It was a great surprise to me, therefore, that Madagascar worked in a different way. There are some key things that Madagascar does differently that turn the film into a more effective work on both comedy and drama levels. First off, one of the really nice things about the film is that, despite having its core cast of four famous stars (Rock, Stiller, Pinkett Smith, Schwimmer), the film did not tailor-make their roles around their celebrity personas. Oscar in Shark Tale is Will Smith in a fish suit. Alex the Lion in Madagascar is a wholly unique creation, as opposed to Ben Stiller in a lion suit. In fact, with the exception of a couple of throwaway moments from Jada Pinkett Smith's Gloria, the actors have to live up to the characters, not the other way around. We're allowed new views into the humanities of these celebrities thanks to that. Also worthy of note in the voice acting - Sacha Baron Cohen (otherwise known as "Ali G"), who crafts a crazy king of the lemurs out of whole cloth. It's always nice to discover a new brand of insanity, something that animation does well.
But even better, and in my estimation, most important about Madagascar is its approach to character animation. A lot of CGI animation, because it's three-dimensional and therefore "more realistic", as some laymen (or executives) might mistakenly assume, has lent itself towards less cartoonish modes of expression. There's a dangerous tendency in animation these days to try and match the qualities of live-action work, as if being animated isn't enough anymore. Madagascar not only avoids this, but it brings a wild cartoonishness that's so old-fashioned (even Clampett-esque) that it seems brazenly new. I've not seen anything like it since The Emperor's New Groove. It's amazing how well that this kind of broad animation actually plays; hell, it's better than trying to be faux-real (take note, The Polar Express). You can do that kind of stuff in animation. It's a form of emotional signing to an audience that can only work in the non-reality that animation provided, no matter whether it's traditional or CGI.
Because the hilarious toony quality is all over this film, it redirects the way we feel the emotional journeys of the characters. The most clear example, and the best example from the film, is Alex the Lion, who pretty much far and away steals Madagascar from everybody else. He's the character they pushed the farthest in toony animation, because he has so much love and energy for both the life he leads and the friends he has. There are certainly cartoons out there who get more annoying the most frenetic they get, but when done right, that freneticness will actually add to the sympathy one can feel for a character. Alex's huge energy is so indicative of his joy that the few moments when he's still, in misery, or in self-loathing hit a much deeper brand of intensity. All those high highs of Alex feed into his lows being really honestly low. When someone whose joy gets shared with us loses said joy, it feels more tragic than some telegraphed tragedy. The sad moments in Madagascar are few and far between, and they don't detract from the great comedy, but they get earned and you might be surprised by how much you care for the characters after those initial scenes of fun. However, dammit, some of those old standby problems with modern feature animation crept back into this one. Not so much pop-culture reference, which is something that a lot of people hate in PDI films, but there's still the frustrating typicality to use popular and extremely overplayed songs to punctuate various moments throughout the movie. The worst of it is that "I like to move it, move it" song that comes when the lemurs are introduced; by the time the film is over and it's won you over entirely, they bring that damn song up again over the credits. Scatological humor isn't all over this film, but there are those few moments in the film where they appear and it's just out-of-place. (On the other hand, the references to monkeys flinging poo at Tom Wolfe sure made me laugh.) There aren't so many glaring problems like in other films, but when those few moments do occur, it's all the more heartbreaking because you wish they could have gotten away with this film without that crap. As I said in the beginning, I'm sick of giving three-star reviews and ratings. I don't feel like that's the kind of review I've given. For the most part, this is a film I've enjoyed on a three-and-a-half-stars level. If only those darned formulaic details (that never really work anyway) didn't pop up in just those odd spots, because they do affect the way you can enjoy a film, especially if you throw one of those ruining elements right at the end before the credits. I can't say this film is either three or three-and-a-half stars, so here's a first for me: I have to cheat on my own rating system. It's better than those three-star films I mentioned earlier, but it's hampered by some of the same issues. So, I'm going with three-and-a-quarter stars. Don't make me do this again, PDI. Keep draining away those problem elements, and stick with the good stuff you started hitting on with this film.
***1/4/****
|
