Last night we finally went to Polar Express, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sure, lots of filler and FX for the sake of padding the film, but it was interesting, exciting filler. We had reservations about some aspects of the story and animation, but overall the film was successful, which made the small distractions tend to stand out more.

NOTE - SPOILER AHEAD!!!












At the end of the film, who's idea was it to stick in Steven Tyler from Aerosmith?!?!?!?!? Yea, I can understand the premise - once Santa is on his way, the elves can finally cut loose and enjoy themselves (which kind of suggests what kind of slave driver "Mr. C" really is!). But having an animated Steven Tyler belting out tunes at the elve's bash was wwwwwaaaayyyy off base! It took, what to that time was a timeless story, and set anchor in the present day. It was so jarring that it really took us out of the story. I can only imagine that they were responding to Shreks hip injokes and ending, but Shrek is a completely different kind of feature - you expect the contemporary references.

I liked it even more than you did, Chris.

Completely charming, visually stunning, not a cynical or mean-spirited moment and something to enjoy with your kids. I'm confident that this will have very strong legs and become a classic alongisde the all-time Christmas favorites.

Beware, it does have a heart, so if you're looking for the edgy feel of A Christmas Story or Jingle All the Way, you'll be disappointed. If you want to capture some Christmas magic with your young children, this is the one.

About the spoiler.....I couldn't agree more!!! What the heck was that for? Thankfully, it was very brief and easily forgiven.

Loved the film but I just couldn't hear any of those bells the kid kept talking about.

Jim

Seeing the trailers for this movie, I thought the animation on the backgrounds was stunning but the humans were kinda creepy.

Two reviews came out in the local papers and both reviewers thought the humans looked "creepy" (they actually used that word).

Last night, I was watching Ebert & Roeper and Roger Ebert was tryin to figure out why the film was below expectations. Roeper comment that the kids in the movie seemed to have "...dead eyes and they looked a little creepy". Even at that, it must be said he gave it a thumbs up.

But I just can't get over the creepy faces.

Thoroughly enjoyed the movie with the kids. The animation (if I understand correctly) was CGI, but it reminded me a lot of the old process known as Rotoscoping. Thought it was well done all the way around.

As for the Steven Tyler thing...I always thought of him as some kind of troll to begin with (and I like Aerosmith...well, the old stuff anyway), so why not an elf? ;)

As for the Steven Tyler thing...I always thought of him as some kind of troll to begin with (and I like Aerosmith...well, the old stuff anyway), so why not an elf? ;)
:lol:

Python - And I couldn't agree more with you! I said the very same thing to my wife, it'll have legs to carry it to classic status. My main criticisms were technical in nature - such as the faces on the acrobatic waiters - I'd like to see it again to confirm, but I don't think their expressions chages during the sequence. One of my criticisms about CG people came about while watching Final Fantasy - It seems as if the animators, in an attempt to make the figures more realistic, actually dampen the extremes in facial expression. In my mind good character animation takes advantage of the medium by pushing the extremes to emphasize the action, emotion, whatever. In "Polar Express" compare the train engineer's expressions to the other "real" characters - much more "animated". Kind of like a successful caracature - they oftem look more like the person than the person himself!

Brent - there are some scenes, especially with the Hanks Conductor character, where the emotions do come through, but there are others with the "repressed" emotions, or eyes that aren't quite focusing on their target - a little disconcerting.

Actually it is a CGI version of rotoscoping. Actors (mostly Tom Hanks) actually performed the parts on camera and this was converted to computer animation.

I've always thought it was ridiculous when people talked about how we eventually would have the technology to make a new movie starring Humphrey Bogart and Marilyn Monroe. Yeah. Like you can re-create someone's talent and personality.

What you will be able to do with this sort of technology is separate a performance from the actor. This means in a few years, if, for instance, Arnold Schwartzenegger is making a movie and he has a scene that is beyond his abilities, you could bring in Anthony Hopkins, have him perform the scene, and use it to animate a CGI version of Arnold. (I assume it won't be long before we can convert the voice, too.)

