Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I just find him really irritating. He was good in the mask and truman show, but often he's just really IRRITATING. Sorry. To be honest, I think he probably knows this.

I always liked the lame and gross funny stuff that Carrey started out doing, but this is getting all too sentimental... Oh, and of course he has done some wonderful drama ('Eternal Sunshine...'), but such is beside the point here.Jim Carrey has his moments and so do the penguins, but overall this is your very average family film for Christmas. I could've known, but wanted to try it anyway. As far as I could tell, there were mostly computer animated penguins, but also a few small parts with actual penguins. The (love)story is nothing new and towards the end gets out of hand in an overly sentimental way. Again - I could have known...Even as a light snack in between actual movie meals, this is hardly worth the effort. The given 'Carrey + penguins = some fun' made it just watchable. 4 out of 10.

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!

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.