Home Movies A-M Movies N-Z News

The Polar Express (2004): 8/10


Poster (c) Warner Bros.

I don't understand why studios (especially WB) continue to spend massive amounts of money on certain movies. I would think that from
Troy (which cost over $200 million to make, got about $150 million domestically and somehow recouped its losses overseas), they would know better than to invest a whole lot of money into one particular movie. But the lesson was not learned for The Polar Express. Using motion-capture animation (how they did Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies-or, even simpler, the animation Homer Simpsons invests a lot of money in), Robert Zemeckis (who last revolutionized animation with Who Framed Roger Rabbit) creates a dazzling world from Unnamed Suburbia to the North Pole. After hearing what the 3-D IMAX experience was like, I would have liked to have seen it there, but I saw it on a measly movie theater screen. Still, I loved it nonetheless.

Tom Hanks, being the versatile man he is, does the voice and motion capture for about five characters: the boy (whose voice is mixed with Daryl Sabara's, from Spy Kids), the conductor, the hobo, the father, and Santa Claus. The boy, doubtful about Santa's existence, hears the whistle of a train right by his house on Christmas Eve. He steps aboard to see a bunch of other kids en route to the North Pole via The Polar Express. Along the way, magical things occur as the boy (trying to believe in Santa all the way) figures out the truth (secular truth, that is) behind Christmas.

Surprisingly, being the cynic that I am, I loved The Polar Express. I think it was the simplicity-the book by Chris Van Allsburg is simple, and, although the movie is made out to feature length, it too is simple. The story's easy to follow, and that lets you get caught up in the visuals, which are astounding. All of the animation is astounding-not only is it lifelike, but it's also surreal. Some sequences (such as the "lost ticket" sequence) are so, for lack of a better word, gratifying. I'm not sure if it's only me, but when I was watching The Polar Express, I felt like this was almost the culmination of animation. It seemed like we worked for 100 years to get up to the quality of The Polar Express. While that obviously isn't so, it sure seemed like it, which is quite a plus for the movie. For a movie to make me believe that this is the best quality possible is pretty spectacular.

What's even more spectacular is that the movie made an old Scrooge like myself into some little kid mystified by the Christmas spirit. Sure, it's a month too early, but still.... The ability to take most people from nine-to-fivers to five-year-olds gawking at the idea of Santa is probably the most stunning transformation a movie can do to the audience. And The Polar Express does it perfectly. It's more than the "another year, another advance in animation" movie. It's a huge achievement in film, and I speak that with no hyperbole. Not only is it the animators, but also Robert Zemeckis who make the movie what it is. Imagine the long hours that Zemeckis, basically overseeing the whole project, would have to work. I'm not trying to demean the animators here, as this was obviously a huge group effort, but if Peter Jackson can win a best director Oscar for making a nine hour movie, can't Zemeckis win one for making a movie of this magnitude?

Unfortunately, having Hanks play four and a half characters means that four and a half characters sound exactly alike. It kind of takes away from the whole feel of the movie, when Santa, the conductor, his father, et al. sound exactly the same. Also, I think some of the situations were a bit childish (like the back-and-forth with the engineer, etc.), but still, that can't really diminish the awesome power the movie has. It's truly an amazing feat for everyone involved, and the fact that it probably won't get its money back is basically a sin.

Rated G.

Review Date: November 27, 2004