Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

khnum3 Ah,Friday night!After watching The Looney Tunes:Back in Action,I thought is there anything a bit more interesting than the commercial I watched before (except for the battle with Marvin,the other was...usually I don't make a review of not successful movie because it's easy to say "trash" at something bad instead to share a review of a nice done work.Anyway.)And I saw there is a TV premiere of "Mr.Popper's Penguins" starring Jim Carrey.And so I watched it. The story is pretty good.How a group of noisy freeze-loving cute birds could take a separated family back together.It shows a businessman,living alone in a apartment(which I very liked-it was like...Vallhala to mid-class apartments),crushed by his childhood and absent presence of his dad,until (spoilers-try-to-stop-moment)you are getting to know the title.The actors played nice also we could see Jim Carrey in serious moments (of course there are some his crazy appearances) which proves his Hollywood-star position as a good actor who not only freaks out in movies.All the obstacles to reaching the theme-family and love(not only sexual way.As an action to love somebody as the part of the most important purpose-the family ,which includes the penguins,represented as a part of Popper's world,and to be loved as a member of that.Most notable is still Jim Carrey but the other actors did also a very good job.Such as Carla Gucino and (my favorite's character-Mrs.Van Gundy played by Angela Lansbury.The villain here is represented by ({Agent}...{ughm}...{Coulson}...something in my throat)Clark Gregg whom character is greedy for money and suspicious who finally gets what deserves.I thinks the most supporting role is for the kids of the main "hero".All of his walked way gets by the help of them and ,of course,to develop the character.There are a pretty funny moments which elevates the movie in to very good class.The dresses are well.The ambiance and atmosphere are correct too.The only thing I voted 8 for it is because of 2 things.Now I think if a movie is a good one it needs a memorable background music but that's my opinion.But the other taken point is for my question -"What I have learned from this movie?".Is it about to never give up,to not be greedy or to love our families and never desperate.For me it's not easy to pick the right one as well all presents in the film but which is the valuable one? Anyway "Mr.Popper's Penguins" is a nice film for desperate or Christmas moments when all the family gadders up and could have some good time.

