Directed by Zack Snyder. Voices of Jim Sturgess, Geoffrey Rush, Emily Barclay, Anthony LaPaglia, David Wenham, Ryan Kwanten, Helen Mirren PG cert, gen release, 97 min
THE SUBJECT for this week appears to be the wrong way to handle 3D family animations. Forgive our indulgence, but such issues arise at half-term.
Unlike Alpha and Omega, Legends of the Guardiansdoes not look as if it was thrown together on a 1982 ZX Spectrum. Indeed, computer boffins will probably spot all sorts of mind- bending innovations in Zack Snyder's strigine epic. The owls, too often rendered in slow motion, swoop gloriously from mighty cliffs and – if you've remembered to put on your 3D specs – make their way out of the screen and halfway to the popcorn stand. Every feather has been carefully crafted to photorealistic effect.
As was the case with Snyder's highly influential, gloriously silly 300, the new film seems startlingly of its time. Created in the computer (and in the director's busy head), it would, to cinemagoers of any previous decade, look like the work of witches.
Unfortunately, unlike 300, Legend of the Guardians is also a big fat bore. Based on a novel by Kathryn Lasky, the picture wrestles with a plot that comprises equal parts The Lord of the Rings, Watership Downand The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
We focus on a young owl who, after being kidnapped with his big brother, watches aghast as the older bird gets indoctrinated by their avian-fascist captors. The hero eventually escapes and helps organise resistance against the looming oppressors.
The plot itself is not all that complicated. But most of the film is taken up with seemingly endless, unremittingly tedious investigations of owl lore and legend. There’s a great deal of chatter about the titular Guardians, legendary beings who once protected the community. There’s some gibberish about a strange substance, derived from mice, that has a debilitating effect on the owl folk.
To add to the sense of joylessness, the birds are rendered in realistic fashion, which, though technically impressive, limits their scope for facial expressions. The end result is a drab, soulless exercise in digital grandstanding.
Who is this film for? Who? Who? Who? (Get it?) : The
