Pirates! Band of Mifits!

What with all the inuendo and violence in this film, I'm surprised it got a G rating, but I am so glad it did. The Pirates: Band of Misfits is a fun romp, with a great cast and expertly animated by the kings of claymation, Aardman. Hooray! Probably the only other genre that has been as exploited as pirates in teh past 10 years has been vampires, so is this film going to be any good? A big resounding yes! Is it a cheap knock-off trying to cash in on a dying fad? No. Is it as good as Aardman's other claymation films? Well, we'll get to that.

So, this film is an underdog story, and we all know how people love underdog stories. Our underdogs in this case are the eponymous pirates of the title, led by their optimistic captain, the Pirate Captain (voiced by Hugh Grant). After failing year after year to win the Pirate of the Year Award, the Pirate Captain is desperate to win, even if this means entering his dodo Polly into a science competition (go see the film, it explains things a lot better) with the help of Charles Darwin (David Tennant). It doesn't help matters that Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) completely hates pirates.

The story is typical, but incredibly unpredictable. Watching the trailer and then going to the movie, I had a vague idea of what it might be about, but I was not expecting what I got. The story has a lot of twists, some you can see from a mile off and others that will make you shout swear words right in the middle of a cinema filled with kids (not a good idea). The story is one fun romp! That's sort if the only way to describe it. I don't want to give too much away, ecause it is better if you don't know what's going to happen, but be prepared to throw any preconceptions out the window.

But where would a great story be if it didn't have sufficient characters to keep it together. And these characters are excellent. The Pirate Captain is gullible, foolish and kinda stupid, but in the nicest way possible. Even though he makes some stupid mistakes, you do sympathise with him and cheer him on. His long suffering second in command, No. 2 (credited as the Pirate with a Scarf, voiced by Martin Freeman) is the heart of the movie. Aardman's amazing facial expressions are put to good use as he becomes more and more frustrated at his Captain. Ok, I need to stop here for a minute and talk about the names. The names for the crew are fucking awesome! First of all, there's the Pirate Captain himself, the Pirate with a Scarf aka No. 2, the Pirate with Gout (Brendan Gleeson), the Albino Pirate (Russel Tovey), the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate (Ashley Benson) and the Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens (Al Roker). Holy crap! These names are so awesome! Whoever came up with this idea was a genius! For me, it's the funniest thing in the film. Anyway, back to characters. Charles Darwin is a lovesick fool, who spends most of the film pining for a girlfriend, and being generally adorable. But the best character is Queen Victoria, as the villain. Yep, you read correctly. Our villain is one of Britain's most loved rulers. Seriously, just go see it for that, and the fact that Imelda Staunton goes ape-shit crazy as well!

Speaking of ape-shit crazy, the acting is superb, and for and animation you need especially superb actors. Pirates seemed to have more clout than preivous Aardman (claymation) films, getting not only Hugh Grant and David Tennant as mains, but Salma Hayek, Lenny Henry, Jeremy Piven and Brian Blessed all have cameos, and you saw from the other pirates that this is the best of the best in terms of British talent. And what surprised me the most was that I couldn't hear the actors in the characters. Let me clarify, the Pirate Captain didn't sound like Hugh Grant at all. I think that was the most surprising. Ok, the only voice I did recognise was Brian Blessed as the Pirate King, but it's Brian Blessed! The only people who wouldn't recognise his voice are those who have no idea who he is.

So, going back to my earlier question, is this as good as the other Aardman? I'm going to have to say no. But put those pitchforks away, and let me tell you why. Now, I'm not saying that it's bad and I'm not saying that for an Aardman film it's bad. I am saying that it is more flawed than the other films Aardman has made, particularly the claymation ones. There are a couple of reasons for this, mainly concerning the story and the humour. Now, in both Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, the jokes came out of the situations the characters found themselves in, with an emphasis on story and characters. In Pirates, this seemed to be the opposite. I said earlier that the story was unpredictable, well that's because it seems the writers had all these jokes and big set pieces that they wanted to put in and built the story around that. And that's another thing. There are so many jokes in this movie that have been shoe-horned into this movie that laugh a minute takes a literal meaning. The story, also, just isn't as good. Again, going back to Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit, even Arthur Christmas and Flushed Away, all those films have simple stories, with good pacing and darker or quieter moments, and they all revolved around a simple premise. While Pirates has the simple premise, the story goes bonkers, and never really has any slow/quiet scenes. Even during the "sad part" there were still jokes being thrown at you. Now, this isn't bad, but it does create complexities and makes the film more convoluted than it needs to be.

But as I say, the film is still funny and there are some refreshing elements to be found from a pirate movie. Like Queen Victoria as the villain (go and see it now for that!). But it's also very good at showing, not telling. Like the tension between Darwin and No. 2 is only shown through some tense looks between the two. Another part that I like is that the Strangely Curvaceous Pirate is not a phoned in, obvious love interest for the Pirate Captain. Instead, she's a character in her own right, with a running gag to add to her character. In all honesty, this film reminds me most of Paul, the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost film. For those who haven't seen a Pegg/Frost film before, it's a great way to be introduced. It's not as good as Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, but it's still good in its own right. Pirates isn't as good as Chicken Run, but for someone who hasn't seen something by Aardman before, it's a good way to get them into it. It isn't as dark, or as serious, but it's still a fun film in its own right.

If I had a final complaint about the film, it would be the choice of the music used in the film. The opening and ending songs are fine. They set the mood and highlight the tone of the scenes. I am amore annoyed at the use of "London Calling" for when the pirates sail into (guess where!) London, but that's mainly because it's the most cliched and overused "Oh look! We're in London!" song.
And I am also confused about why they chose Flight of the Concords song "Not Crying" for the sad montage of the film. It's nice to hear a Flight of the Concords song in a film, but weird to hear a completely unrelated comedy song in the middle of a comedy.

But yeah, do go see the film. As much as I point out it's flaws (hey, that's what a reviewer does) it is a good film, and a lot of fun! If you disagree with me, cool. Disagree. Reviews are opinions after all. Until next time, Avast and away!