ironhorse_iv Mr. Poppers Penguins was one of my favorite books when I was a child and plus, I was a big Jim Carrey fan. Wow, this film was a complete let down! This movie didn't follow anything from the book. I can understand, taking creative license, but to take the title and loosely based it on Mr. Popper's Penguin adding a new plot, new characters, and new everything is a disgrace to the book fans that love the work. It's not like the book didn't have a simple good plot. It did! Why couldn't they just keep the plot of the book rather than this new over complex mess of a film? The book did win a Newbury award, no less. So, it's brilliant written. Mr. Popper's Penguins was a children's book written by Richard and Florence Atwater in 1938. It tells the story of a poor house painter named Mr. Popper and his family, who live in the small town of Stillwater in the 1930s. The Poppers unexpectedly come into possession of a penguin, Captain Cook. The Poppers then receive a female penguin from the zoo, who mates with Captain Cook to have 10 baby penguins. Before long, something must be done so the penguins can live with the Poppers. That's the plot!! It's so simple! Now, let's look at this 2011's film version directed by Mark Waters. Tom Popper (Jim Carrey) is a divorced real estate entrepreneur whose father traveled to many far places around the world during his childhood. He uses methods of experiencing adventures to get CEOs of businesses into selling their buildings to Popper's real estate company. Wow, this is so easy for young children to understand. It's not like hard to explain, painter (Sarcasm). Honestly, are we trying to get children to see this movie or adults? I doubt average blue collars adults would ever care about this rich snob who has brats as kids, Janie Popper & Billy Popper (Madeline Carroll and Maxwell Perry Cotton). In the book, these kids were great examples of how kids should act. They made the father-loving children into spoil brats who selfish want to keep the penguins to themselves. They even made the Zookeeper Nat Jones (Clark Gregg) into a villain because he knows that they are wild animals, not pets. Not cool, movie. When, Tom's father dies, his father sent him, his last souvenir; a group of gentoo penguins. Honestly, I know it's a kid's film, but couldn't they at less do their research, and make the gentoo penguin seem like real creatures, rather then, badly done CGI one trip stereotypes. What is with the names? Bitey, Stinky, Lovey, Nimrod, and Loudy? Sounds like the rejects of the other dwarfs from Snow White. I honestly dig the old names. The penguins were name after famous explorers like Captain in the film is known as Captain Cook. Plus, in the book, they are all different types of penguins ranging from gentoo to Emperor. This movie really seems to be dumbing down the children with names like that. Bitey, Stinky, Nimrod, and Loudy are horrible negative names for animals. It's like telling kids, it's OK to call people horrible names, if they have a negative stereotype. Not only did the movie cut how Mr. Popper was able to surround them by having them trained to do life shows like the book which would be entertaining to watch. Rather we are forced to watch Popper trying to buy off the Tavern on the Green and him fighting against its elderly owner, Selma Van Gundy (Angela Lansbury). This is sad, because not only is this movie destroying the book, but a very popular New York restaurant. Too bad, it closed down in real life in 2009, but it's still own by the city of NY as a gift shop. Plus, I thought Angela Lansbury was badly misused. She could had narrator this movie. At less, the movie somewhat follows the book in the sub-plot where Mr. Popper become to question if living in this type of an environment is the best thing for the penguins and feels he is not capable of raising the penguins. His children and ex-wife, however, are disappointed in his decision, seeing it as wrong. I have to say this family is one of the most selfish stupidest people in the world. Maybe we should teach our children that loving an animal sometimes means letting an expert care for it properly. And that trying to care for an exotic animal we know nothing about, in an apartment that has none of the essential living requirements, is a very irresponsible thing to do and will likely not have a happy ending. The ending with the love test is a joke, not real. The film had a weak moral lesson. Honestly, I didn't like most of the new characters. Honestly, the only new character, I like in this film is Ophelia Lovibond as Pippi. I'm surprised, Mr. Popper didn't fall in love with her. She was a lot kinder than his ex-wife. (Carla Gugino). In the book, his wife was very supporting character to him and not divorce. Our children are influenced by our media. I do feel like with children oriented movies, we shouldn't be showing divorce as an easy fix for "rough patches" in marriages, and provide hope that a happy experience will bring together divorced parents because that's not true. The crude humor was not funny at all. Even for little kids, it's wasn't the greatest poop jokes ever or slapstick. Jim Carrey wasn't funny at all. I enjoy Jim Carrey's talent but I can't understand why he had such a lack of effort. Overall: Hollywood needs to stop attempting to make spins offs of children's classics, and stick to the original story. They're called classics for a reason, don't mess with it!

tombiddy87 This may be a film mainly aimed at kids but even so it is a mess. The outline plot is Tom Popper inherits a penguin which his Father leaves to him in his will and some how after attempting to get rid of the penguin ends up with five more. We all know what sort of film were expecting when you put Jim Carrey and a bunch of penguins together but the plot made no sense. It's becomes the norm for films portray Dads as always working and never spending enough time with their kids and that's exactly how Tom Popper(Jim Carrey) is portrayed in this film. It's called real life, People have to work. Another non sensical moment is when a animal expert comes to his flat to try and convince him to have the penguins because they need to leave in certain conditions and he is portrayed as the bad guy for thinking of the penguins best welfare.Sadly no individual performance seems to stand out but the script doesn't do it any favours. It needs to be kept in ming that this is mainly aimed at kids who will enjoy it but it is a shame it couldn't work on more then one level.

dianeb-564-537461 It is posted in the IMDb that the filming location is in New York - but the very last scene, is it really New York or a montage of North Pole??? As we can see from a bird's eye view, the ocean and snow and the whole scenery of a winter scene that pretty much looks like or resembles the North Pole. But of course, I could be wrong. Anybody who has the answer to this is more thank welcome to clear that mystery location or montage to me. Of course, anything or should I say, show business makes it all possible. All kidding aside, I really would appreciate anyone who could explain to me this last scenery location. Thanking you in advance.