Man of Steel

General: What are you smiling about, Captain?
Captain: I just think he’s kinda hot.

Henry Cavill certainly looks like Superman. He’s handsome, almost distractingly so, sports a ripped physique that adheres closer to Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine than any previous incarnation of the role. The Brit even speaks the part affecting a perfect American accent with the necessary gravitas to make everything he says sound meaningful. But that’s where compliments end for Man of Steel.

Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster’s iconic superhero is given the bigger is better treatment in this updated version for moviegoers raised on Transformers films. Zack “I directed 300” Snyder has taken courses at the Michael Bay school for directors where spectacle is key and damn any coherence or dialogue that gets in the way. Loud noise is more important than the story. Millions of dollars gloriously spent to envision beautifully designed worlds of breathtaking 3D graphics only to be obliterated in some fantastic assault of bombs, explosions and mayhem. A bombastic excess where even Superman’s cape is digitally animated. Snyder’s aesthetic is money and spend lots of it

Man of Steel is an overinflated packed to the rafters display of computer generated imagery (CGI) that makes Transformers seem like Forbidden Planet by comparison. The CGI is ridiculously wild and unchecked. A full third of this film is fight scenes. Not exciting ones, but blurry, relentless onslaughts that are hard to follow. I think I counted three epic battles but honestly one conflict blurs indistinguishably into the next. Their sole purpose exists so Snyder can blow stuff up. The wanton annihilation of buildings in the climax doesn’t even appear to be Planet Earth anymore. At one point Superman wrestles with tentacles in the center of the globe as some rocket machine deconstructs the earth’s atmosphere to that of an alien planet. The whole spectacle is so removed from anything organic, it doesn’t even exist as a live action movie with human actors. More like a virtual 3D universe populated by automatons rendered by a computer program.

The obscene amount of CGI-enhanced activity might’ve been tolerable if it served a coherent story. Unfortunately following the haphazard chronology is a task in itself. Good luck figuring out what time period we‘re in. The films was apparently edited in a blender. First we’re on Krypton, then we’re on an oil rig with an adult Clark Kent, now Clark is a kid in school overwhelmed by his powers, suddenly he‘s older rescuing his classmates from a bus. Now he’s Superman in the Arctic. Now back as a child again with his parents near a tornado. The script flash forwards, then back, then forward and back again, back and forth, back and forth over and over to the point of complete incoherence. The movie is an attention punishing 143 minutes and you feel every single one of them.

Part of the reason the story is so mind numbingly long is because the plot spends an inordinate amount of time delving into Kryptonian society, and explaining the sociopolitical and ecological situation before the planet’s destruction. Just what I want to see in a Superhero film. How about some scenes inside the Kryptonian Senate while they vote on various bills and legislation? Last time I checked this was called Man of Steel but it’s a full hour before he even dons the suit and near the very end before someone clearly calls him Superman. Even then it’s used as more of a throwaway joke.

There are moments where the script attempts to convey Superman’s inner conflict. The narrative tries to present Superman’s undying love for the people of his adoptive planet earth. But his devotion never makes sense. He experiences overwhelming rejection from the faceless masses his whole life. We’re given infrequent glimpses of his interactions with the human population. School bullies tease him as a child, a bar patron humiliates him (shades of Superman II), the military wants to give him up to uber villain General Zod. This is predicted in early scenes by his father (Kevin Costner) who warns him: “People are afraid of what they don’t understand.” We comprehend why Superman isn’t accepted, but not why he still cares for the citizens of this foreign world called Earth. The population disregards him so thoroughly. We have no reason to sympathize, to care, or even to watch.

The movie is the creation of sterile perfectionism. The actors are pretty, everyone hits their marks, says their lines and does exactly what is asked of them. It exhibits slick professionalism but not art. The picture has no essence. There is no warmth, no wit, no humor, no joy. The only thing more offensive than the vulgar reliance on special effects in this flick, are the product placement deals. Word has it that it earned $160 million even before it ever played in a single theater due to all the advertising negotiations made. It doesn’t come without a cost. Superman literally has a fight that starts at 7-Eleven, heads over to IHOP afterwards, then wraps at Sears. All the while the aforementioned businesses conspicuously pop up in scenes where the action is a muddy blur but their beaming signs are clear as day. There is no spark of life to be found in Man of Steel. It is a soulless product bought and paid for by the Hollywood machine.

