THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE

When it comes to films directed by the controversial actor Mel Gibson, they're quite memorable. Whether they're legitimately good, or downright extreme and offensive (cough...cough "Passion of the Christ"...*clears throat* excuse me) there's always something unforgettable to offer. That is with the exception of his first film that was well received by critics when it first came out, but isn't as talked about or remembered as his films that followed. And that film is...

No, his first theatrical full length movie!



That's the film!

In the summer of 1968, a boy named Chuck Norstadt (Nick Stahl) has trouble living with his dysfunctional family, and is determined to attend the same Military boarding school that his deceased Father went too. After failing the entrance exam, his Mother (Margaret Whitton) though against the idea of her son joining the military, gives him one lost shot, which means that Chuck is going to have study harder than he's ever had too before, and miss out on half of the summer fun with his friends. Seeking for a tutor to help him with his studies, Chuck turns to a disfigured man named Justin McLeod (Mel Gibson) who is a former teacher that is feared and mocked by the people living in the town, based on his appearance and the rumors going around about him. McLeod agrees to tutor Chuck, and teaches him confusing methods that almost seem in no way connected to what he's studying for. Eventually Chuck figures out the method behind his madness, and the two slowly become close friends. However, as soon as Chuck's Mother and the rest of the town find out about their relationship, fearing that the boy's life maybe at risk based on Justin's reputation and his unfortunate past that he's been trying to hide from, the two are being forced to part ways.

Judging by the plot, the film doesn't seem that surprising given how predictable and clichéd it is. Right after the first 20 minutes of the film, I knew exactly where the film was going. I knew that this scary looking man who teaches the boy in a nonsensical way will be as misunderstood as Boo Radley from "To Kill a Mockingbird", and that his strange teaching madness will have a point like Mr. Miyagi from "The Karate Kid". Obstacles are going get in the way of Chuck and Justin's relationship because of society's misjudgment of Justin, where we're going to have ourselves a nice little cry, get a long inspirational speech that changes the people's minds inside a courtroom, and the two end up happily ever after continuing to be friends with successful lives. Throw in a 60s coming of age vibe that's exaggerated and has tons of references to the era so that it can cram the 60s down your throat, along with a marketable soundtrack reflecting the time; and we'd more than likely get a film that may not be bad, but nothing different or memorable, hence why the film is more than likely overlooked in obscure territory of Mel Gibson's movies. But to my surprise as I let the film play-on, the film wasn't as predictable as I thought it was going to be.

For example, even though this film takes place in the 60s, it isn't trying too hard to the capture the era as other coming age films were doing. You'll see some old fashioned vehicles, hear one or two conversations about what was happening at the time (like the "Vietnam War"), and notice how dated the clothes and hair-styles were, but that's pretty much it. A part of me was quite surprised that Gibson didn't even use songs from that era to capture its setting, or relate to how the characters are feeling. It's all James Horner's lovely score that Gibson uses when it comes to the film's music. It’s the type of film that doesn't feel the need to play-up on its time period to remind you that this film isn't taking place in the 90s; it shows enough to give you an understanding of where you are. And that's just one of the many visual methods that Gibson uses to nicely tell the film's story. I must say that for an actor who has never made a full length movie (outside of a TV movie he directed that's not even an hour long) until this point, he certainly shows that he has an eye for visuals. When the film started with Chuck daydreaming of graduating the boarding school, Gibson just pushes for the film's visual appeal right away by bringing some surreal and cartoony imagery (the most impressive piece of imagery and camera work being how the soldiers are shown to be suddenly marching on top of the camera lens). But after that point however, the film mostly tames itself from being excessive with its visuals, and mainly uses them to set-up its environment and mood that would reflect on the characters. For instance, in the first half of the film as we're getting ourselves acquainted with Justin, Gibson makes this man as sketchy of a person as possible by making his deformed half resemble Freddy Krueger if his face was only half-burned, and his home to appear as strange and ominous as the character is. But naturally as we learn more about Gibson's character and spend more time with him, his face looks less intimidating than it did when we first met him, and his home seems more sophisticated and scholarly as if someone has polished up an old dark and dusty classroom that once looked foreboding at first glance. 

