Storks (2016)

Storks have moved on from delivering babies to packages. But when an order for a baby appears, the best delivery stork must scramble to fix the error by delivering the baby. (Source-Imdb.com)

Storks Trailer- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVzL94jZNdU

Rated- PG
Genre- Fantasy/Adventure
Warnings- Cartoon violence

It took a lot more time and effort than I expected to construct my thoughts on this film...a film about birds and babies.

I feel ridiculous at how I needed to think deeply on something as simple as a children's movie. But then again...why am I categorizing a movie primarily targeted at children as something that shouldn't be thought about? Are they not unable to have depth simply because they are made for younger people? If anything, they should be noted as something that should be complex because we are teaching the younger generation the basis of storytelling, how people behave, comedy, love and so forth.

Why must I go on such a philosophical-like tangent? Well as I mentioned in the beginning, I was having a dilemma organizing my thoughts about the movie 'Storks.' Usually I save my exact thoughts about a movie for the end, after I've said what I considered the positives and negatives of the film and such. But I think in order to release those pros and cons in the best manner, I need to admit how I felt when I finished watching this movie...I didn't like this movie at all.

Try as I might, I didn't get into it and I have several reasons for that, but the problem is that I usually dislike a lot of movies on this blog, not giving them a score above 3 out of 5 stars. I've noticed that there is a rarity of good films by my standards and when it comes to movies-especially children's films- I don't want to be that type of person who is such a stickler that I can't enjoy other forms of storytelling. Part of me feels bad for once again disliking a film, but shouldn't children's stories be judged on the same caliber as a normal grown film? I judge my movies equally and I do not dismiss a major problem in a kid's film just because, "It's for kids!"

Don't get me wrong, if movies are in the fantasy or science fiction genre or in a universe where certain things are meant to be normal in their world but not in ours, I can easily differentiate that. I usually critic when movies don't try hard enough to invoke emotion within children or entertain them with cheap humor and things like tiring fart jokes.

So, with that all off my mind, let me finally start my review on the children's adventure film, 'Storks.'

Directed by Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland, 'Storks' is a children's film full of comedy and wackiness tied with a message about how we should all find our place in the world and know what it means to be a family.

However, does 'Storks' really punch that message in nicely and do they really fulfill some good moments, or is it rather a flat movie that tries to hard to be memorable?

To repeat myself: I did not like this movie, so I personally do not think it had a strong message or fulfill good moments that will stick with the audience for a while. If I didn't have my notes in my phone that expressed my thoughts on 'Storks' I probably would have forgotten all about what happened in the story.

The story of 'Storks' sounds simple enough, it's about a stork that needs to deliver a baby to a family; that was not the problem with the movie though. As the story progressed, I noticed how the writers added in all of these unnecessary elements to it that felt so forced in.

I get that writers didn't want their story to be too generic and forgettable, but if that's the case then they must take time to edit it in a way where the plot is still cohesive and the audience is not left questioning, "Why was that even necessary?"

I must say though that this movie could have had a really solid strength if only it wasn't also their greatest weakness...I am referring to their comedy.

This movie relies a lot on its comedy to get the audience interested in the story and though some of the jokes are actually funny, it does well at being steady with its fast paced humor and back-and-forth banter, but it is used way too much for it to stay funny.

Another way the writers tried to provoke comedy was to make characters analyze the situation they were in and comment on it, and usually those kind of jokes make me laugh, but it was too predictable because it happened so often.

For example, take a scenario where a pair of friends just escaped a harrowing cat-and-mouse game with a villain and escaped a burning building just before it explodes. Once the building explodes with the villain supposedly still inside, the first friend says, "Well...the building just blew up." That might gain a little chuckle at least.

But then the other friend replies, "Yeah, hopefully the villain didn't survive that" and right after that is said, the villain walks out ready to attack and second friend exclaims, "The villain just survived that! How is that possible? The building was burning and the villain should have died because no one can survive that!"

It's like, "We get it! We saw what just happened on screen, you don't need to keep addressing what was JUST shown!"

That sort of humor needs to be done in small doses because telling someone a fact that they already knew about can be irritating, because it almost makes people feel like they are being held by the hand and walked through this movie like, "...and THAT'S the part where the main character feels bad for his actions. And THEN he apologize to his friend so they can help get the baby home, UNDERSTAND?"

After a 20 minute viewing of this, I could guess when these self-analyzing jokes would come up seconds before they arrived.

The movie likes to keep things moving, creating this looney toons style tone where each character is ready for their next quirky line with a side of wacky body movement. But when things do seem to slow down, it is ruined by this and thus, makes emotional moments not so vital anymore.

I will say this, the animation was very clean and cute and the humans in particular have a very young appearance to them which depending on the viewer can be taken good or bad, personally I was indifferent towards it, although when they revealed the human orphan Tulip's (Katie Crown) age I was perplexed at how someone that old could look like a child. Although to be fair, a lot of people can have a baby-like face as an adult so take this comment with a grain of salt.