Epic

I have officially reached my limit of dull computer animated films. There needs to be more than just pretty CGI to hold my attention. Epic is the latest from the “creative” minds at Blue Sky Studios who brought us Ice Age.  A questionable achievement, but a downright masterpiece when compared to this utterly nondescript piece. The plot concerns an ordinary-size teen girl who is magically shrunken down into a secret world when she grabs a hold of a magical leaf pod. She’s subsequently thrust into an ongoing environmental conflict amongst various forest creatures who struggle to see who can become the most forgettable. Sorry sarcasm.

An hour after watching Epic, it was already fading from memory. The cast is made up of famous actors that turn in vapid voice work in exchange for a paycheck. Colin Farrell and Beyoncé Knowles are major stars. They charm in real life, but their voices are so bland here. The leader of the Leaf-Men and Queen of the Forest should be captivating, but their personalities only cause drowsiness. Don’t drive or operate heavy machinery under the effects of this movie. Aziz Ansari and Chris O’Dowd are a slug and snail respectively, but they should’ve been listed as hackneyed sidekick characters #1 and #2. They’re the comic relief but I didn’t hear a single child laugh in my theater. I suppose the script is the actual culprit.

This generic tale of good vs. evil  has been done countless times with more innovation and appeal. The story is lackluster in the extreme. Couldn’t the screenwriters have tried a little harder to come up with something interesting? The best lesson they can come up with is: “Many leaves, one tree; we’re all individuals, but we’re still connected.” Zzzzzzzz. It’s a shame because what the film does have going for it is gorgeous computer graphics. The animators have done a beautiful job giving zest to a script that has none. Epic won’t entertain adults and will leave kids wanting more. Children know a quality adventure when they see one and this ain’t it. You cannot foist a subpar saga on them and expect a hit. Not surprisingly, out of 8 productions, this became Blue Sky’s worst performing feature by a wide margin. It didn’t even recoup its $100M production budget in the U.S. Epic is neither majestic nor grand. It’s about as far from the word’s connotation as you can get. The most glaringly mistitled movie since The LAST Exorcism Part II.

Kon-Tiki

Kon-Tiki, the Inca god of Sun and storm, was the name of the balsa-wood raft used by Norwegian explorer and writer Thor Heyerdahl. The primitive vessel was instrumental in his 1947 expedition across the Pacific Ocean from South America to the Polynesian islands. The purpose was to show that the South American people could have settled Polynesia in the pre-Columbian era using only the simple materials and technologies available to them at the time. I kept thinking that just because they could doesn’t necessarily mean they did but that’s never addressed. Incidentally most anthropologists now believe they did not but that‘s another discussion entirely. There’s no denying that Heyerdahl was a brave and admirable trailblazer who basically just wanted to prove that you couldn’t rule the possibility out. Their mission was presented in a non fictional account in 1950 that actually won the Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature the following year. Now it’s been made into a historical drama, which was subsequently nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (Amour received the award).

Kon-Tiki is a pleasant but very conventional movie. The plot is mostly made of the 4,300 nautical mile-journey from Peru to Polynesia aboard a flimsy raft. Heyerdahl is a tall blonde tanned Norwegian. His staff is also made up of the same, well four Norwegians and a Swede, but they all posses the same handsomely pale features, indistinguishable from each other. These characters are really generic. That even includes the intrepid star who should’ve been more exciting. Over three months, the team’s scientific voyage is met with a few small setbacks but it’s largely uneventful. Oh there’s storms, a shark gets on the boat, a whale almost topples the raft. Those developments are gripping so those moments engage. The cinematography is pretty too. But more often than not, the action focuses on the humans. Unfortunately their humdrum conversations are boring. The occasional infighting amongst the team does not a film make.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Could this be the end of Spock? Captain James Kirk and Dr. “Bones” McCoy are running through a blood red forest on the planet Nibiru. They’re trying to leave while being chased by its inhabitants. They jump off a cliff and dive into the water below where the Starship Enterprise is hiding deep on the ocean floor out of sight. Meanwhile Spock has been lowered into a volcano with a cold fusion device. He intends to stave off a volcanic eruption there in an effort to preserve the planet and it’s denizens. But now Spock has jeopardized his own life. Kirk wants to save him but to do so he would have to break the Prime Directive and expose their technologically advanced ship to this primitive civilization. This would alter history, a definite no-no. The alternative is to remain hidden and allow Spock to die, something Spock himself is advocating.

