I Am Legend

The premise of I Am Legend had great promises. It was a highly anticipated movie that settled for less than it was capable of. Will Smith's charisma and Francis Lawrence's ability to endeavour in make believe made this movie's potential out to be Castaway meets 28 Days Later. Unfortunately a sub-par script (the film was actually green -lit even before the script was written!) that wavered far too much from the novel it was supposed to based on and digital, rage-filled zombies halve in dramatic interest with every second that passes. Why does Hollywood insist on using CGI for special effects? It ruins movies; my only beef with The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent's face when he became Two-Face. It ruins the realism the authenticity and when its purpose it to raise the pleasures of voyeurism it does the opposite for me. CGI ruins movies when used on people. However, CGI is an incredible tool when used on inanimate objects, disasters and cityscapes. The way director Francis Lawrence manages to turn New York city into a run-down, immaculate ghost-town taken over by vegetation (plants were transported via trucks from Florida to dress up the city streets as if weeds had overtaken them) is an admirable feat! And he's smart enough to let Smith be Smith. But there's only so much you can do with CGI monsters that don't seem right for this kind of sci-fi scenario. Guerillmo Del Toro with Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth has proven that films can be so much better without CGI band-aids and taking the time and funding for old fashioned make-up. Coincidently Del Toro was Smith's first choice to direct the film, but turned it down to do Hellboy II. Del Toro could have saved this train wreck. How much scarier would the zombies have been if they were given a 28 Days Later makeover? Basically in the long run You're left gawping at a $100 million worth of a futuristic B-movie.

In anticipation for this review I read the novel by Richard Matheson, I want to tell you exactly where the movie failed its 1954 original counterpart. The book is based on a disease which creates vampires, who were once "legend" that turn out to be very much fact as the disease spreads and wipes out the entire human race except for Robert Neville. Neville boards up his home and goes out during the day to get supplies and food. Pretty much like the movie, right? No, in the movie they aren’t vampires at all, they are zombie-like humans infected by a disease. A disease which somehow (inexplicably) gives the super-human strength. As put by a film critic "Before the diseased-yet oddly superhuman villains start to appear en masse, I Am Legend works surprisingly well." Admittedly, there is a scene where the CGI zombies are huddled in a dark corner of a building pumping their backs back and forth while Neville tries to save his wandering dog without being seen. This scene was very chilling and pretty scary. Unfortunately one scene can't save $100 million.

The zombies start to evolve and get smarter, placing Neville in a trap. In the novel, the vampires evolve into day-walkers and send a girl to spy on Neville, pretending she's never been infected. Neville discovers her true self and after running away the day walkers capture Neville and perform an execution at their hideout, killing the last man alive. There is a complete role reversal in the end as Neville ironically becomes legend and the vampires become fact. The title makes sense to the novel in that vampires are folklore or legend, but in the movie it makes no sense as the creatures that end up killing Neville aren't legend but freaked-out science accidents. As stated in a very accurate film review "This new version of I Am Legend completely perverts the meaning of the title, losing the clever dark irony and turning it instead into something heroic rather than something tragic." The ending to the film is abrupt with a sudden solution to the earth's problems and in a single, selfless heroic act Neville passes the cure on to an escaping woman who takes it away to save the world. How many times have we seen a similar scenario? Typical Hollywood.

In the movie, Neville is faced at the end of a dock about to get eaten by the zombies, but of course (out of nowhere) in the nick of time comes a woman and her son who have somehow been surviving on a boat to save him. Hollywood is infected with fairy-tale endings and heroism that are so frequent that "Hollywood" films have become predictable to film viewers across the globe with their typical endings, ego driven protagonists and perverse twists on what they call "tragedies." As one critic has put it "the infantile prioritizing [in I Am Legend] that occurs when Hollywood wants to be inspirational, the hero's everyman crisis of religious faith is supposed to be as important to audience as his struggle to save humanity from distinction."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 69% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it an emphatic 4 out of 10

There is a fine line between make-believe and make believable and unfortunately I Am Legend forces the viewer to flirt with the latter. Go for the thrills, for some nerve-gnawing suspense, for the wonderful production design and for the opportunity to spend some time with Will Smith (if you like him at all), but this is film is not the stuff of Legend.

