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

You 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, did you see how I presented my counter-argument? I used examples from the trailers, and even other movies to present my case. I also mentioned your side of the argument to help show 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 you would've just explained why it's bad, then you would've done just fine, and I wouldn't have said 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 article was. Based on the few comments 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 more thought into her reviews. Your thoughts on my thoughts on her thoughts?