That‘s an incredibly heart pounding cliffhanger for the climax of a film. But that‘s merely the opening prologue. It’s but one of many set pieces in a relatively uncomplicated saga that concerns a terrorist that must be stopped. 2009′s Star Trek director J. J. Abrams is back along with producer Damon Lindelof (TV’s Lost) who also contributes to the screenplay this time. The producers have continued their gentle re-invention of the series much in a similar vein as the previous entry. The script doesn’t attempt to appease purists of the series. Chances are if you liked the last one, you’ll enjoy this. If you didn’t, then I’d stay clear away. The key players are back. Captain Kirk and Spock’s bromance seems to be even closer this time around as embodied by Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine. They have palatable chemistry. Plus, there are a couple of pivotal additions to the cast. I dare say that the already attractive ensemble gets just a little bit sexier. Hello Alice Eve! It’s got a spectacular villain in Benedict Cumberbatch. My goodness this man has a voice! The British thespian’s intonations resonate with all the power of a great orator. The plot works because the filmmakers start with good characterizations first and then build interesting situations from that.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a model of how to create excitement. Abrams has wisely fashioned this adventure in the grand tradition of Hollywood blockbusters of yesteryear. That means it’s more concerned with classic narrative elements and character development than it is with lots of noisy action set pieces. Although there are some satisfying ones that take place in London and San Francisco. The chronicle is gripping. I was never bored, always captivated by what would happen next. There’s plenty of action, but it’s never at the expense of a coherent account that you generally care about. The script is quick and witty with a clear eye toward creating dramatic tension with pauses for the audience to catch their breath and delight in the repartee between these people. Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Bones (Karl Urban) have the funniest temperaments. It’s also a very pretty movie. It’s got plenty of attention grabbing cinematography with affected lighting techniques. Lens flares abound! Yes there are some admittedly cheesy (and familiar) story ideas: someone unexpectedly cries, people tenderly touch hands on either side of a glass wall and automatic seat belts looks like black square-shaped bugs crawling over the actors. But more often than not, the emotional connections to these well known personalities push this actioner into the realm of a drama that is extremely engaging. At one point, Spock selflessly commands the crew to teleport out of the ship to safety. When Sulu responds “With all due respect, sir, we’re not going anywhere!” I think I kind of shed a tear.

Iron Man 3

As a fan of writer/director Shane Black, I see Iron Man 3 more as the long awaited follow-up to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than part two in the superhero franchise. Don’t get me wrong.  I enjoy the Iron Man series just fine, but it’s the writer’s wit that captivates me more than awesome technology. In both respects, Iron Man 3 does not disappoint.

An enigmatic terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) has taken control of the U.S. broadcasting signal. He has claimed responsibility for a string of bombings across the nation and ultimately threatens the safety of the President.  The threat becomes personal when Tony Stark’s security officer Happy Hogan is gravely injured in one of the attacks. As is usually the case in these Iron Man movies, multiple characters abound. Jessica Biel Rebecca Hall plays a botanist who manipulates DNA to reproduce the limbs of plants. Guy Pearce is also on hand as brilliant scientist Aldrich Killian, who continues to harbor a bitter resentment well after Tony had rebuffed him years before. He’s currently involved in scientific work isolating and empowering certain areas of the human brain. But the most welcome addition is a young Tennessee boy named Harley (Ty Simpkins) who is sort of an amusing foil for Robert Downey Jr. They’ve got great chemistry as a comedic team in the couple scenes that they have together.

I’ve never taken to superhero films that take themselves too seriously. I was one of the few that actually appreciated Iron Man 2 over the original. And this time around, I think I preferred this to part two. With Tony Stark as a lead portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., all of the Iron Man entries have been infused with a lighthearted touch. Its charm helps make this superhero picture a lively romp. Shane Black does a brilliant job at keeping the series light and fun while injecting enough of the requisite dramatic struggle that seems to afflict all superheroes. His major battle with The Mandarin is underscored by juggling relationship problems with girlfriend Pepper Potts and post-traumatic stress related to the events documented in The Avengers. While not particularly deep, the ideas help make the character a bit more complex than simply a generic champion for righteousness. If there is a failing, it’s that the action reverts to a conventional big loud explosion fest at the end. It’s still entertaining. I only wish the story had been as clever as the dialogue. That’s ultimately what makes this the funniest Iron Man yet.