:lol:

Python - And I couldn't agree more with you! I said the very same thing to my wife, it'll have legs to carry it to classic status. My main criticisms were technical in nature - such as the faces on the acrobatic waiters - I'd like to see it again to confirm, but I don't think their expressions chages during the sequence. One of my criticisms about CG people came about while watching Final Fantasy - It seems as if the animators, in an attempt to make the figures more realistic, actually dampen the extremes in facial expression. In my mind good character animation takes advantage of the medium by pushing the extremes to emphasize the action, emotion, whatever. In "Polar Express" compare the train engineer's expressions to the other "real" characters - much more "animated". Kind of like a successful caracature - they oftem look more like the person than the person himself!

Brent - there are some scenes, especially with the Hanks Conductor character, where the emotions do come through, but there are others with the "repressed" emotions, or eyes that aren't quite focusing on their target - a little disconcerting.

The problem is perception versus reality. When they were making ATTACK OF THE CLONES and decided to go with a fully CGI Yoda, they studied the footage from the original trilogy. They discovered that the puppet actually wasn't very expressive. But when they recreated the limitations of the puppet, people thought it looked flat. They remember Yoda being much more expressive. The problem with CGI is that you're never going to get it 100% right. There are always going to be little details that are missed. So if you don't have the actual physical actor (or puppet) you have to make up for it with some stylized exaggeration.

I'll agree that the animation process was a bit inconsistent when it came to characterization. The main characters were well done, but the secondary characters lacked depth.

I am no fan of CGI, especially poorly realized CGI. I was not distracted by this process at all. I didn't consider it the classic definition of CGI animation anyway. It was so much more and kept in tune with the artwork in the book.

As far as the people looking "creepy," I only felt that way with the elves. They were damned creepy! It only took me about ten minutes to adjust to the visuals and then I became caught up in the story and readily accepted the animation process.

As I've said repeatedly on this board, this is the beauty of film. We all see something in and react a little differently to each and every movie going experience. Most importantly, no opinion is right or wrong. They're just opinions and should be taken as no more or no less.

Well.....except for The Village. I am supremely right in my opinion and anyone who disagrees with me is out of their @#*#@ ! mind.

I am really resisting going to see this movie. I bought the book two years ago for my son (4 years old at the time.) It came with an audiotape of Liam Neeson reading the story. I was looking forward to the movie, but groaned aloud when I heard that Tom Hank$ was going to be in it. Seems like the classic feel will be ruined.

Hey Chuck....


I'll refund your $9.50 if you don't like it.

Heh heh... I can see it now:

CHUCK: Uhm... yeah... I, uh... didn't like it. Ahem.

LOL! Thanks, Python. But you're right, I'll probably like it. BTW, is that offer valid for The Terminal or Catch Me If You Can?

Oh geeeez. Seeing how you feel about Tom Hanks($), I don't know if I want to take that chance.

Remember, I live in California and can barely afford to fill the gas tank of my car!!!!

I saw it last night and loved it. Breathtaking visuals and good characters.

A couple of things that made me chuckle were the sometimes resemblence of the conductor character to that of Ned Flanders from The Simpsons, and the quiet little boy character bore more than just a subtle resemblence to the little brother, Dewey, from Malcolm in the Middle.

I saw it last night and loved it. Breathtaking visuals and good characters.

A couple of things that made me chuckle were the sometimes resemblence of the conductor character to that of Ned Flanders from The Simpsons, and the quiet little boy character bore more than just a subtle resemblence to the little brother, Dewey, from Malcolm in the Middle.

As soon as he was on screen, my wife leaned over and whispered, "Dewey". I laughed out loud at an inappropriate time... :lol:

If there's an IMAX by you it's being shown in 3-D.

Saw it last night in 3D Imax - don't see it any other way! Absolutley breathtaking!!

I can't see it! In the previews I saw an airship above the crowd dropping confetti and I relized that I'd seen it before!
http://home.earthlink.net/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://home.earthlink.net/~steeltiburon/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/thunderpad10.jpg&target=_self
I did this number in April of 1999, and gave many portfolios out in LA in 2001.
Foowey on you Hollywood. :devil:

I just saw it last night at the IMAX and I was totally blown away. If you get the chance, definitely see it in 3-D!!!!