwise fairly realistic nonhuman creature. There's something off-putting about seeing a creature that is anatomically wildly different than a human move and act like a human. I never thought I'd ever feel like I was hit with the Uncanny Valley stick by a cartoon penguin.
The voices are downright surreal. Why hire Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman for your animated film if they're just going to do lame impressions of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe? What the hell is the point? Why not hire actual voice actors who'd do better imitations? And why oh why do we have to be hearing Robin Williams come out of the noise-hole of every other character? (OK, maybe it just sounds that way after a while. Still.)
The songs are beyond surreal. Sometimes you can tell, during a musical whose soundtrack is made up of pre-existing songs, that the people who compiled the songs were only seeking catchy beats and tunes or focused on one or two lyrics relevant to the story. This is such a musical. Boy, is it ever such a musical. There's a scene where an adorable/creepily humanlike baby penguin sings "The Message" by Grandmaster Flash, and I do not believe that it is possible for any living thing with breath in their body to watch this scene without going: 😨
As far as the story... Okay, WTF was the lesson here? Pick a moral, kids!
* - Animals are only interesting when they act like people.
* - If there is something new and different, everyone must eventually conform to this new thing or else.
* - If you are different and/or special, your life is going to suck. Hard. Even if you eventually save the day, you must expect to be banished at some point. Probably by your own family.
* - The last wild places in the world, those uninhabited by mankind, are worth saving. If they're amusing to humans. If not, f*** 'em.
The film also boasts a memorably awkward happy ending, the last moral on my list (I guess I was supposed to get "save the penguins" out of it but it sure doesn't come across that way) is delivered with all the subtlety of an entire season of "Captain Planet", and did I mention that Robin Williams voices more than one major character? I don't even know how to react to this movie. It is astonishing. Not the good kind of astonishing, but the "What the hell did I just watch?" kind of astonishing.
Overall, Best Animated Feature of 2006? Really? Really? REALLY?!? So the lesson I'm taking is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences obviously hates Richard Linkletter's animated films with the white hot fury of a thousand stars.
Oh, the well-loved Tex Avery short, "I Love to Singa" is on the DVD, and I find this ironic, funny, and sad because it owns the hell out of "Happy Feet".
