Storks

I don’t want to give “Storks” a negative review, but I also don’t think it’s anything special. It’s a well-made movie with great visuals… that will be great to throw into your DVD player so the kids can leave you alone while you make supper.

Storks used to deliver children, but package delivery was deemed more profitable so they’ve moved away from that venture. When Tulip (voiced by Katie Crown, quite good here), a girl who grew up on Stork Mountain when the company failed to deliver her to her expecting parents, accidentally turns the baby making machine back on, she and the company’s best deliverer, Junior (voiced by Andy Samberg), have to deliver the child before the storks’ boss (voiced by Kelsey Grammer) finds out about the mistake.

If you’re already on your way to the theater, I won’t discourage you from seeing “Storks”, particularly not if your swarm of children is eagerly anticipating it. The visuals present here are not only good; they’re frequently inventive. At one point, our heroes encounter a pack of wolves who are after the baby to be delivered and what is done with these antagonists is very clever; the characters are all wonderfully expressive. The world this adventure takes place in is detailed and very well animated. I even think that in 3D it would look pretty sweet. But I demand more from films made for children and outside of the vacuum, I don’t think “Storks” is anything special.

A lot of this film is dedicated to noise. Manic characters that babble in funny voices; lines of dialogue delivered very quickly; wild frantic movements that serve to pad out the running time; characters dancing; gags that come back 2 or three times to make the audience laugh – but more often than not simply smile or chuckle. There’s not really a whole lot going on in “Storks”. As an adult, I was able to predict where it was going to go early on, which didn’t help make the flawed premise any more compelling. When you break it down, this movie is about a guy who wants to get a promotion at work. Do you really care about office politics? Will your children?

I think this film was green-lit before the story was fully developed. I don’t want to nitpick the premise because without it there’s no movie, but I can’t help myself. Why did storks stop delivering babies? Because it’s not profitable enough? Do people pay for babies? If kids can be made using super sci-fi machinery, how were they made in cavemen times? A better question: why did storks start delivering babies in the first place? It’s never said outright, but in the “Storks” universe, it’s severely hinted at that normal reproduction can also take place. Which bird decided that they’d build a complex network to start giving people children… when a man and a woman can create one for free? I think someone at Warner Animated Pictures should’ve gone up to writer/co-director Nicholas Stoller and said “listen, this plot is just too crazy. It doesn’t really make a lot of sense. How about setting the film in a universe where the only way to get kids is to order one from storks. The main characters will be a human orphan and say… a chicken that wants to be a baby deliverer. Sure it’s not very inventive, but at least people will be able to latch onto a story about two characters that want to do more than what society expects of them. ” The sad thing is that I could’ve looked past this if the film had been cleverly written or really funny. It’s not, but neither is it awful. It’s just ok.

When I think about “Storks”, big question marks start appearing above my head. It’s decent entertainment I suppose, but don’t see this one being anyone’s favorite. There’s just not a lot of meat to it in the end. A lot of this film’s appeal is that cartoon babies look cute. The swelling wave of coos and giggles from the “package” featured in this film will melt most people hearts – but not mine. “Storks” is not a bad film, but it’s no more than okay either. If you decide to see it, make sure you get there on time. There's an amusing (but not great) Lego animated short before the main feature. (Theatrical version on the big screen, October 8, 2016)