But it isn't the visuals that make the film so underrated, it's mainly the relationship between Chuck and Justin, where the focus of a film of this kind should be! Both Gibson and Stahl bring an authenticity to their performances and chemistry that they share together that doesn't come across as corny, dull, or forced. Their interaction and how it flows and builds as the film moves along feels quite genuine and becomes more fascinating as it progresses from the way they both learn from one another, and help each other out. And this isn't the kind of relationship where one character comes off as more interesting and sympathetic than the other; they're both equally engaging for different reasons. You connect with Chuck for how passionate he is to achieve his dream as you feel his struggles with how his family looks down upon him, while with Justin you connect to him for how he's reluctantly willing to step-out of a life of isolation to help out a boy as you wonder about his past involving his scar and if what the community says about him is true. And if you're thinking that the film's going to play everything safe by taking the predictable route when regarding society's misconception of their relationship, well I'd rather not give too much away for newcomers, but let’s just say that it takes a bittersweet route that challenges both the audience and the character Chuck when it comes to trusting his mentor that doesn't result with a black and white answer. I heavily admire when a film tries to challenge its viewer by not always giving them a clear-cut answer, especially in this film's case where I feel that if they did, the relationship wouldn't be as special, and would betray the theme that the film teaches (without feeling the need to preach it) and that is trust. I really thought that Mel Gibson was going to spoon-feed us all the information, and use all the clichés that we'd expect in a film like this, but he doesn't. The answers are in the book that the film is based on, but Gibson wanted to remove it so the film can be more inspiring, which for me is just as smart of a choice as casting him and Stahl as the leading roles.

I suppose if I had any nitpicks with the movie, I would say that with the exception of the Mother who we grow to understand as much as we do Justin, the supporting characters are kind of forgettable. They're not bad performances, I just don't find anything that memorable about them. They seem pretty generic in terms of character. But to be fair, they're not necessarily the focus of the story. They're simply the type of characters that are supposed to represent our imperfect world who criticize what they don't fully understand, thus effectively adding conflict to the character's lives. And Gibson doesn't paint these characters out as mean self-centered jerks so our main characters can stand-out as tragic characters who are the real article, they're just as flawed as the people living around them. Chuck does say some mean things about Justin behind his back; Justin does behave irrationally cruel at times. They're simply no different from the people they live around; they're just not fully understood by them. So while I can't say that the supporting cast is anything special, at least they're treated like actual people instead of cardboard cut-out stereotypes.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

For a film that I thought was going to be heavily clichéd despite being well-made, I was far-off. Gibson refuses to provide us with all the typical elements that we'd get in a coming of age film about a relationship between a boy and his mentor. He doesn't avoid all the clichés (obviously that's unavoidable), but he knows what tropes he should eliminate and use when telling this compelling story, which overall shows his ambition as a filmmaker. It's a very powerful film that has one of the best teacher and student relationship's that I've ever seen, and it's a shame that it's overlooked on the short list of films that Mel Gibson has directed. I guess it’s the blood, action, and torture porn that revolve around controversial topics like war and religion that make his later films more memorable than this. I won't go as far to say that this is the greatest film that he's ever made, but I will say that I find it to be a little more engaging than half of his films that followed. Who would have thought that a film as simple as this, can be more inspiring and say more than a film about Jesus being crucified for 2 long hours?

MADAGASCAR

I just realized that apart from reviewing a spin-off 3-D attraction at “Universal Studios”, I have yet to review a full length animated film by "Dreamworks", which is odd considering that there's so many of them. And that I've seen plenty of those films on the big-screen when I was a kid. Well no more waiting, I'm finally going to review one. This is...

Hmmm, a little too cliched to be starting with this one, even if I did already review "Shrek 4-D".

 

Don't kill me, but I haven't even seen this or any of the other 2-D animated "Dreamworks" movies. But that doesn't mean won't!



NO, I am not ready to re-watch this one again!



I'll take it!

At the Central Park Zoo, a Zebra named Marty (voiced by Chris Rock) dreams to one day leave his self-contained environment behind to run free in the wild. And after seeing a quartet of Penguins escaping the Zoo to live in Antarctica, Marty decides to do the same. But when his best friend Alex (voiced by Ben Stiller) the Lion, along with Gloria (voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith) the Hippo, and Melman (voiced by David Schwimmer) the hypochondriac giraffe, notice Marty's absence; the three leave the Zoo in search for their friend to bring him back safely. Eventually, the animals are rounded-up by the humans, and put into crates to be shipped to a Kenyan wildlife preserve, until they all accidentally fall over board when the Penguins (who were captured with them) take over the ship. Marty and the others wash-up on the beaches of "Madagascar", and try to adapt to their new habitat. 

I saw this when it first came out in theaters when I was a kid, and despite being skeptical about seeing it since the film didn't look anything that fun or exciting, I got tons of laughs out of it, and would go onto to re-watching it all through-out my Middle School years. And after deciding to revisit this piece of nostalgia again, I still had just as many laughs as when I first saw it. The primary reason why the film is so funny is the constant energy that it has. In spite of how digitized the character designs look that would look nearly suitable for a PS2 video game (Alex's design being the biggest offender), these characters are given so much life through the voice acting and speed of the animation that it's easy to overlook how the animation is not in the same league as say "Shrek", and thankfully not in the same exact uncanny territory as "Shark Tale". And being how energized those elements are, the film throws so many different kind of jokes at you, that it never stops until the film is officially over, and I mean till the film completely fades to black. Even during moments that are supposed to be sad and serious, the film doesn't completely distant itself from its energetic cartoony nature, but it doesn't distract from the emotional struggles that we're supposed to feel from the characters either. It isn't hardcore sad, but it isn't treated too lightly to the point where the humor seems forced. It's surprisingly the right balance. I can easily see people being annoyed by how the characters are always shown to be moving as the film keeps spewing out one joke after another, and I'll admit that not every single joke in the film hits a bulls-eye. But I can't say that I found the jokes and its non-stop energy to be tedious, obnoxious, or offensively cringe worthy, cause even at the film's weakest when it comes to humor, I still found myself being delightfully entertained. And as cheap as the designs for the characters look, they're still at a good half-way point for "Dreamworks Animation" that are in the very least fun and distinctive to look at as they fool around in front of some wonderfully animated backgrounds such as New York City, and the Jungles of "Madagascar" that are inspired by the jungle paintings of Henri Rousseau.

 

Unlike in a film like "Shark Tale" where the celebrities are simply just playing themselves as fish just with a different name, though the actors voicing most of these characters are for the most part recognizable, they're not definitely playing caricatures of themselves as wild animals. If anything they fit their characters well enough for me to separate the actor from the character (much like in "Shrek"). On top of it, as simple as the premise for the film sounds, it wasn't all that predictable. With most of the "Dreamwork" animated films, I can sense where the plot was going, and how it will all turn out in the end, but with this, though I'm sure it will end happily, I was never sure how the characters were going to achieve it. The major part of the film's story that I found to be both engaging and emotional as I wondered how they were going to solve their issue is the relationship between Marty and Alex. They're close friends, but total opposites. Marty is a modest dreamer who hates the life in the Zoo, while Alex on the other hand is egocentric for being the Zoo's star attraction who enjoys his life of luxury. But when Alex is taken out of his environment that he's grown accustomed to, he slowly grows insane to the point where he starts to act on his killer lion instincts with the intention to eat his best friend, now that he has to hunt for meat, rather than having meat being served to him on a silver platter. But considering how close he is to Marty, he tries as hard as he can to avoid giving into his temptation. Stiller and Rock's voices are easily the most recognizable voices in the film, and somehow they hit the nail on the head hard when it comes to emoting and working off the bond that these characters have! They're different in terms of personality, but you buy that these two have been best buds for the longest time from how they interact with each other. And when Alex starts feeling these urges to devour his friend, though you’re laughing half of the time, you still find yourself feeling sorry for the both of them as you are sitting there trying to figure out how Alex is going to resist this urge. The voice acting plays a large part in it, but the writing and how the film shows his insanity is done flowingly where it feels effective. I'm actually shocked that a film as goofy as this, can manage to entertain you and still give you an emotional connection to the characters.

It's just too bad that the film had the need to throw-in two extra leading characters that are clearly not needed. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy Gloria and Melman because I do. Their friendship with Alex and Marty is believable. Jada Pinkett Smith is enjoyably sassy as Gloria, who I am glad that they didn't turn her into a phoned-in love interest for one of the animals. And the voice acting from David Schwimmer as Melman, along with the design and the concept of him being a hypochondriac is the funniest character out of the four animals that we spend time with on this crazy journey. The problem is, when you look at these two characters from a storytelling perspective, they're just as pointless as say the Dinosaurs accompanying the John Goodman Dinosaur in "We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story". They don't really do anything productive, except crack jokes and comfort their friends. It's almost as if the people behind this film didn't think the friendship between Marty and Alex wasn't good enough to carry the film, and decided to take two animal characters who were just supposed to appear in the scenes that take place at the Zoo and forcefully add them into the scenes with Marty and Alex.

And if that were the actual case, it's a pretty weak excuse considering how many supporting characters that this film has. Most of the inhabitants that the characters encounter in the jungles of Madagascar are a tribe of lemurs that love to party. They're a highly festive set of characters, but the one who loves to party harder than all of them combined is their King voiced by Borat himself Sacha Baron Cohen. Originally he was supposed to be a minor character with very little to say, until Cohen gave an eight minute audition of him improvising with an Indian accent as the character, which persuaded the filmmakers to give his character a bigger role. And I'm glad they did, because Cohen owns every single with his crazy dialogue, fun-loving personality, and exaggerated Indian accent. Out of all the big named voice actors in the film, Cohen's performance is the one that I found to be the least recognizable. And when I found out that it was him, I was shocked. Another Lemur that stands-out just as much as Cohen’s is Andy Richter as the smallest member of the pack Mort, who loves to mug the screen with his adorable and wide-eyed innocent expressions. He's a character that is so cutesy that his cuteness annoys the King so much that he tries to find ways of ridding him, which is dark, but given the personality and voice that Richter provides for the character that's a perfect balance of sounding innocent and irritating at the same time, you too would want to feed this little guy to the jungle's predators after a while (and the concept of his character being annoying isn't at all bad and not funny). But then we have Cedric the Entertainer as the King's royal advisor Maurice who's the only one in the pack that doesn't get in on any of the fun, or says anything funny. I get that he's supposed to be the pack's stick-in-the-mud since he's the only character that's suspicious about Alex's behaviors, but he's not a memorable or fun straight character, who falls into forgettable territory for how boring he is. The film also has a bunch of villains that hunt the lemurs known as the Fossa, who are not too memorable either given that there's nothing about their designs and personality that stands-out except that they're wild savage beasts that don't talk. Then there are the two monkeys that escape the Zoo with the others, who are entertaining enough, but don't leave that much of an impact for the very little they do in the picture. Some of their reactions are funny, and I love how one is smart and sophisticated as the other one is a mute who communicates through sign language. However, they aren’t really given enough scenes for them to truly shine.

The most memorable characters in the film that are so popular with audiences that they would go on to receive their own short film, full length film, and TV show are the Penguins. Whenever this film was brought up after its release, people would always be quoting or talking about the Penguins, and how funny and cool they are. And looking at them again, yeah, they're clearly the best characters in the movie. Why exactly, one word, STYLE! The way that they talk, react, move, and map things out is so badass and yet so laugh out loud funny given that these smiling and waving penguins are secretly smart and calculating birds that act like secret agents when the humans aren't looking is hilarious and executed brilliantly. You'd think the film would give us an animal more fitting for characters as sly and quick as them like say a fox, or a raccoon, but nope, they give us an animal that you wouldn't at all expect would be this cool, which I feel is what makes them so funny and appealing. Every time they appear, they simply steal the movie through their style and comedy, and frankly without them, I don't think the film would be as talked about.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

I won't call this film a masterpiece, or a classic family film. But man is this film incredibly funny and entertaining to the max! I honestly can't think of one single moment in this film that I didn't find to be enjoyable! Sure the designs for the characters look very computerized; yes, there are characters who are forgettable and not needed; and of course not every single joke works (but in all seriousness, can anyone name a comedy where every joke does), but that doesn't at all prevent it from being a delightful watch. The animation is full of tons of life and movement. Most of the characters are funny and likable (especially the Penguins). It's non-stop with its humor and energy. And above all, for a film that doesn't need to try for how over the top it is, it shockingly manages to give us an unpredictable plot that gives you an emotional connection to the characters! If you're looking for some great animated family entertainment from "Dreamworks", then pop-in whatever copy you have of the film, and get ready to "Move it, Move it"!