The Strangers

I must admit, I don't have a lot of experience critiquing teen slasher films or the horror genre in general but I will outline my criteria in a horror/slasher film so that you can decide whether you will agree or disagree with the following analysis of The Strangers.

1) The scare factor must be there. I think that the longer I am caught thinking about the movie afterward, the more the movie was able to do its job. I can forget a drama quite quickly and still have respect for it, but a horror film must stay with me.

2) There must be blood. If it's a film with murders and violence, don't butter it up for me: show me the reality of the situation. I want to see a guy in a bathtub lathering up with a bloody piece of brain. Anything less that realistic is patronizing the audience. HOWEVER, that being said anything more than what is realistic can get gratuitous, outrageous and lets face it just silly (none of us want to see Rambo 4 again).

3) Characters. We need motives, secrets, twisted back stories, development and most importantly in a horror film when there is a small amount of relatability to the killer it makes it that much more creepy/thrilling. Think about it, none of us (I should hope) are capable of murder, but when there's that tiny pinch of a killer where in the back of your head you think "I know how that feels" or "I know someone just like this guy," you feel a chill up your spine as if to say "I think I know this guy." Case in point: American Psycho, we know the yuppie culture and we see guys like Patrick Bateman in the media, even walking in the streets. Which is what makes films like American Psycho more than simple slasher or horror films, they are dramas.

Which brings me to The Strangers. This film had all the thrills of a teenage horror film, jumpy scenes when you open the curtains, classic injured legged victim crawling away from the slowly walking murderer, on and on thematic tricks that we've seen before. I swear, the formula for directing a slasher film is so common now that Hollywood must have them available to order in value meals now. Unfortunately, there was no super-sizing here. The film starts where it ends (which is part of the problem) in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. The location is just as appropriate as the plot, which is also in the middle of nowhere. The premise is simple, a couple having relationship troubles come together and have a fatalistic cry for eachother's love (sooo cliche) when in the end are moments away from being stabbed quite literally and metaphorically in the heart.

The film manages to spike your scared senses for the first hour, but it manages to carry on for another 20 minutes. When a friend of the couple comes to visit and ends up fooling them into thinking he's the actual murderer, he turns the corner where the couple is waiting with a shotgun to kill whoever comes into the room...he gets his brains splattered on the wall like a spaghetti food fight. It is clear at this point that The Strangers had run out of gas. Before this point however it really managed to tickle the spine and keep me scared.

As far as my 3 criteria goes, number one: it managed to scare me and keep me jumping but it was quite forgettable (I barely remembered I watched it to write this review); number two: It had a decent amount of blood at a realistic rate, bravo! Finally three: I was so detached from the characters that I wanted them to die. I was cheering for the strangers. Liv Tyler (who I saw in person at Jimmy Kimmel) and Scott Speedman (great in Felicity) do a fine job though I must say with a typical script.

In conclusion, for those who have seen the film I would like to dispel the apparent Hollywood tag that the movie was "based on true events." The True Story Behind the New Movie "The Strangers" is a mixture of three stories.

The killers, a principle male assailant and female accomplices, is based upon Charles Manson and the Manson killings.

The frantic "there's blood everywhere" 911 phone call and "bounding to a chair and stabbing" was based on the killings in Cabin 28.

The basic story of a couple being terrorized by a group of people was based on the famous killing in the Czech Republic, which was also made into a French Film titled Ils, translated to mean "Them."

