Category Archives: re-view

Madagascar (2005) RE-view #NetflixReview #Madagascar

… neurotic weed (voiced by an American Jew), and the fat chunky one (voiced by a black person) … racist

Madagascar is a fish-out-of-water tale of a group of zoo animal friends — hippo, giraffe, zebra and, err, lion (they’re from a zoo, they don’t know any better!) — who find themselves stranded on a distant island (no prizes for guessing which one). Can they survive in the wild, and will the jungle threaten to break their relationship as their true animal natures begin to assert themselves? Well, it’s a kids’ film, so no surprises.

Madagascar is a charming film with some lovable albeit unoriginal characters: cool leader (voiced by a white, all-American guy), wise-cracking donkey sorry zebra sidekick voiced by a leading black American stand-up, neurotic weed (voiced by an American Jew), and the fat chunky one (voiced by a black person). Oh, and there’s Sacha Baron Cohen doing a possibly racist generic foreigner voice, again.

But we can’t judge this 2005 flick by today’s somewhat different social mores. The fact that Ross Geller, Sorry David Schwimmer, is part of the leading cast should date this film considerably (no prizes for guessing which of our foursome he is — and no offence to Schwimmer, he is a genuinely talented performer, but let’s be honest — he hasn’t exactly been flush for film roles in the last decade or so, has he?). So how is it as a film?

It’s good. It’s still good. The characters have a balanced relationship between them. There are some great set pieces. There’s the whole emotional journey thing. There’s a friendship hanging in the balance. There’s the odd cultural reference; not too many to charge the writers with laziness, as most of the gags are gags are not “I-know-what-he-is-referencing-!-lol” so-called gags which blight much of the world of comedy these days.

Is it inferior to Ice Age and Shrek? Well, yes. It always was. But it’s a good way to waste ninety minutes.

© 2022 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://images06.kaleidescape.com/transformed/covers/1134x1624s/378/37867053.jpg

Film RE-view: Crash (2004) [SPOILERS!!!]

a whiff of self-satisfaction, self-righteousness, and self-congratulation emanate from this flick.

This RE-view has spoilers

WHY RE-VIEW?

Crash is about racism in America today and the different forms and faces it takes. Institutional, white-on-black, black-on-white, conscious, unconscious bias, rich, poor, and all between: the film was awarded three Oscars for its in-your-face message. It confronted racial tensions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Various story strands are interwoven in what I can only call a Love Actually ensemble stylee — although the film seems to think itself more Pulp Fiction. Yes, a whiff of self-satisfaction, self-righteousness, and self-congratulation emanate from this flick. And that’s why I gave it 2/5 when it came out. But a friend kept begging me to give it a second look. So finally I did.

THE GOOD

It’s true, there are some great moments. The sweet story of the protective cloak that a father tells his daughter stands out as genuinely touching and believable. The film is well directed and the plot well structured. You can’t fault writer-director Paul Haggis for his mastery over the craft. And despite the large cast, there is good character development, and the film is well paced and zips along nicely. Despite this, some characters are completely extraneous and should have been cut. Particularly, the roles played by Sandra Bullock and her on-screen husband.

THE BAD

The film is also very funny in places. Although I strongly suspect that was unintentional. Either way, it’s certainly odd. The two African American car-jackers provide much of this unintentional comic relief. They drive around procrastinating on race and racism, like a crap Travolta-Jackson Pulp Fiction rip-off duo, whilst their actions confirm the negative stereotypes that they rail against.

This is the worst thing is that nobody reacts normally. Everybody is ready to fly off the handle over the slightest thing. It’s this constant hysteria that jarred so badly thirteen years ago and jars so badly now. And in these sobre days, where 9/11 is now history, we can see this film for what it is. Over-the-top characters and cartoonish racism are par for the course. Everyone constantly make shouty outbursts laced with racial slurs that seem shoe-horned in and never genuine. Example: “So tell me, who gathered these remarkably different cultures together and taught them all to park their cars on their lawns” says a black man whilst hanging out of the back of a Hispanic woman…. Another example: a moronic, obnoxious Iranian shopkeeper — driven to rudeness by post-9/11 hysteria and racism, we are meant to think — does not do what his locksmith told him to, consequently gets robbed, and then does what anyone would: get a gun and go shoot a child… I mean, seriously, we never see him get pushed to that breaking point. By opting for pure melodrama at every turn, the message that racism comes in many forms, not just the obvious KKK lynch ’em kind, is completely undermined.

IN CONCLUSION: OVER-HYPED

I still think the hype and the three Oscars were overboard. Right after watching this again, Midnight Express came on the telly. So I watched that — also, for the first time in ten years or so. Wow, that is what a multiple Oscar winner is all about (despite an equally dubious portrayal of race), not this melodramatic, unrealistic portrayal of racism designed to exorcise middle class white America’s racial and 9/11 demons. Crash was the kind of film America needed in 2004, but that doesn’t mean it lived up to the hype. Crash‘s ideology and surreal histrionic racism are just as jarring as ever. But I have a renewed appreciation for the craft of this film and the moments when it is believable. For that, it earns an improved mark: 3/5.

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/x0zz5XjT9FkZqoktcb7zGdbx8la.jpg