"March of the Penguins" is the latest independent film phenomenon, garnering much attention, both critically from renowned reviewers and financially at the box office. But I still wondered how a seemingly mundane story, the Antarctic life cycle of the emperor penguin, could possibly be as good as hyped.
The simple story traces a year in the life of emperor penguins dwelling near the South Pole. Most people know of penguins but do not know much about them. Thus the intrigue of the movie, learning about unknown creatures. While mildly engaging, that alone is not enough to garner interest for ninety minutes, but the quirky physical actions of the penguins do merit attention. Let's face it: penguins are weird, and their odd natural movements are what make the movie worth watching. Little things like a bird stumbling into a snowbank; bumping into a compadre; propelling itself out of the water; or the adorable youngsters doing almost anything. These things make you chuckle, as though watching a child curiously toddle around a park. That's the universal appeal; words are hardly necessarily and not always used in these scenes.
The sole human voice is Morgan Freeman, who again inimitably delivers the narration, and his sympathetic grandfatherly tone nearly supersedes the script that too often oozes smarminess, although his natural gravitas may actually be a detriment as well, enhancing the words that over-anthropomorphize the penguins. They are freaking birds, clearly not equal beings, too frequently treated as as peers with similar feelings of love, hope, and pain. In the most blatant example, while speaking of the dramatic emotions that the birds feel when tragedy strikes, the over-the-top narration simultaneously generates an unusual combination of sympathy and eye-rolling. Many critics have praised the movie for its powerful emotion, but are moviegoers so starved for a decent story that simple nature is to be considered extraordinary? I think not. The effort is appreciated, but ultimately too much.
The one element that could have salvaged "March of the Penguins" was the cinematography, which I expected more from. The icy natural beauty of Antarctica begs for spectacular scene-setting shots, something along the lines of "Touching the Void" or 2002's "Insomnia", but nothing special is present here. Maybe that was an intentional decision by the filmmakers to avoid distracting from the basic story, but contrasting the soaring surroundings with the literally down-to-earth penguins would have made the movie all the more fantastic on the big screen. Instead the filmmakers stick with unexciting shots highlighted only by the handful of close-ups that aren't too tight. Additionally several shots are less than crystal clear, perhaps hazy due to the conditions. But they are mildly distracting regardless, as are a few unusual confusing angles and some blatant cheating in the editing room, in which shots of seals were intercut with penguins to give the impression they were simultaneously sharing the same water. Things like this can be overlooked in bigger pictures, but when a movie is as simple as this one, the sometimes smaller components stand out and divert attention when they are subpar, particularly when they could have elevated the movie to greater heights.
"March of the Penguins" leaves one wondering why it was transformed to the big screen, because the movie is little more than a well done National Geographic special. Freeman's narration is a pleasant cinematic touch, but nothing else except the unctuous script distinguishes this from things seen before on television, despite the inherently amusing quirkiness of penguins.
Bottom Line: Decent, but not spectacular. 6 of 10 at best, and far from a must-see.
The simple story traces a year in the life of emperor penguins dwelling near the South Pole. Most people know of penguins but do not know much about them. Thus the intrigue of the movie, learning about unknown creatures. While mildly engaging, that alone is not enough to garner interest for ninety minutes, but the quirky physical actions of the penguins do merit attention. Let's face it: penguins are weird, and their odd natural movements are what make the movie worth watching. Little things like a bird stumbling into a snowbank; bumping into a compadre; propelling itself out of the water; or the adorable youngsters doing almost anything. These things make you chuckle, as though watching a child curiously toddle around a park. That's the universal appeal; words are hardly necessarily and not always used in these scenes.
The sole human voice is Morgan Freeman, who again inimitably delivers the narration, and his sympathetic grandfatherly tone nearly supersedes the script that too often oozes smarminess, although his natural gravitas may actually be a detriment as well, enhancing the words that over-anthropomorphize the penguins. They are freaking birds, clearly not equal beings, too frequently treated as as peers with similar feelings of love, hope, and pain. In the most blatant example, while speaking of the dramatic emotions that the birds feel when tragedy strikes, the over-the-top narration simultaneously generates an unusual combination of sympathy and eye-rolling. Many critics have praised the movie for its powerful emotion, but are moviegoers so starved for a decent story that simple nature is to be considered extraordinary? I think not. The effort is appreciated, but ultimately too much.
The one element that could have salvaged "March of the Penguins" was the cinematography, which I expected more from. The icy natural beauty of Antarctica begs for spectacular scene-setting shots, something along the lines of "Touching the Void" or 2002's "Insomnia", but nothing special is present here. Maybe that was an intentional decision by the filmmakers to avoid distracting from the basic story, but contrasting the soaring surroundings with the literally down-to-earth penguins would have made the movie all the more fantastic on the big screen. Instead the filmmakers stick with unexciting shots highlighted only by the handful of close-ups that aren't too tight. Additionally several shots are less than crystal clear, perhaps hazy due to the conditions. But they are mildly distracting regardless, as are a few unusual confusing angles and some blatant cheating in the editing room, in which shots of seals were intercut with penguins to give the impression they were simultaneously sharing the same water. Things like this can be overlooked in bigger pictures, but when a movie is as simple as this one, the sometimes smaller components stand out and divert attention when they are subpar, particularly when they could have elevated the movie to greater heights.
"March of the Penguins" leaves one wondering why it was transformed to the big screen, because the movie is little more than a well done National Geographic special. Freeman's narration is a pleasant cinematic touch, but nothing else except the unctuous script distinguishes this from things seen before on television, despite the inherently amusing quirkiness of penguins.
Bottom Line: Decent, but not spectacular. 6 of 10 at best, and far from a must-see.