In the Czech Republic murders, an Austrian couple are terrorized in their vacation home by three teenagers and are later killed in the forest when they try to escape. BUT, a concrete source for this alleged crime has yet to be found other than countless blog postings, leading most people to believe that the story was engineered much like the Blair Witch Project, to give Directors a legal excuse to claim that it was based on a "True Story."

In the Cabin 28 murders, the daughter of a woman walks into a cabin where her mother, brother, and brother's female friend were staying only to find them stabbed and hammered to death. She calls 911 frantically repeating "there's blood everywhere," which there was although no one heard anything all night.

This took a few hours to finally piece together, but I noticed that no one else had figured it out and wanted to be the first to say, "I cracked the story."

The Strangers True Story claim is definitely true, but a combination of several stories to appeal to general audiences. That's Hollywood, but, as scary as it may be, also real life.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 43% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a benefit of the doubt rating at 5 out of 10

Although it is worth showing to a group of school girls, even pansy assed boys at a sleepover, it didn't do it for me. I wanted to to have nightmares, instead I laugh when I think of someone wearing what looks like a paper bag over their head to hide thier face. Although, if you are looking for a movie to give you a little scare and some decent thrills while cuddling on the couch, without a "zoom-in" type of analysis (an over-analysis) and are attracted to the teen slasher genre I think you will enjoy this film.

No Country for Old Men

Let me start off by saying that writing a review for this film is a painful challenge. I am having difficulty even starting to explain the brilliance of the Coen Brother's greatest film. It is ironic that the premise of the film can be so simply explained, however the film itself would require an excruciating discourse in order to qualify the themes, motives and properly capture the characters themselves in one review. Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy the film's premise is simple: a botched drug deal causes an ensuing cat-and-mouse drama, as three men crisscross each others paths in the desert landscape of 1980 West Texas. The film's protagonist Llewelyn (Josh Brolin from Goonies) discovers a suitcase of money on the scene of the drug deal and as a result Chigurh, a serial killer (Javier Bardem) must chase him down while the local Sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) struggles to catch up to the two while on a personal journey of discovery for himself. IMDB reports "Contrary to most successful films made from books, much of the film's action is taken word for word from [Sheriff] Cormac McCarthy's novel and to boot occurs in the same order of events. Bell's final speech in the film, for instance, can be read on the final page of the book."

The film itself takes upon itself great burdens of great emotion and intriguing passages into a character that carries death with him everywhere he goes. The film is best put by Roger Ebert as a "masterful evocation of time, place, character, moral choices, immoral certainties, human nature and fate." The theme of fate is one that I would say dominates the film's premise. What is the fate of Llewelyn? What is the fate of those who cross the path of Chigurh's coin toss? What is the fate of those that continue to live in monotonous routines without end or dynamism? What will be the fate of Chigurh? Who lives? Who dies? And finally, what conclusions will the sheriff reach about fate, life and his journey as he embarks to solve his own personal puzzle while solving the surface mystery? I can't help but dip it into the horror genre as it startles and scares the viewer, however it is so much more than a horror or mystery movie as the viewer is not only startled, mortified and caught guessing, but also attempting to paint each character's circumstances of isolation along with how they are ironically connected. All three characters are loners in three different ways and yet they are all trying to find each other. Llewelyn is the only intentional loner whose main intention is to remain unfound, uncompanioned and yet ironically is the only one who is married. Chigurh is a nomadic loner who takes upon himself a grim reaper burden to find others in order to either make sure they take advantage of the life he has saved with the flip of a coin, or allows fate to end their path which allows him to continue on his own. Finally the Sheriff is a loner not because of anything he has brought upon himself, but because the forces and people around him either continue to die or push themselves away and he vexes himself in an attempt to make sense of it all. While all three characters are isolated in their own unique ways, they are placed in a very isolated setting, in the middle of nowhere desert to further contribute to the loner motif.

Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: Sir?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: I don't know. I couldn't say.
[Chigurh flips a quarter from the change on the counter and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Call it?
Anton Chigurh: Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor: For what?
Anton Chigurh: Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh: You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh: Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin?
Gas Station Proprietor: No.
Anton Chigurh: 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Look, I need to know what I stand to win.
Anton Chigurh: Everything.
Gas Station Proprietor: How's that?
Anton Chigurh: You stand to win everything. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Alright. Heads then.
[Chigurh removes his hand, revealing the coin is indeed heads]
Anton Chigurh: Well done.
[the gas station proprietor nervously takes the quarter with the small pile of change he's apparently won while Chigurh starts out]
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.

IMDB.com reports some amazing facts about the film:

Heath Ledger had been in talks to play Llewelyn Moss, but withdrew to take "some time off" instead.

The Coen Brothers used a photo of a brothel patron taken in 1879 as a model for Anton Chigurh's hair style. Looking at its weirdness after getting the hair cut, Javier Bardem said "Oh no, now I won't get laid for the next two months".

In the novel (but not in the movie), Sheriff Bell says of the dope-dealers, "Here a while back in San Antonio they shot and killed a federal judge." McCarthy set the story in 1980. In 1979, in San Antonio, Federal Judge John Howland Wood was shot and killed by rifle fire by a Texas free-lance contract killer named Charles Harrelson. Actor Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells in the movie) is his son.

The weapon used by Anton Chigurh is a captive bolt pistol. It is most widely used in the slaughter of cattle to stun the animals before they are butchered.In conclusion, I'd like to know others interpretations of the final piece of dialogue in the film by Sheriff Ed Tom Bell when he shares a dream he had and then the movie ends immediately afterward:

Ed Tom Bell: Alright then. Two of 'em. Both had my father in 'em . It's peculiar. I'm older now then he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember to well but it was about meeting him in town somewhere, he's gonna give me some money. I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin' through the mountains of a night. Goin' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on goin'. Never said nothin' goin' by. He just rode on past... and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up.

Personally, I think his dream fully illustrates the isolation that the Sheriff feels as an individual and as a result of what is around him in an isolated place. It also justifies the title, that the cruel landscape with its cruel characters that still roam it for whom or why he cannot explain, other than to think that it ain't no country for old men like himself (just as his father passed him by in his dream and had his time, it's a changing world and now its his time to realize that he can't handle it anymore and should retire). I am interested in reader's comments for this film as the interpretations of each character can be highly ambiguous, which contributes to the film's raw complexity.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 94% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

Each character's complexity and background could engage a round table discussion for hours. The conclusion of the film immediately urges the viewer to watch it again and the themes of the film take stabs at a new side of darkness that has previously been either unexplored or done without success.

Atonement

Keira Knightly and James Mcavoy star in one of the best films of 2007. This film without a doubt made my top 5 list of last year. Based on the novel by Ian McEwan it unexpectedly captured the surprise ending of the book with perfect plausibility and without a hint of abruptness. The film is anything but rushed as the story lags along with what could seem as a bore to some viewers but the story is driven by a dark secret and interlaced with emotions from the main characters that makes the viewer love, hate and empathize with every character in the film at one point or the other. James Mcavoy considered the script the best he had ever read.

The story proves what human nature is capable of and justifies from each perspective presented in a messy love triangle. The director Joe Wright shows each significant event of the film from different viewpoints, which makes the viewer understand the motives behind each character. Briony Tallis is the story's main character, who even at 13 years old, has a jealous love interest in James Mcavoy's character Robbie Turner. She witnesses a moment of sexual interest between her sister and Robbie (which is seen from multiple perspectives) before she endorses a lie that causes the couple to separate and hold a forbidden love for each other. Without revealing the lie or what ensues as a result, I will just comment on the story itself as a whole.

Robbie enters the Second World war years later, and it seems that with each year that follows, the lie continues to consume Briony. Her character begins to daydream in polarized directions, from being with Robbie to what would happen if she revealed her lie. The story makes attempts to prove to the viewer the drastic consequence of a famished love that cannot be seized. The story skips years at a time evolving the lie into remorse followed by guilt which turns into Briony's anguish where she realizes that she not only has ruined her own life but the life of her sister and the only man she ever has truly loved, Robbie (who never loved her). She actually presents herself as a very innocent person, but proves that most people have secrets, hers turns out to be a very dark and malicious one which her selfishness holds onto not only to protect herself but because she still cannot stand the fact that Robbie belong to anyone else but her.

Briony writes a novel at the end of her life expressing her regret that she held inside for what turns out to be her entire life but in the book she gave an ending different from the reality, had been her chance to give her sister and Robbie the hope and the happiness that they had deserved— and that she had stolen from them. The novel is, therefore, her "atonement" for the naive but destructive acts of a 13-year-old child, which she has always regretted.
The film closes with a scene of a simple, joyful moment that Cecilia and Robbie might have had, if events had played out differently.
The direction of this film is not only extremely unique because of the many perspectives given of the exact same event or scene but it holds probably one of the greatest single-shot takes (5 1/2 minutes) I have ever viewed which takes place on Dunkirk beach and done in only four takes (the third one was used). It was conceived out of necessity, for the crew only had a day to film and had limited time with the 1,000 extras and had to shoot before the tide would come in and wash away the set. To give you an idea of what ensued in the scene, imdb reports:

"Shooting the five minute Dunkirk beach scene was arguably the toughest portion of shooting. The shooting schedule dictated that the scene must be completed in two days. However the location scouts report indicated the lighting quality at the beach was not good enough until the afternoon of the second day. This forced director Joe Wright to change his shooting strategy into shooting with one camera. The scene was rehearsed on the first day and on the morning of the second day. The scene required five takes and the third take was used in the film. On shooting, Steadicam operator Peter Robertson shot the scene by riding on a small tracking vehicle, walking off to a bandstand after rounding a boat, moved to a ramp, stepped onto a rickshaw, finally dismounting and moving past the pier into a bar."
A little personal side-note: The green dress Keira Knightly wears in the film is one I was able to see first hand in my trip to Hollywood this summer which was encased in a glass case in Universal Studios. Imdb states that "The dress has been named "the best of all time" by InStyle magazine, exceeding some classics as Audrey Hepburn's little black dress in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), Marilyn Monroe's white dress in The Seven Year Itch (1955) or Vivien Leigh's red dress from Gone With The Wind (1939)."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 83% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 9/10

Memorable scenes which stay with you for days, even weeks. The film presents one of the greatest love stories I've seen in years with a truly ironic, dark catch 22 situation for the main character. Although the film can be criticized for being slow-moving, I found the repetition of scenes and spaces between dialogue necessary to elicit the finer emotions that the story reveals not only in each character, but in the viewer as well. In fact, if someone attempts to say this movie was too "boring" or slow I not only disagree with you, I disrespect your entire taste in movies. This is a must see. I cannot wait until the Blu-ray is released as the cinematography and scenery in the film will be worth the wait in 1080p.

Children of Men

Based on PD James' novel this movie stars Clive Owen and the short lived Julianne Moore. Anything with Clive Owen serves as a hit for me, even King Arthur. The story takes place in a dystopian society where women are unable to become pregnant for unexplained reasons, but one can conclude it came as a result of man's mistake in one way or another that they have brought themselves or from a higher power. For example, the film's title is derived from Psalm 90:3: "Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." The movie lightly graces us with the theories as to why this is happening but the fact of the matter is, and what makes the movie even more compelling is that it doesn't matter, or there are bigger issues at play. Not only are you caught asking other questions right away, waiting for their answer as you watch, but the smaller detailed questions overshadow the big picture which is what makes the film watchable again and again.

