Critics’ reviews

Happy Feet (2006)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 74: 6 positive, 4 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Happy Feet

74
Positive
6
Mixed
4
Negative
0

Most critics like Happy Feet, and none dismiss it. The praise gathers around the look of the thing: the computer-animated Antarctic, which several reviews find convincing enough to carry weight, and the tap-dancing set pieces, which nearly every critic picks out. The camerawork draws particular notice, with Variety singling out Miller’s elegant camera movement and expansive sense of space. A good number also credit the film with more ambition than the average children’s cartoon, reading its outsider penguin as a story about identity, scapegoating and the environment.

The reservations are about tone and message rather than craft. Empire finds the late shift into darker material disconcerting, and Digital Spy thinks the environmental argument grows heavy-handed and the ending lets the film down. Variety calls the story conventional and some song choices tiresome; The Guardian says it starts poorly before improving. The spread runs from the warm to the merely satisfied, roughly 60 to 90, with no outright hostility.

The Hollywood Reporter
12 November 2007 · Kirk Honeycutt
85*

The critic finds that the film’s ambitious spiritual story works while still entertaining younger viewers. He especially praises the musical choreography and the richly textured Antarctic landscapes.

Read the full review →
Variety
10 November 2006 · Todd McCarthy
85*

McCarthy praises the film as an unusually accomplished, visually striking animated musical, while noting its conventional story and occasionally tiresome song choices. He singles out its direction, especially the elegant camera movement and expansive sense of space, for praise.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Sloan Freer
80

The review praises the film as a fabulous family adventure, blending a simple story with striking animation and music. It especially singles out the jaw-dropping computer animation and the mix of contemporary and classic tunes.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
14 November 2006 · ★★★/4 · Ed Gonzalez
75

Gonzalez finds the film politically resonant and creatively ambitious despite some conspicuous missteps. He particularly praises Miller’s use of Mumble’s difference to explore identity, scapegoating, and political change.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
23 March 2007 · Rob Mackie
65*

Mackie says the film starts poorly but improves into an entertaining, ambitious children’s cartoon. He praises the dancing-penguin set pieces and the energetic virtual Antarctic camerawork.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
13 November 2006 · Steven Rosen
64*

The review's verdict cannot be determined from the accessible page. Its specific praise or criticism is also unavailable in the paywall shell.

Read the full review →
Time Out
16 November 2006
64*

The available description presents the film as a blend of discocentric vocal mash-ups and darker, surreal sensibilities. The review’s verdict and specific praise or complaints are unavailable in the accessible text.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 December 2006 · Helen O'Hara
60*

The review says the film just about succeeds, though its shift to darker subject matter may unsettle older viewers. It praises the foot-tapping songs and colourful animation while noting the tonal change is disconcerting.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
9 December 2006 · Chris
90*

The critic finds the film an entertaining, ethically responsible family film that works for children and adults. They praise its addictive tap-dancing and realistic Antarctic visuals, which lend weight to its environmental message.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
9 December 2006 · Daniel Saney
75*

The critic finds it an entertaining, superior film for children and adults, though the ending weakens it. The animation and Antarctic visuals stand out, while the environmental message becomes heavy-handed.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate