I’m obviously saying that Sorcerer’s is the worst one, since I called it awful and I’m saying the British have the good titles.
Sorry, I just get really offended each time I hear that word.
Sorcerer’s… 
Sorcerer’s… Sorcerer’s… 
Oh okay. Sorry if I accidentally offended you lol, I’m very tired at the moment. I misunderstood and though that you were citing Harry Potter as the exception to the “better title” rule. Yeah, the retitling of PS always annoyed me…I don’t think the word “sorcerer” is even used as a generic term in any of the books…
Anyway, to get back on topic, who can’t wait for Pirates???
Edit- Apparrently they’re already considering a sequel??? twitter.com/#!/PeteLordAardman/s … 1037028352
Blimey that’s fast
I can’t wait (but I won’t probably watch it in theaters)
PS: Yo don’t offend me, don’t worry. It’s the title change that does.
PS 2: I’m also very tired 
Buahaha. Napoleon, Communists, Whaling, and Scientists. Oh my.
Doesn’t supprise me that their already considering sequels since there’s 4 books in the series.
I suppose it makes sense. I think that this movie is based on the first 2, although plot-wise it looks like it follows Scientists more. But it does have some characters out of Whaling.
Hey guys! I went to work today but they didn’t me, but instead of heading home right away I decided to go across to the cinema. This movie was due to come on in 5 minutes (in 3D) so I decided I might as well see it.
Spoilers abound!
[spoiler]Well I’ll say this: in a neat summation: it’s not bad but it’s not mindblowing or fantastic either. It’s not a masterpiece in storytelling.
The animation in terms of this particular medium is great but the story? The characters?
It’s sort of hit and miss here and there.
I’ll start by saying this: it’s about historically accurate as a space ship with cavemen in it. Well, okay that’s a bit of an exaggeration. But it’s basically set in a time period and uses historical characters with little regard for what they were probably like in reality and how things actually were back then. Queen Victoria is off her rocker and Charles Darwin isn’t all that endearing and doesn’t even seem that smart. But then, this is a movie with pirates in it- and EVERY pirate movie possibly ever is grossly historically inaccurate. After all, actual historical pirates were actually not the very quintessential stereotype of a pirate we picture today. Not really.
Also just because it’s historically inaccurate doesn’t mean it is necessarily has to be a bad thing. The Victorian age isn’t really something living people still today have bitter memories about, even if it wasn’t nice. Unless the movie had started touting Jack the Ripper as right/hilarious for doing away with ladies of the night or making fun of the idea of looking after the poor/being racist it wouldn’t necessarily step on any toes. Or if it had gone earlier and made slavery into a fine old time or what have you. But clearly this movie didn’t do any of those things. Plus this movie I feel is well aware of what it is- it doesn’t try and sell itself as a historically accurate film or present itself as such. It’s pretty obvious it’s meant to be ridiculous.
In retrospect inaccurate films set in certain historical times can be like reinventing vampire lore: It doesn’t have to be a bad thing. And while people can screech on Twilight for this- reinventing vampires (in of itself as a concept or idea) is NOT a bad thing and has been going on forever. It’s the fact that she made vampires sparkle- and we were meant to take this SERIOUSLY which added to the long list of things wrong with her books. If it had been a joke, it could have been genius in the hands of the right person to execute it and show it as rediculous as it really was.
That being said while this movie can be fun and doesn’t try to pretend to be something it isn’t in terms of history there are a few failings.
I guess I should say the less than stellar parts of the movie can be summed up into three main categories:
1) “Adult” humour.
You know how Dreamworks in some of it’s… darker times has either relied on puns or adult humour a bit too much? Well imagine if you take away the puns and instead leave adult jokes which are not ever even remotely funny.
Ah, scientists making air ships just so they can look down ladies tops in Victorian England. Mentionings of scantily clad mermaids. How droll. I think the problem is that Dreamworks for all it’s faults in this area could actually be occasionally funny with this. Sometimes. In it’s own weird way even if it was a slightly guilty thing and you laughed because it was awful sometimes. And Pirates was never funny even in this case. The odd adult joke here and there can be fun. But in the end it comes across as the idea that women are just there to be objectified. We don’t have a kick ass Fiona like in Shrek to make up for anything like that either.
Plus sometimes less is more. Even Disney has gotten some adult things in- things which can pass over kids heads or treated seriously. It’s actually funny or shocking because of it’s subtly when it does crop up. There’s the whole idea of the Trope of getting things Past the Radar after all. Thinking things have been snuck in can be part of the fun. It can make you cock your head and think “Did he/she say what I think they said?!”
But it’s not subtle, it’s not funny and it’s supposed to be a U film over here- 4 years and up. Granted they just -talk- about rather than -show- that sort of thing but in all fairness it’s one big fat meh in the lulz department when it comes to those sorts of jokes. Which I believe is the technical term.
If a joke isn’t funny, does it have a point?
It’s just kind of stupid really and has no purpose. And it kind of grates a bit more than it would otherwise when the only woman who is on both for a good amount of screen time and can kick any ass is Victoria, the villian. (Which doesn’t even make any sense to me.) Also ladies fainting and Darwin whinning about not getting to second base. Har de har har.
2) Darwin
Oh goodness. I fell like if I met this movies version of Darwin I would be yelling at him like Helen Parr does to Dash and Violet after they fall into the Ocean waters. “GET A GRIP!”
Granted this probably was the point. But honestly at the end of the movie when he is ‘rewarded’ by being able to meet girls while in the Galapagos I’m thinking: what was the point of you?
Seriously there was actually no point at all to use Darwin in this movie. When I went in I was hoping for perhaps a silly story where Darwin is on that famous trip -already- and meets up with the Pirates in this rediculous AU story in which an old dying relic of the past is meeting emerging scientific discovery. The fact that he is Darwin is never USED to great effect. Any biologist or scientist would do. It was just a name drop.
ALSO WHY IS CHARLES DARWIN CALLING AN APE A MONKEY?!
/pet peeve there, yeah, I know but it’s one of those things which gets up my nose. 
I mean yeah Queen Victoria is ridiculous too in her villian role but the fact she is a Queen is actually used: when she pardons the Pirate Captain just to get the Dodo, this results in him officially not being a pirate anymore (apparently?). Also of course an important head of state, or someone with more money/power than sense could be in something as tasteless as a society which wishes to eat very rare animals simply because they are rare, especially back then (heck even now).
3) Randomness
This is gripe is kind of unfair since this is just the way they decided to tell the story- plus little kids aren’t going to think too deeply on these things. Still, this is a personal gripe.
Physical humour can be funny with the right set up but many incidents were just random. Like making you question, WHY there was a room full of baking soda and so many barrels of vinegar, or why there was a stand earlier with the same set up. Or a room full or tar and feathers. A homage to looney tunes? Maybe, but still.
Also why is Queen Victoria waving cutlasses like a samurai and why does she have steampunk undergarments. That’s not badass or scary or even funny it’s just plain weird. It’s one of those scenes I’m not sure what to feel about. Am I supposed to laugh at this or not? I just felt utterly baffled myself. I mean she’s a Queen, she has… guards afterall. I can buy self defense of something if she had no alternative but to go alone and the guards weren’t there but they WERE on the boat somewhere. Then again this movies Queen is off her rocker clearly so perhaps I should be more forgiving.
Also Pirates ‘run people through’ with swords so it’s a bit silly sometimes to see them getting up in arms over lying. (Though this is a world where a female pirates stabs a male in the back and at the end he is perfectly fine so…)
Despite me ripping into it though, I feel a part of it may be because of my high expectations of this film and overall there are probably worst things to spend your time or money on. The Animation is good and you can find endearing things in “Number Two” (the First mate) and even the Captain if you stick around. Also in some cases it really tries, especially in terms of the main story. In the end the Captain has to figure out it’s the respect of the people he cares for (his crew) that matters rather than some silly award. And in the end I’m not a kid: and if kids can enjoy this, minus the adult humour, it’s all that really matters.
This isn’t a film for everyone but that doesn’t mean other people can’t enjoy it. If you have nothing else to see give it a shot and draw your own opinions.
Overall I give it 3/5.[/spoiler]
I think it’s possible that audiences might reject this as a silly spoof of the Pirates of the Caribbean films, even though it’s not.
I don’t want to read it bc of spoilers, but would you reccomend me seeing it?
Mmmm, I’d hesitate on that front. It’s hard to say really. I mean after all, all tastes are different in the end I gave it 3/5.
Here’s a summation in less detail so hopefully it’s not spoilery for you.
It’s not honestly something I fell in love with and it had some problems (not least because of certain aspects of humour were of the adult nature and not exactly subtle in that regard. When people go for adult humour I prefer subtle things- they’re just more fun and have the added benefit of sailing right over kids heads.)
If however you like sort of physical humour of the looney toons sort I could recommend it. (It’s also there).
Also I was not fond at all at their version of Darwin. And some things are just plain weird especially with Queen Victoria.
I wouldn’t call it a bad film at all- just not fantastic either. And I’m perhaps completely unsuited to say yes or no though because I also went in expecting something different and I was a bit disappointed. I though there were more interesting ways they could have gone with the concept.
However I did like the Captain and Number Two as well as Polly and it’s not ALL bad. But it is the kind of film I couldn’t ‘believe’ in if that makes sense- you know that feeling that you’re watching real people not just characters and animated characters at that. I never got that.
If you’re strapped for cash right now, then no I wouldn’t recommend it, save your ticket money for something else and I would never bother to get the dvd myself. I have no desire to see it again. But if not you should probably just see and judge for yourself, it’s not really a long film if I recall. After all, it might be more down to personal taste at the end of the day.
I saw this the other day,and i actually quite enjoyed it. Obviosly its not historically acurate,but its not really meant to be! I thought the cast was great too.Overall i thought it was another great Aardman movie! 
I get where you’re coming from. I really didn’t like how Queen victoria acted in the last few scenes. And there were some parts where i didnt really liked how both of them were portrayed, Especially when Darwin [spoil]revealed his love for Queen Victoria…[/spoil]
Yes! me too! 
I also liked the albino pirate and the suprisingly curvacious pirate!
Thanks for letting me know you guys. I think I’ll hold off on this one, and save my money. I defintely want to see it when it comes to Redboxes. I do love physical humor though.
Yeah I mean [spoil]hinting at such a relationship or desire from Darwin regards Victoria baffled me[/spoil] … an actual interesting aspect of Darwin was he possibly held off on publishing his evolution discovery because he was afraid the effect it would have on his wife (who was a believer in Christianity etc). I mean I may be a biologist and an atheist myself but I find that… kind of sweet? You know, he cared a lot about her. I think also because he had some religious friends too who were clergy. It wasn’t just the whole aspect of upsetting/startling the entire public with his discovery and being slandered which he feared- a discovery which would change the scientific world and the publics perception on many things, but perhaps more his wife (and friends). You know, the people he cared about. He only really bit the bullet when Wallace was on to the same idea later, so it would have probably come out anyway. (After all evolution was always there and happening, ready to be discovered, along with the steps of knowledge acquisition which had happened before- if Darwin or Wallace had never put it together someone else would have eventually).
They stuck together though, and his wife remained a christian (I believe she was a Unitarian?). I think they had a strong relationship in any case and they really loved each other. They were both pretty open with one another. Darwin was agnostic in the end.
And while Victoria and her husband were actually cousins (so was Darwin and his wife at that) it was supposed to be a quite romantic relationship from what I hear.
Also both of the couples had a very large number of children. So yeah.
[spoil]So I’m rather baffled and a bit miffed that in such an area as romantic entanglements they were sold up short and portrayed pretty badly. I mean yeah, it doesn’t try and sell itself as historically accurate at all but still. Rather strange.[/spoil]
I’m glad to finally see Aardman return to feature films. They’re very talented at what they do.
I’m glad we get to see claymation again after years of not seeing it.
Well, we had Coraline and Mary and Max in 2009, and this year we will have both this and Frankenweennie, so I think the ground is getting covered and the medium isn’t going to die soon.
We saw it, found it mildly amusing rather than funny–just a couple chuckles here and there, and British humour is something of a must, so it’s a tough nut to crack in that regard. The best bits were the little signs posted on walls and whatnot. Someone at Aardman must have it in for 19th century urchins and paupers! Mr. Bobo and The Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate were favorite characters. Overall, a fine technical achievement, middling for enthusiastic viewer engagement.
It sucks this isn’t doing successful here domestically, as expected.
I had a chance to see this today. It’s not an Oscar-worthy movie, but it’s a fun little romp to catch on a rainy day or on DVD. It’s not Aardman’s best movie, but it’s certainly their best looking. The backgrounds are so rich with small jokes and details that you’ll still be engaged when the story is lost.
Thankfully the filmmakers were at least somewhat self-aware and didn’t try to inject too much unnecessary pathos into the story. However, I never really felt too engaged in what was going on. I wanted to like Darwin, but his character is all over the place. The Pirate Captain is a decent character, but his arc is overdone. I didn’t have anyone to root for really. And as mentalguru said, they’re pretty liberal when it comes to historical accuracy, though I admire the attempt to throw in some historical connections.
The humor does work though. Ultimately it feels like they just threw every joke they could think of into the film, so it’s a bit hit or miss. However, for every bland joke there’s a funnier one coming up in 5 seconds or in the background, so I never felt bored. There are some very Aardman moments, although it does feel a bit more Americanized than their past works.
Aardman has really put everything they’ve learned over the past few decades into this film as it’s their best looking one yet. The animation is entertaining and the environments are incredible. The character designs are very Aardman, but remain distinct. In terms of scale, it’s one of the most ambitious stop motion films I’ve seen. So many crowd shots! I wouldn’t recommend seeing it in 3D, surprisingly; it adds a bit of depth, but nothing substantial, and it doesn’t make the movie more engaging at all.
Overall it’s a decent film and easily Aardman’s most polished from a visual standpoint. Unfortunately, the story feels more Saturday morning than feature-worthy and the characters fall flat. I say to wait for the DVD unless you’re dying to see it, but it’s enjoyable.
Oh, and I’m hoping for a sequel just so I can see Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in an animated film.
Good review. I am a bit disappointed with what I’ve heard of this movie despite my anticipation of it, but I’m more than willing to give it a shot once it’s on DVD.