For example, instead of asking the obvious question as to why women cannot become pregnant, you are caught up in the ripples of its cause and start swimming in questions that cause the viewer to explore parallels in modern society. The film makes a strong statement in regards to the anti-immigration sentiment in modern societies like the UK and USA. Flocking to the UK because of the state that their own nations have come to, the immigrants in the film are marginalized, caged up, deported and even executed to express the chaos, disintegration of society and assimilation of a higher, more righteous race and/or nation.

The film's director took great care in placing subtle images from contemporary history and placed them into the film to prove that, though this is a fictional story, these monstrosities are indeed happening and have happened before our eyes. For example the director states:

"They exit the Russian apartments, and the next shot you see is this woman wailing, holding the body of her son in her arms. This was a reference to a real photograph of a woman holding the body of her son in the Balkans, crying with the corpse of her son. It's very obvious that when the photographer captured that photograph, he was referencing La Pieta, the Michelangelo sculpture of Mary holding the corpse of Jesus. So: We have a reference to something that really happened, in the Balkans, which is itself a reference to the Michelangelo sculpture. At the same time, we use the sculpture of David early on, which is also by Michelangelo, and we have of course the whole reference to the Nativity. And so everything was referencing and cross-referencing, as much as we could"

Specifically the director has provided multiple subtle references to the holocaust from the execution methods seen and used in the film to the scene where an elderly refugee woman speaking German is seen detained in a cage.

Despite the subtle contemporary parallels, the highly innovative single-shot action sequences are perhaps the most memorable parts of the direction of the film. It is incredible to see the main character, Theo run from the chaotic streets in the refugee camp as he is transporting Kee the pregnant girl to safety as they encounter a very realistic point of view. At one point Theo gets shot in the leg and blood spatters onto the screen. The splatter of blood does not leave the screen for a couple minutes after Theo is able to catch his breath. It gave me the sense that if I were there I would have blood on my face following Theo and wouldn't have the chance to wipe it off until the same moment that Theo has to catch his breath. This first person type of editing is also used in the audio as gunfire is shot near Theo and the chasing camera, so as a result the sound is very limited and ringing for a period of time it would take to recover your hearing after being so close to gunfire. This type of audio technique with gunfire is becoming popular and used in other movies as well, I love it.

The best part of the film in my opinion is when Theo is able to rescue Kee from a building facing gunfire as she is holding the baby she gave birth to the night earlier. The baby won't stop crying and as a result the mere sound of something that we can't stand to hear ironically becomes the sound that stops the gunfire and everyone suddenly tunes into. It is here that I believe everyone stops not only because they haven't heard the sound of a baby in decades but they wonder for a moment what they are even fighting for with the flicker of hope passing them in a baby's cry the hope leaves them as the baby gets carried out of sight and the fighting then continues.

The theme of hope is what I will conclude with. The film has been categorized as a modern-day Nativity story. The character of Kee represents Mary and Kee's pregnancy is revealed to Theo in a barn, alluding to the manger of the Nativity scene, and when other characters discover Kee and her baby, they respond with "Jesus Christ" or the sign of the cross, even going on their knees when they see it. Throughout the entire movie the main goal is to reach a meeting place of something called "the human project." Almost nothing is revealed about this organization except that it will bring not only salvation for our protagonists but to the entire earth. The human project then is the ultimate metaphor for hope, salvation and if you buy into the film being a modern day Nativity story, it is a metaphor for heaven which can be attained by humankind (to stretch the metaphor further) only with the sacrifice of the very human man Theo who sacrifices himself for mankind's salvation. The movie concludes with the sound of playing children which alludes to the hope that someday there will be children again.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 92% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating although it might be a little too high

Seamless and award-worthy continuity editing. Realistic, innovative action, a captivating depiction of the future and flawless acting make this a must see and a great addition to the Blu-ray collection.

The Man Without a Face

Mel Gibson's directorial debut is based on the novel by Isabelle Holland from Nova Scotia. Mel Gibson as a director was more finding himself in this piece and drastically improved his director skills two years later with Braveheart. This movie stars Gibson himself and Nick Stahl who, a child actor at the time can be now best recognized as "Yellow bastard" in Sin City.