Speaking of Tulip, she was a very cute character and while some may find her upbeat attitude annoying, I personally didn't mind. Oddly enough, I expected her character to be more somber or at least reveal that side to herself more often than she did in the film; showing her contempt for being with the storks and reluctantly tagging along to help the best stork in the business, Junior (Andy Samberg) deliver the baby. To watch Tulip instead be this preppy, cheerful sidekick was a surprise, but on a downside, while I didn't find her annoying, her behavior was similar to other major characters in this film so her personality is a little challenging to differentiate.

Junior, the main stork is just as energetic as Tulip so the two as a pair are an overly eccentric duo, which together may be irritating to watch since there is little to no contrast between the two aside from their species.

Others characters like the Gardner family: Nate, Henry and Sarah (Anton Starkman, Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston) feel expendable, not necessary to the plot even though the son Nate is the prime reason why there ends up being a objective in the movie in the first place. But his family is also a stereotype times two, having two workaholic parents who have no time for their kid.

Having overworking parents is arguably the most overused trope used in movies and it's so painfully presented that I just wanted to say, "Okay, now get to the part where the parents realize how neglectful they've been so we can get pass this?" Thankfully, the issue actually is resolved sooner than I expected, but that doesn't mean it was still a lame idea to bring up in the first place.

But despite the complaints I have about some of these characters, there is one character who downright angered me, one that I can't even like a little bit or feel indifferent towards. I just have pure hatred for this character and this character is...Pigeon Toady (Stephen Kramer Glickman).

Just looking at him, I knew I would not like this bird. His voice was disgusting to my ears, with his pretentious, exaggerated privileged tone and he serves no major purpose to the story other than to add more filler and attempt to be the film's comic relief even though we already have other characters who provide more than enough comedy.

I would rant more on that annoying green pigeon, but there really is nothing more to say. He was just a filler character who attempted to make himself appear more useful to the story when really he has no business being there. Why does he want to be involved with Junior and Tulip? I don't know!

Anyways, this movie also has some very questionable scenes. Not that the scenes were inappropriate or extremely violent, but rather if you thought of the logical side of the story some things don't quite add up and the whole baby delivering business wouldn't have been successful because the storks constant inefficiency.

This can be much better explained in the spoiler section, so I apologize if this sounds very confusing and if you never want to watch the movie nor get spoiled by it...you know what? I will put it as the FIRST thing in the spoiler section, how about that?

Ultimately, 'Storks' as a movie would not be something I'd enjoy taking any children too. Though kids may get a kick out of the childish violence and fast paced animation, there is no further depth to it than that. I didn't get invested in the characters nor did I care about whether or not the baby would be delivered or not.

While your kids, cousins, nieces and nephews or any young one you care for may like it, how exactly will it impact them? Will it stay in their heads?

I'm not saying that every children's movie should be emotionally heartwarming like "Inside Out" or an award winning musical like "Frozen", but even if Storks just showed some effort into...I don't know...making clever humor, making a strong story or not relying on pop culture references then something as small as that would suffice and consciously or not, stay in people's heads and remind them of what it takes to create an amazing story.

In the end, I would have to give 'Storks' a 1 out of 5 stars. Sorry.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
.
.
.
.
.

This is the further explanation of what I was trying to address about how the baby delivering service wouldn't work. In the movie, it shows a ton of cards unopened, meaning that there were thousands of families who didn't receive their baby in as long as years. And Tulip didn't see her family until she was 18. This is a terrible company!

Who would ever want to request a baby from them again? I would imagine the families would be clouded with anger over how long it took for their baby to arrive to them. Maybe by the time the baby came along they didn't have the confidence to raise one anymore, or they had their own naturally...which brings me to another thing.

Why are there storks if people can still have babies through intercourse? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Why order a manufactured baby if you can create your own, doesn't that waste time? Maybe if the storks were used for those that couldn't have children, it might make more sense, but the movie clearly states that couples can have children through intercourse. Also, what about adoption? If you want a child so bad without going through intercourse, then adopt babies who are in adoption homes? And side note, Nate didn't get his baby BROTHER. How do they keep the ninja skills but that the gender the person wanted?

These plot holes make me less and less capable of liking these characters.

Now onto the rest of the spoilers....

This green pigeon will get annoying fast, I already don't like him.

Why would the bird want a baby?

Workaholic parents, that's new...

Tulip will be Nate's older sister, calling it.

Why aren't you panicking, Tulip? You caused the baby to be created and your job was recently on the line. Shouldn't you be more concerned instead of joking about it.

Why does this green bird care about what Junior and Tulip do?

When Junior yelled at Tulip, making her almost fall off. Umm, okay...

The statement about the baby and Tulip having the same birthday was sloppily put in, maybe that could have been said in a slower, more emotional scene. Was that comment about the birthdays being the same supposed to imply something? Was Tulip the baby the Gardner family was supposed to have?

This movie brings up its predictability...a lot. That doesn't make it any more funny.

How does Tulip know the stereotypes about women? She has only been around birds, and I haven't seen any female birds.

Sudden hair change for Sarah Gardner to represent her change as a person.

I must admit, the quick flash into how the baby will grow up made me tear up a bit...

Seeing how diverse the babies look to their parents (mostly by their hair color) it's pretty strange how Tulip and her family look exactly alike.

So...is it a fun game for the parents to have the kids assume who was naturally created and who was made out of a letter?