This one reminded me a lot of another Netflix animation The Sea Beast. The premise is very similar. There is a closed bubble of society, with power hierarchy and propaganda, with very dogmatic myths and stories of the past and the laws and rules that preserve it, and of course the existence of an outside threat of the other, the "Monsters". The threat itself is used like a tool to keep things in the same dogmatic order.

There is an adult with some harsh life background but excels in what he does nevertheless, they meet a child with whom they connect in some unlikely way, then both explore the core myths of their society, reaching groundbreaking conclusion that the top rulers of society has been lying to them all the time and things are not as they have been told. They go against their own society and take the side of the other, the outside threat, trying to prove to everyone else that the threat is not real but only a way for their own rulers to keep the power. Then they prevail and all ends as a happy end. Rules have changed, the threat is accepted as part of the society and they all live happily ever after.

In a way a lot of animated movies for children did the same over many years, just see How to train your dragon with similar premise. The threat is usually something very generic and abstract, the purpose is to teach children tolerance, skepticism, questioning of authority, acceptance of other and liberalism in general. I would add also that some anti-religious elements can be also interpreted, but they are not very explicit. Nimona is focused more on pro-gay tolerance, which is quite clear. The fusion of medieval with futuristic serves a certain point that with advanced technology the society's thinking and cultural concepts can still be very old fashioned and medieval.

Personally, my problem is that such movies focus mainly on agenda and the story serves that agenda. And even though I mostly agree with liberal agenda, I still find it embarrassing when someone is trying to force feed it to the "masses". The main focus should be the story and the characters, the agenda should be hidden and subtle, as a subtext. The necessity to push agenda directly limits creativity of building a world and characters.

Ich sehe das genauso wie meine Vorredner. Der Film nimmt einen mit, aber man fühlt sich die ganze Zeit, als hätte man ihn schon mal gesehen. Die Grundaussage: die Beschützer (weiß und strahlend), als auch der Pöbel (dunkler gehalten) liegen falsch indem sie ihre Ordnung und Zivilisation aufrecht erhalten wollen. Das Böse und düstere kann nichts dafür; weiß zwar, dass man nicht alles kaputt machen und töten darf, aber es wurde ja nur von uns dazu gemacht, wir sollen trotzdem einlassen und lieb haben.

Die 4 Sterne Abzug allerdings gibt es dafür, dass ich mir mit meiner siebenjährigen knutschende Männer ansehen musste. Das FSK gehört hier definitiv überarbeitet.

I see it the same as the previous speakers. The film pulls you in, but the whole time you feel like you've seen it before. The bottom line: the protectors (white and bright) as well as the rabble (kept darker) are wrong in wanting to maintain their order and civilization. It's not the fault of the evil and gloomy; knows that you are not allowed to destroy and kill everything, but it was only made by us, we should still let in and love.

However, the 4 stars are deducted for the fact that I had to watch men kissing with my seven-year-old. The FSK [film classification] should definitely be revised here.

@D-magic said:

Personally, my problem is that such movies focus mainly on agenda and the story serves that agenda.

Is it that they have an agenda, or is it the content of THIS agenda?

And even though I mostly agree with liberal agenda, I still find it embarrassing when someone is trying to force feed it to the "masses".

Okay, but when a rugged, monosyllabic man comes to a helpless woman's rescue by blowing things up and killing lots of people, in all objectivity, isn't that an agenda being force-fed, too?

The necessity to push agenda directly limits creativity of building a world and characters.

I agree. How many Die Hards did we need of all the same thing - McClane flouting authority, an exotic bad guy, blowing lots of stuff up... and Bruce Willis' reimaging of Death Wish? Egad.

After decades of seeing the world through the eyes of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, movies that "force the agenda" of accepting others should really be seen fairly as just counterpoint to what has been force fed to us for so long.

@ksauser said:

However, the 4 stars are deducted for the fact that I had to watch men kissing with my seven-year-old. The FSK [film classification] should definitely be revised here.

Definitely be revised to... what?

PG means "parental guidance." It's left up to parents like yourself and myself (having raised two kids) to decide whether our child(ren) sees it, and to guide them in and through the viewing, discuss it together.

It was not rated "Family" or "General" — the PG rating already stepped it up, advising parents (or, at least, trying to, anyway) that they'd have to be more involved with their kids through this movie than if it was just rated Family.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@ksauser said:

However, the 4 stars are deducted for the fact that I had to watch men kissing with my seven-year-old. The FSK [film classification] should definitely be revised here.

Definitely be revised to... what?

PG means "parental guidance." It's left up to parents like yourself and myself (having raised two kids) to decide whether our child(ren) sees it, and to guide them in and through the viewing, discuss it together.

It was not rated "Family" or "General" — the PG rating already stepped it up, advising parents (or, at least, trying to, anyway) that they'd have to be more involved with their kids through this movie than if it was just rated Family.

Ich lebe in Deutschland, hier ist der Film FSK 6; das bedeutet bei uns lediglich: Zitat: Filme mit einer FSK 6-Kennzeichnung dürfen nur von Personen besucht werden, die mindestens 6 Jahre alt sind. Kinder, die jünger als 6 Jahre alt sind, dürfen Filme mit einer „FSK 6“-Kennzeichnung auch nicht in Begleitung einer personensorgeberechtigten oder erziehungsbeauftragten Person besuchen.

Ich habe weder den Film zuvor gesehen, noch kenne ich dessen genauen Inhalt. Die Verherrlichung des Bösen, des Terroristen und dessen Inszenierung mit anregender Musik etc. kann ich nicht vorausahnen; auch, dass sich Männer die Zunge in den Hals schieben, erwarte ich bei einem Film, der in meinem Land ab 6 ohne Aufsicht eingestuft wurde nicht. Ein angemessenes FSK wäre bei dem Inhalt und dem absichtlichen, manipulativen Verändern einer gesunden Sichtweise irgendwo bei FSK 16 oder 18 einzustufen.

Translation of 'ksaus' post:

I live in Germany, here the film is rated FSK 6; for us that simply means: Quote: Films with an FSK 6 rating may only be viewed by people who are at least 6 years old. Children younger than 6 years old may not view films with an "FSK 6" rating, even if accompanied by a legal guardian or person responsible for their upbringing.

I have not seen the film before, nor do I know its exact content. I cannot predict the glorification of evil, of terrorists and its staging with stimulating music etc.; I also do not expect men to stick their tongues down their throats in a film that was rated unsupervised for ages 6 and up in my country. An appropriate FSK rating would be somewhere around FSK 16 or 18, given the content and the deliberate, manipulative alteration of a healthy perspective.