Oblivion

Nobody emotes sincerity like Tom Cruise. In picture after picture, the actor conveys a genuine earnestness that has always made him an engaging presence for me. Few have a filmography that is as solid, or even as monetarily successful. Regardless of his popularity in the public eye, I have remained a steadfast supporter of his acting career. Unfortunately, Oblivion is another recent misstep (Rock of Ages) that has some inspired moments but largely fails to live up to Cruise’s emotive talents

In a future society, Jack Harper is one of the last humans left attempting to mine precious resources that remain on earth. We learn the human race has already been decimated by an apocalyptic war with a group of extraterrestrials called the Scavs. Yet Jack and his communications officer/girlfriend, Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), have no knowledge of this. Their minds erased as part of a mandatory procedure. The unexpected crash landing of a spaceship introduces him to a mysterious woman named Julia (Bond girl Olga Kurylenko), who holds a key to his past. This sets a series of events in motion that will trigger another climatic battle where he may rise up against nefarious forces, so that he might blah blah blah and possibly save mankind.

Utterly dull, lifeless story is made mildly palatable by exceptional production design and a glossy facade. There’s a lot to admire. The picture applies a sophisticated and elegant sci-fi style that is a throwback to the cinematic landscape of the 70s. The visuals are classy. There are these nifty little flying machines called drones that look like big metal orbs. These weaponized machines, which protect Jack from alien attacks, utilize inventive special effects and sound. Every time they were on screen I was fascinated by their tangible attributes. Director Joseph Kosinski adapts his own unpublished graphic novel. He was responsible for the visually stunning TRON: Legacy which I enjoyed. Although I’m starting to sense a pattern as that film suffered from a weak script as well. He wisely employs production designer Darren Gilford again and Academy Award winning cinematographer Claudio Miranda who lensed Life of Pi. Also like TRON: Legacy, Oblivion is highlighted by an orchestral score by a French electronic band. This time it’s M83. Their score’s rich sonic texture is often the only thing that maintains attention when nothing of interest is happening. All of the shenanigans dress up the proceedings in a way that superficially masks a dreary screenplay.

I really wanted to enjoy this.  Works that champion style over substance don’t necessarily preclude my enjoyment. Director Tarsem Singh has built an exquisite oeuvre on the practice. The script’s heart is in the right place as it favors speculative concepts over gadgets and shootouts. Its attempt to be more meditative is admirable. Despite the gorgeous veneer of quality, the soporific story holds absolutely no innovation, passion or enthusiasm. The ideas are thoroughly mundane. Its setup held some promise at first, but it ultimately languishes into something so stridently average. Add to that numerous long, static shots where nothing happens and you have an excellent cure for insomnia. Its narrative similarities to other flicks kept reminding me of better movies I could be watching. I was tempted to list the many examples from which this mediocrity appropriates but that would merely insult a list of superior science fiction movies. Borrowing from other futuristic films wouldn’t have been enough to discredit Oblivion, but the utter lack of excitement is.

The Croods

The Croods are a family of Neanderthal cavemen. One day they are forced to leave the protective confines of their shelter when it’s destroyed.  Following an earthquake,  a falling stone is disrupted cleaving their cave in half. Now exposed out in the open they must contend with a strange unfamiliar world and its many inhabitants including a young nomadic cave boy.

Despite an opportunity to delve into some early primordial history given the ancient setting, the gags and attitudes are decidedly modern. The voice cast have conversations that would not be out of place for a family living in 2013. Father Grug (Nicolas Cage) and daughter Eep (Emma Stone) have district personalities, but the rest of the clan are nonentities. Grug hates his mother-in-law. Never saw that in a comedy. Even Guy, a Homo sapien, is like some teen dream out of a soap opera. Eep, the eldest daughter, is one of those stereotypical teens that butts heads with her overprotective father. She yearns to venture out and see the world. Get with the times, Dad! Or instead, why don’t you just, ya know, evolve! Indeed the tone of the script is that she is correct and that father Grug is reactionary and staid in his views. What the screenplay fails to acknowledge is that it’s those very ideals of his that have kept his family alive all these years while everyone else of their kind has been killed.

I couldn’t help but feel the moral of this comedy was a bit misguided. Surely it is ill-advised to encourage children to disregard their parent’s safety warnings, but that’s precisely this saga’s point of view. Your father is smothering you! Talk to strangers! Play in the street! I’m sure the script meant to inspire an adventurous spirit. Don’t be timid! Try new things! Seize the day! But that’s probably not what a 5 year old will understand. Especially when the father is a complete buffoon – an object of derision as he is consistently shown up by the more progressive and intelligent Guy. Ah but have no fear, parents. As expected, the father predictably redeems himself in the end. The Croods is acceptable. The animation is colorful, although the family is mildly grotesque. They are Neanderthals after all. There are some nice slapstick sequences that are enjoyable. There’s a variety of creatures that are nicely animated including a swarm of carnivorous birds that take only seconds to devour their prey, Guy’s pet sloth Belt is a really cute little creation given to singing “Da-da-daaaaaaaa!“ whenever he wants to stress impending doom. It’s funny every time he says it. Belt got the biggest laughs in the theater. While the jokes amuse, the story is primitive. The Croods is safe fun family entertainment with no surprises. It was pleasant. I guess for some that may be enough.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oscar Diggs, a magician/con man, leaves Kansas in a hot air balloon, gets sucked into a cyclone and winds up in the Land of Oz. Here he encounters various personalities, including Evanora who promises all the wealth of the king if he kills the Wicked Witch by destroying her wand, the source of her power. This sends our fearless hero on an odyssey where he meets a couple of characters who join him. The action is all well and good, but the plot merely apes the events of the Victor Fleming version with less inspired results.

L. Frank Baum’s introductory novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is also the basis for this unofficial prequel. However the 1939 landmark film feels more like the real inspiration than that book. Director Sam Raimi was legally prohibited from replicating certain elements (i.e. ruby slippers) but he clearly references the 1939 classic with deferential respect. Raimi goes from black and white to color to highlight the transition to Oz and simulates the same environment in many scenes incorporating Munchkinland, the yellow brick road, and The Emerald City. The Winkie guards, flying monkeys and The Scarecrow are also among the many allusions. These are welcome touches, but the duplicated story is where the similarities become more problematic.

Ultimately Oz The Great and Powerful suffers in comparison. The human people here lack that same mythic sense of wonder. When Mila Kunis as Theodora first arrives, her modern ensemble appears like she time traveled back from 2013. Her floppy wide brimmed hat looks like something J.Lo would wear. Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch is pretty but bland. She lacks the otherworldly charm (and distinctive voice) that Billie Burke had when she played the part. Rachel Weisz fares better as Evanora but only because we never really knew her in The Wizard of Oz. As Oscar the con man, James Franco relies on the actor’s insincere demeanor to play the role.  His trademark smirk is more than adequate, but less than enchanting. He certainly disappointed me in one scene. There’s a moment where Munchkins start to sing and dance in a lively musical number that got my feet a-tapping. Just as it was hitting its stride, Oscar puts his hand up and tells them to stop.

Oz the Great and Powerful has its moments. Visually it is a delight. The set design is first class with color and special effects combining in attractive displays. The film was shot in 3D, but I hardly think it demands to be seen in that format. It doesn’t contribute much to the already impressive spectacle. The frame is packed with gorgeous visuals that incorporate magical plants and bizarre creatures. A little porcelain China doll is a fragile creature that walks and talks with a cracked, reflective body. These demonstrations incite our fascination. The ending is particularly engaging too. The wizard’s impressive appearance to the people recalls his physical manifestation in the classic work. Oscar’s resourcefulness genuinely gets our emotions. Too bad you must wait to the end to see it. We’re constantly reminded with hints of the infinitely superior original. For most the production, the script simply isn’t unique enough. The narrative rings hollow although the smoke and mirrors just might be enough to entertain.

Jack the Giant Slayer

Jack the Giant Slayer is one of those effects-laden 3D eyesores short on excitement and big on CGI. It’s based on the English folk tale “Jack and the Beanstalk” and the lesser known (to this critic anyway) “Jack the Giant Killer.” It’s a story that has stood the test of time so this should’ve been a rousing adventure harkening back to traditional fables. Unfortunately this a largely uninspired effort full of flimsy characters, unexciting situations and copious amounts of CGI that look dated and ugly. Hollywood never seems to learn that simply throwing money up on the screen does not an enjoyable film make.

Given the subject, this anecdote could have been a spirited fantasy with touches of humor, but the oppressive spectacle has no joy. The cast includes formidable acting talent including Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane and Ewan McGregor. But the characters are disposable good vs. evil, rich vs. poor cutouts. Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson are particularly forgettable as Jack and Isabelle, the lead couple. I blame the script for the blah characterizations. Only Tucci exhibits the personality necessary for the lighthearted romp this aspires to be. Oh and the beanstalk gave a nice performance actually. Seriously it’s the most animated character of them all.

The adventure takes forever to get started. We all know the basic plot, so why the interminable intro? I struggled to stay awake during the first 30 minutes before the beanstalk gets planted. And when the screenplay isn’t generic, it’s stupid. You’ll question King Brahmwell’s mindset when he orders to intentionally cut down the very beanstalk that his beloved daughter has climbed up. Or her memory for that matter when she doesn’t question him on it later. Incidentally, when Jack and Isabelle do fall from the sky, their ability to remain alive is the most unintentionally hilarious display since the last Twilight picture.

This is a CGI nightmare. The entire race of giants, that live up in the sky are all computer generated. There are so many of them and they occupy such an important role that this becomes an animated film whenever they’re on screen. Many sequences would exist of nothing but simply a green screen without the computer graphics. At times CGI can improve visuals, but here they are badly executed and really ugly. The creations look hopelessly dated and cheap especially when they‘re interacting with real human actors. Why couldn’t the giants been accomplished using human actors and creatively shooting to make them appear larger? Oh how I missed the quaint practical effects of classic Hollywood fare of movies like Jason and the Argonauts. The technology may look antiquated today, but at least it had an organic quality that felt authentic.

There just isn’t enough innovation to Jack the Giant Slayer to justify why this was even made. Uninteresting characters, weak script and bad special effects, do not add up to a good time. It’s a deadly trifecta of bad movie making. The overreliance on poor CGI makes this a distinctly dreary exercise. There are snatches of excitement to be found. When Jack dumps a hive full of bees into a giant’s helmet, there’s gleeful anticipation in what will happen. But more often than not the action is a dull, labored affair lacking the fun of the original fairy tale. Not surprisingly the $195 million production has been a costly bomb. Maybe they should have just included music by Slayer. Guess we can be thankful we were spared sequels like Jack the Giant Megadeth or Jack the Giant Anthrax.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

When the Academy Award nominations were announced for Best Animated Feature of 2012, I think 4 of the 5 selections were foregone conclusions. Most predicted that Rise of the Guardians would be the 5th nominee. When that film was snubbed, I think everyone was a bit surprised that The Pirates! Band of Misfits made the cut instead. It didn’t really make much of a splash at the box office in the U.S., barely earning over $30 million. Plus Aardman Animations wasn’t the marketing behemoth that DreamWorks is. I am happy to report Pirates is indeed a very worthy nomination.

The Pirate Captain (yes that’s his name) yearns to win the Pirate of the Year competition. But he isn’t your typical pirate. He’s actually a rather affable chap and doesn’t possess the anti-social qualities of your average mercenary. He’s backed by an amateur group of clumsy pirates that are pretty unconventional too. I don’t think the word ‘swashbuckling’ is in their vocabulary. They don’t even have proper names. Pirate with a Scarf, Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens, Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate are some examples. At least they’re very supportive of their captain. They understand that whoever can plunder the most will be deemed the winner and therein lies their dream. Outside the U.S., The picture was originally titled The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! That makes sense because during his unsuccessful attempts to raid ships, the Pirate Captain meets Charles Darwin. The scientist spies his parrot “Polly” who is in reality a Dodo. The supposedly extinct bird is intriguing to Charles. This leads the gang to an escapade in the less welcoming atmosphere of London.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits! is a delight. The style is a cheerful throwback to classic stop-motion animation. Given the strong resurgence of titles like ParaNorman and Frankenweenie, audiences seem to be responding to its more organic, tangible quality. Of course the aesthetic beauty of the film would mean nothing without a good script. Indeed, Pirates is an intelligently written production. Witty jokes and funny sight gags abound for the careful viewer throughout the brisk 88 minute running time. The voice cast is wonderful but it’s telling that one of their most amusing doesn’t even speak at all. Mr. Darwin’s assistant is a highly trained chimp named Mister Bobo who communicates by holding up note cards. He’s hilarious, but the rest of the ensemble is quite good as well. Hugh Grant has the right amount of narcissism mixed with geniality as the Pirate Captain and Imelda Staunton is a hoot as the pirate hating Queen Victoria. With its hip soundtrack (The Clash, The English Beat, Jimmy Cliff, Supergrass) and occasional gags that little tykes won’t get, this is pitched more at older kids than the toddler set. Seeing as I am well over 8 year years old, that is just fine with me.