[Jaydelart]

Just saw the movie. It was fine.

I think the primary issue has to do with people's inability to generously disassociate the movie form the animation. And I'm saying this honestly because I initially had that attitude at the beginning of the movie.

I read a few "reviews" before hitting the theatre and %90 of them began with the message somewhere along the lines of "I really loved the cartoon!" -- and that's where the problem lies. The movie may be based on the cartoon, but it is not the cartoon; it is not animated, not given the luxury of a series of episodes, nor is it full of explosive expressions, which is what makes the characters who they are in the cartoon.

"The acting was mediocre." They are kids. And, frankly, they did well for their roles. Has it been lost in consideration that a majority of the voice-acting used in the cartoon is done by adults? And that the physical acting in the cartoon is not all that physical after all? They're drawings. Voice-acting and animation makes for a more highly controllable presentation in comparison to live-action.

"The only highlight was the action, and there was few action scenes." Bullshit. I don't remember where I read that, but I was remembering how absurd that sounded when I found myself satisfied by the amount of action taking place. Yes, the effects were a highlight... but the action was far from rare... and, might I add, the choreography was surprisingly good, considering the intricacies involved in some of their real martial-arts-based movements.

"It was too fast paced." That's right. I agree, it was fairly fast paced. However, I also remembered, again, that it was not the cartoon, which had the luxury of a dozen episodes to gracefully present the plot. In this case, the beginning and middle were fast-paced (in comparison to the cartoon) to cover more ground and set-up the main conflict -- all within the trime-frame of a single sitting. I found that if you can somehow manage to forget the cartoon, you can appreciate the scenes more.

"The casting was racist." I don't think so. I'm asian; I would've liked to see more asian actors... but I didn't mind... because the casting was not entirely bad. Some people think Ang should be pure asian... but there are a number of qualities needed to be filled in order to match the character of Ang: he had to be young, childish yet mature, fluent in english, and preferably capable of acrobatics or martial arts. The kid had it. Not to mention, he had genuine martial arts skills, and is half asian. And his two inuit companions? How many blue-eyed inuits will you find that match most of the qualities needed for the roles?

Shymalan was not simply mirroring the cartoon. He was attempting to convert the world into a more realistic dimension. There are people saying there were not enough East Asians... but I saw East Asians! I also saw Caucasians, African Americans, Indians, and Latinos. Note: There were hardly if not no black characters in the cartoon. I saw a literally ethnically-mixed cast. The fact that people are accusing him of racism is kind of ironic.

In the end, I do wish there were more ambient scenes, though that's just my taste. There was a lot of missed content from the cartoon, and I think that's what irked the hardcore fans the most. Taking into consideration how difficult it is to recreate the same attachment developed in the cartoon under significantly more limited circumstances, I think people should be a lot less anal about the whole thing...
The graphics and settings were beautiful, the characters were mostly accurate, and the action was not lacking.

It is not the series. It is not prodominantly composed of East Asians. It is not as graceful as the animated version... but its not all as horrible as the parrots gossip it is, either.

Just my opinion.