The story surrounds the boy Chuck Norstadt seeking recluse from his confusing family background having 2 sisters both from different fathers all living with the same mother who continues to remarry as a hobby. Fatherless, the boy finds his refuge and a patriarchal figure in the town "freak," a man who has the entire left side of hid body burned from a car crash that killed a boy who was travelling with him.

The viewer finds out that the man was once a professor who was tried and acquitted of child abuse with the boy who died in the car accident, losing his teaching licence. With each visit that the boy continues to meet with and be tutored by McLeod, a snowball continued to grow inside my mind as I knew that these innocent and very profitable visits for the boy, needing a father figure and tutor and equally for McLeod who is socially isolated longing for a pupil. They fill each other's voids as they continue to give each other companionship. For example here my favorite line from their friendship when talking about why men and women are attracted to each other:

McLeod: The problem is one of water.
Chuck Norstadt: Water?
McLeod: Water. Women have, on average, about 5% more of it than do men, making them subject to different forces of gravity. Oh don't take my word for it, you can look it up in Newton. It's there.
Chuck Norstadt: Couldn't they be drained?
[McLeod laughs]
Chuck Norstadt: I'm serious!
McLeod: Well, I believe they're waiting for us to drink more fluids.

The movie leaves the viewer with what I feel to be an ambiguous ending. Indeed the visits catch up to the two as the boy had been lying all summer as to where he had been spending his time to his mother. Perhaps most viewers would believe that the man never touched the boy and they indeed shared a valuable friendship. However, I believe that there is a red herring sent to the viewer earlier in the movie that could lead the viewer to think otherwise. When Chuck confronts McLeod as to whether he really abused the boy that died in the car accident, the following conversation ensues:

McLeod: Think Norstadt, reason. Have I ever abused you? Did I ever lay a hand on you of anything but friendship on you? Could I? Could you imagine me ever doing so? And what about the past?
Chuck Norstadt: Just tell me you didn't do it, I'll believe you.
McLeod: No, no sir! I didn't spend all summer so you could cheat on this question.

The boy immediately believes McLeod and apologizes for doubting him. However, earlier in the film when Chuck tried to comfort McLeod that the boy dying was not his fault, McLeod grabbed the boy's arm and pushed it aggressively to the side. This incident leads me to believe that McLeod did indeed abuse the boy before him and since the jury saw him guilty for doing so the man desired redemption in the new face which reminded him of the past in Chuck.

The man's face is a metaphor for redemption and change. His face is split down the middle as to remind him of the past and his future. I believe that because of what he did, the scarred part of his face represents his sin, however the side of his face which is not scarred represents his time with Chuck, his chance at redemption for what he did wrong. McLeod is seen splitting his face with a mirror as to see his face as it used to be in the reflection. He desired to be seen as the new man he wants to be, which causes him to continue to teach the boy. It is ironic that the man wishes to be seen for what he is, not what he was and that face that would represent what he is, is indeed the face that he used to have not the one with burns which represents what he was. This ensues until the man hears exactly what he has been looking for when the boy tells him that when he looks at him he can't see his scars any more, he sees him for who he really is. Note the quote from McLeod himself:

Justin McLeod: People spend too much time thinking of the past. Whatever else it is, it's gone.

The man can't escape his past as he is accused of abusing Chuck, even when he didn't. Therefore no matter how hard he tries he cannot be seen for what he truly is and wishes to be seen as. Thus, he is the man without a face.

Justin McLeod: Is it this? Is this what you see? I assure you it is human. But if that's all you see, then you don't see me. You can't see me.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 58% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 7/10

Although lagging at times in waiting for some sort of climax, the movie deals with novel issues which can challenge the mind if you allow it. The film creates a wonderful atmosphere that takes the viewer into second chances and mixes childhood passages like Beauty and the Beast with strokes from contemporary stories like Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting.