DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Well I just reviewed Robert Zemeckis' animated motion capture film "The Polar Express" on Christmas Eve. So what better way to review an adaptation of Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" on Christmas Day, then reviewing the 2009 motion-capture Disney animated film directed by Zemeckis, with Jim Carrey as Scrooge.





When I first heard about the film, saw the TV promos, and discovered that Jim Carrey was going to play Scrooge in film made by Disney when it first came out, I thought it was going to be too over the top and upbeat. But when I saw it in 3-D, I was surprised for how dark and edgy the film was which I remember finding it to be cool, but at the same time a little too intense for kids. However, despite how overally dark I found the film to be, I still found myself loving it as much as I love the other adaptations of the story. Well its been awhile since I watched the film from beginning to end, and pretty much all I can remember from it was how dark and messed up it was, as opposed to remembering its strong and powerful moments. So was the film really a good adaptation of the story, or did it miss the heart and moral that the story itself was known for by being too dark; ON WITH THE REVIEW! And to keep up with tradition of how I review "A Christmas Carol" films, I'm going to review this film into sections.


EBENEZER SCROOGE

 

When the film began, it started out the way I expected it be. We get a nice and cheerful Christmas music composed by Alan Silverstri, we gaze outside a window of a city covered in snow that looks like something out of a Currier and Ives painting, and we see a book of the story that film is based on opening by itself. Just by that first minute, I thought the film was going to be cheery. That is until I saw the words inside the book describing Scrooge's deceased partner Jacob Marley being dead in big letters, as an illustration of Marley's corpse from the book comes to life in motion-capture animation, where Scrooge is standing in a dark funeral parlor with the undertaker as he steals the gold coins placed on Marley's eyes, after reluctantly paying the man two gold pieces of his own.  When I first saw this scene in theaters, I was surprised how the film just flat-out decides to start out grim from the moment we see the story come to life, and even now I'm still stunned by it. In most film and TV adaptations of the story (especially when aimed for kids) the story usually starts out a bit cheery to suck you in to the Christmas spirit before we meet Scrooge, when in this film (with the exception of the first minute) it doesn't.

But as unsettling as the first scene in the film is, things go back to being cheerful and Christmassy when the opening credits role, where we get a bird's eye view of flying through 19th century London during Christmas time of people getting in on the Holiday cheer. When I saw this in 3-D I felt like I was really flying over London, as I was in awe by the scenery and activities taking place. And unlike how "The Polar Express" just had scenes of filler to just show off its 3-D effects for the big screen, this opening sequence doesn't feel like a forced gimmick to give us an out of nowhere 3-D experience. It fits the narrative fine (especially as an opening credits sequence) where we can enjoy the Christmas atmosphere and get ourselves antiquated with the city where Scrooge lives, before the story goes back to being serious and dramatic. And I like that this whole sequence takes place 7 years before the events of the story, rather than starting at the very beginning of the story with Scrooge in his counting house like the majority of other versions (if not all) do. Plus I like how we already get a sense that time has passed (before a title card shows up) by simply looking at the "Scrooge & Marley" sign quickly wear out and crumble a bit. This whole first 8 minutes honestly does serve as a great prologue for the film and gives us something new and fresh, instead of the same old usual opening.

When I heard that Jim Carrey was going to play Scrooge, I thought that he was going to suck. I mean out of all actors that Zemeckis could've casted as Scrooge, he chooses an actor who usually plays his roles for laughs. It didn't seem like the right choice. And being that it's a Disney film, you'd think they let him ham it up with his over the top energy the same way he did in 'The Grinch". But to my surprise (at least when talking about this portion of the film), he proved me wrong. I'm not going to act like that I don't see a bit of Jim Carrey behind the motion-capture animation, and English accent he's putting on, because I do. But unlike in "The Polar Express" of how I found myself constantly aware that I was watching Tom Hanks putting on a performance as the Conductor, with Carrey on the other hand, not so much. He delivers the intimidation and bitterness of the character quite effectively and even subtly without resorting to his usual Jim Carrey gimmicks of constantly screaming and acting violently. And the voice he puts on matches the character that we're all familiar with. The only thing that comes across as cartoony is the exaggerated design for Scrooge that feels a bit much, but at least not to the point where you don't find yourself not fearing him.

The casting of actors for the other characters we meet in this part of the movie do the same amount of justice to their roles just as much Carrey suits his. Colin Firth wonderfully carries the optimistic qualities and charm of Scrooge's nephew Fred, who loves Christmas and just wants to be friends with his Uncle; and Cary Elwes does a nice job as one of the Portly Gentleman who asks Scrooge for a donation. The performance that really surprised me the most is Gary Oldman as Scrooge's underpaid clerk Bob Cratchit, I could never picture the same guy who played Commissioner Gordon in "The Dark Knight Trilogy" and Sirius Black in the "Harry Potter" films, playing such a sweet and innocent poor young man. He really manages to play on the innocence and childlike qualities of the character without having it feel silly or feel corny.

MARLEY'S GHOST

 

Gary Oldman also plays the role of the ghost of Scrooge's partner Jacob Marley, as he gives a performance that's just as convincing as he plays Bob Cratchit. The level of scares and sympathy that he brings to his performance along with that ghostly voice, the sound effects for his chains and the creepy design of a frail walking corpse that looks like he's going to fall apart at any second are chilling to the point where you fear him just as much as Scrooge does. This is where the darkness and scares that the film carries is done for the most part appropriately. The build-up to Marley's appearance is suspenseful and atmospheric for how quiet and dimly lit Scrooge's gothic looking mansion is, as we nervously wait for his full on-screen appearance. The other poor souls who share the same fate as Marley does are just as depressing and scary as Marley himself. And the scene with Marley's face on Scrooge's knocker is a well paced and heart-pounding jump-scare, which is more scary when you see it in 3-D where you yourself feel like that Marley's ghost face is right in front of you, as the film makes it feel like that you too are nervously reaching out to touch this ghost face. The only moment in this whole part of the movie that's stupid and not scary is when Marley's jaw breaks and tries to fix it as he tells Scrooge that mankind should have been his business. When I first saw it in theaters I laughed. But looking at it again, it feels pretty forced and pointless, where the comedy that the film is hammering in just ruins a bit of the seriousness that the scene is supposed to bring. And I thought Jim Carrey was going to be the first person in the movie to force in the childish comedy! I did think his jaw cracking was scary, I just wish that they didn't feel the need to throw in some comedy. But with that stupid moment aside, it's still a terrifying sequence.

THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PAST



The three ghosts that visit Scrooge to help him change his ways are all played by Jim Carrey, and unlike in the Polar Express where I found the majority of roles being played by Tom Hanks distracting and way too obvious, here I actually think it works better. The reason why I say that is not just because Carrey (mostly) does a better job at hiding his mannerisms and voice than Hanks does, but since these characters are ghosts coming to help Scrooge, you could pretty much interpret the ghosts as being a spiritual part of Scrooge, since they are showing him his personal life through time, which I think is a very clever idea and casting choice that makes the drama aspect of Scrooge's transformation feel more effective. Even my favorite critic Doug Walker mentioned this hidden aspect in his review, only he didn't think it worked too well because of Carrey's performance as the ghosts, which I disagree with.

The first out of the three ghosts that Carrey plays is obviously the Ghost Of Christmas Past, and one of the common criticisms that I hear from audiences and critics is how creepy he is, mainly because of how he breaths so heavily and speaks in a weird Irish accent. In many respects, I can see where people are coming from, and I'll admit that the voice he puts on does feel unsettling at times. But personally I hardly had a problem with it. I do think the ghost has a welcoming and whimsical presence. The voice that Carrey puts on for the ghost does sound unusual, but it still matches the humble nature and spiritual aspect of the ghost, where I can't find myself picking up on Carrey voicing the character, the same way I can't pick up on John Hurt providing that cold and deadly voice for the Horned King in "The Black Cauldron". And the design for the spirit is not only creative and unique that looks even more amazing in 3-D, but it also resembles the design of the spirit from the story as well, which I have yet to see in a film adaptation of the story. The criticisms towards Carrey's portrayal as the ghost is not unwarranted or not understandable, but I don't think it's not as bad or as scary as people make it out to be. As for the scenes of them traveling back in time to Scrooge's past, much like the opening credits sequence its well animated, and looks marvelous in 3-D to give you the experience of traveling through time without it feeling like a forced 3-D gimmick.

The shadows that we see of Scrooge's past are done for the majority of the visit just as emotional and serious as the other great adaptations of the story carry it out. When we see the town where he grew up as a boy, the calm music and the bright atmosphere of the morning sun and spirit shining on Scrooge, as he’s is about to shed a tear, is so beautiful and touching, that you yourself can see and feel Scrooge's childhood nostalgia coming back to him the same way as we think and look back on our childhood. But like the other adaptations of the story, as cheerful as it may seem at first, things quickly get gloomy when we see the school that Scrooge went to as a boy that looks just as dark and empty as the mansion he lives in, where we see a young Scrooge sitting all alone in an old and rotting classroom as he quietly sings a Christmas carol that doesn't cheer him up at all. It's a very subtle and quiet moment that comes off as depressing as you would expect it to be. The only minor issue I have the childhood sequence of the film is Robin Wright Penn as Scrooge's little sister. I just felt like the accent and mannerisms she gives to the character felt very exaggerated, as if she's trying way too hard to sound like a young British girl. However though, the reveal of what happens to her and what she left behind in Scrooge's life was so sad and so adult for a Disney adaptation starring Jim Carrey that I did find it to be heartbreaking. It's like how I felt about the female squirrel in Disney's "The Sword In The Stone", she starts out annoying where you wish she would just go away, but when her heart is broken you can't help but feel depressed or at least feel sorry for her, despite how annoying she was earlier.

Incase if you are wondering why I haven't gone into so much detail with the motion-capture animation yet,  that's because everything I had to say about it in my previous review is exactly I feel about it in this film. It still looks creepy and unnatural, but does look impressive on many occasions (especially when shown in 3-D). And the half and half of giving the animated characters the movements that the actors would give them if they were filmed in live action, and yet have them behave move like cartoons in other scenes, doesn't go hand and hand, especially during the dance sequence at Fezziwig's Christmas party. It's just way too cartoony for a film that's trying to look realistic with its animation. But as out of place as the scene it is, it not only brings the cheerful spirit of the scene, but it does have a few wonderful things offer. Bob Hoskins is perfect for the role of Fezziwig who’s tons of fun to watch with his jolly and upbeat attitude. And the transition to the break-up between Scrooge and Belle feels like that all the color and cheer of the scene is slowly being sucked out as everyone (including the spirit) fades away where the only three people remaining is a young Scrooge and Belle dancing together as Scrooge watches in despair realizing the tragic error he's made in his life, before actually witnessing it again. 

The scene of Scrooge and Belle breaking up is heartbreaking, especially from Robin Wright Penn's subtle and yet emotionally gripping performance as Belle, but how the scene ends is a different story. Rather than the ghost leaving Scrooge behind which will send him back to the present, he changes his face into the people we've seen from Scrooge's past to play on his guilt, which causes Scrooge to put him out with the flame retardant that the ghost carries around (which was in the book). The concept of putting that scene in the movie is not bad at all, but rather than feeling Scrooge's emotions, this all gets traded in as an excuse for Jim Carrey to act like Jim Carrey. The grunts he makes to put the spirit out are silly. The laugh he makes after he succeeds felt like a reaction that Jim Carrey would make, instead of the character. And how the flame retardant just suddenly blasts off like a rocket sending Scrooge up high in the air is so overblown and shoehorned in to give us a comical and cartoony moment that's supposed to feel like an experience, made me feel like I was watching something as stupid as Carrey driving the rocket sleigh in "The Grinch", that feels just as out of place as the dance sequence in Fezziwig's in terms of animation. The strange thing about the scene is, after it tries to play itself out for typical Jim Carrey laughs, it all of a sudden decides to go dark by making it seem like that Scrooge is falling to his death, as its shot to make it feel like the audience is falling with him too, that in the end just comes across as a pointless way to scare audiences, and a bit of a rip-off to the scene in "Scrooged" when Murray seems to be falling to his death after his encounter with a ghost.

THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PRESENT



Coming back to this film after not seeing since it first came out, I thought Jim Carrey's portrayal of the Ghost Of Christmas Present was going to be the typical Jim Carrey performance of the film where I see him just playing the character, and using most of his mannerisms that don't seem to match the character. But aside from a scene where he just randomly hits Scrooge in the head with his torch to give us an unnecessary slapstick moment because Jim Carrey is starring in this film and that they have to make him funny at times, he plays the role just as convincingly as he plays the other characters. I know he laughs way too much, but I never really had a problem with it since the character is supposed to be as jolly as Santa Claus. And how he portrays this happy and upbeat spirit feels natural, as opposed to feeling like that Jim Carrey is just playing himself. The voice he puts on perfectly matches the character's good nature vibe that to me hardly sounds like his voice thanks to how ghostly it. His personality is enjoyable, but also at times rude and even creepy to give him a bit of an edge. And whenever you're around him you just want to embrace the Christmas cheer that he brings and shows Scrooge like in all the other good adaptations of the story.

The coolest sequence in the whole visit is how Scrooge and the ghost travel. Rather than seeing them fly to house to house like how Scrooge was flying with the Ghost Of Christmas Past, he turns Scrooge's beautifully decorated living room that's oozing with Christmas visuals, by making it fly around the city, as Scrooge gazes at the city below him and see the people getting into the Christmas spirit. Out of all the 3-D sequences in the movie to make it feel like an experience, this is hands down the best one in the movie. The imagery is gorgeous and brings that warm and happy feeling of Christmas. And the way its shot and paced gives it a lot of weight as if you really feel like you're flying in Scrooge's living room above the city, especially when watching it in three dimensions.

The scenes of Scrooge watching Bob Cratchit with his family, and his nephew Fred throwing a party don't really do anything that new with the scenes. I mean you have Scrooge's living room hovering over Cratchit's living room. The spirit taking Scrooge to Fred's house with his torch is cool. And seeing the ghost's face briefly turning into Scrooge's as he quotes one of the cruel things he says earlier in the film. But aside from that, they pretty much play the scenes out the way they're supposed to be. Which are far from bad since the acting and chemistry is completely spot on to still give you an emotional attachment, especially from Carrey's reactions as Scrooge. But if you're looking for something different and new, you won't really get too much of it here.

What you will however get that's new, is the scene when the ghost dies after he shows Scrooge the two children under is robe "Ignorance" and "Want". Out of all the sequences in the movie that make the film so excessively dark, this was part of the film that has always stayed in my head ever since I first saw it. Instead of the spirit dying quietly and peacefully where we feel sad to see him go since we enjoyed being in his presence so much (like in "A Muppet Christmas Carol" for example). He's inside a clock tower and collapses to the floor laughing after the bell above him strikes midnight which gives him a heart attack, where we see him slowly turn into a skeleton and fade away as he's laughing hysterically. And that's only part of what makes this scene so insane. We also see the children turn into psychotic adults. The boy turns into a mad man holding a knife where he's suddenly locked inside a cage, and the girl turn into a slutty woman flirting with Scrooge before she's taken away by a straitjacket. WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT! Alright, I'll be honest that I do find it to be a little cool for how dark the scene is, and for still holding up as scary for how intense it is. BUT with that said, adding this dark stuff in to this scene takes away the emotion of how we're supposed to feel for the spirit. The scene is too busy trying to scare us, than it is trying to make us feel sad, which completely works against this supposed tragic part of the story.

THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS YET-TO-COME

 

It pains me to say that out of all the scenes in the movie that show the film's weak spots, the visit from the ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Come is the part of the film that shows every single bad choice that holds the film back from being great. I'm not talking about the scenes when he shows Scrooge the people he knew in the future. I'm talking about the whole unnecessary chase sequence that pretty much hi-jacks the movie for over 5 minutes (if not ten). The minute when Scrooge's alone after seeing three business men talk about his passing (that Scrooge doesn't know who died yet) and sniffing their snuff boxes (and it's not the first time that it was used in a kids version of the story) to the end of the Old Joe scene where Scrooge then sees a dead body lying underneath the covers of a bed, everything that I pointed out what's wrong with the movie is all summed up in this one sequence. It's insanely dark and intense as the spirit and the ghost horses of a ghost carriage chase after Scrooge, even though Scrooge understands the spirits purpose, which makes no sense why he'd run away from it, or why the spirit would try to scare him or endanger his life. The chase scene has no purpose to the story at all, except as a cheap excuse for the film to show off its 3-D effects. We go back and fourth from seeing cartoony animation to perfect real life movements that doesn't flow together at all! There's tons of shoehorned in slapstick to make it funny, as Jim Carrey is given a chipmunk voice since he's suddenly shrunk down to the size of a bug for no apparent reason. And just like in the "Polar Express" how I found Tom Hanks playing multiple roles to be distracting for how distinct his voice and mannerisms are, Bob Hoskins as much as he's a good fit for Old Joe by giving such a creepy performance, since we saw him as Fezziwig earlier on the movie and that his voice is just too damn recognizable, him playing a second character in the film comes off as distracting. Also when we later on get to Scrooge's mournful scene when he sees his tombstone, remember how the film earlier ripped-off a scene from "Scrooged"? How about Disney rips-off a scene from one of their own animated classics “Mickey’s Christmas Carol” by having Scrooge dangling over an open coffin, just like Scrooge McDuck"? And the crazy part about it is the scene in "Mickey's Christmas Carol" was scarier and more intense than this scene ever was.

Now as obvious as the film's flaws are all shown during this visit of the ghost, that doesn't mean there aren't a few nice things going for it. For starters I admire that the ghost is actually Scrooge's shadow who's usually up against the walls, or laying flat on the ground as the ghost would occasionally pop-out in three dimensions that would always keeps you off guard. Since the ghost is showing Scrooge the shadows of things that will be if he doesn't change, I thought that was clever idea of making the ghost literally a shadow itself. It's like seeing the shadow of Nosferatu as if he was a grim reaper following you around, it's so eerie, and more than enough to scare us, than having an out of nowhere chase scene. When the scenes that follow the story are shown, the acting still hits the emotions right on the nail. The highlights are when Bob Cratchit is letting out his emotions of Tiny Tim's death right in front of a cornered Scrooge who can't say or do anything except gaze at his sad face. And the scene when Scrooge sees his grave where Carrey really acts his heart out, while the ghost is slowly about to reveal the date of Scrooge's death as if his time is now, that's way more suspenseful and scarier than what the scene suddenly does next (though the last image of the ghost was petrifying). Another thing I like about this whole portion of the film is how we get to see the dead bodies of Scrooge and Tiny Tim. We don't see them fully, but we do see the shadow of a deceased Tiny Tim laying bed as Bob sighs, or see a little bit of Scrooge's head sticking out of the covers. In most versions made for kids, we never see the bodies; we usually see an empty chair, or a tombstone. It's just very rare to see a part of a body lying around dead in a version of the story aimed for kids. But then again the film did open up with Marley's dead body, so I don't think I should be too surprised by it.

CHRISTMAS DAY

We finally come to Scrooge's redemption and this is the part of the film that was worrying me the most if Jim Carrey is now going to goof around like his old Jim Carrey self, and that he's no longer going to feel like Scrooge, or show the warmth and gentleness of the character’s change of heart and love of Christmas. But to my surprise, he actually did bring out the heartfelt feeling of the character seeing a new light and loving every minute. And make no mistake, it is at times over the top, and I can see Jim Carrey just hamming up the comedy aspect on one or two occasions, but I still think that it's the right amount of over the top. Enough for you to feel the thrill and excitement that he's feeling in a comical way, and enough for you to also feel moved and touched by it. The animation for the streets of London on Christmas morning that Scrooge walks and prances around as we hear upbeat Christmas music also helps add to the warm Christmas feeling that the scene is supposed to bring. The two moments during Scrooge's reformation that touch me the most are when Scrooge walks into his nephews party as their about to make fun of Scrooge through their games, as a remorseful Scrooge that's hurt of how he's treated his nephew asks if he can have dinner with them; and the last scene of the film where Bob Cratchit tells the audience of what became of Scrooge and Tiny Tim, where we see a joyful Scrooge walking down the bright and sunny snowy streets with Tiny Tim over his shoulders.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Much like "The Polar Express", the film does have a good chunk of problems. The motion-capture animation still looks creepy and awkward on many occasions. The scenes involving slapstick and comedy are painfully out of place. There are a few pointless scenes of the film that only exist to show off its 3-D effects. And the film does at times go a little too overboard with the dark stuff. Also if you're tired of seeing so many film versions of "A Christmas Carol", then this film is clearly not for you. But despite that the film does have plenty of problems that weigh it down, I not only think that there's just enough good in the film to make it watchable like in "The Polar Express", but I think it's in many ways better than Zemeckis' previous attempt of making a motion-capture Christmas movie based on a story. The casting is for the most part top notch; especially with casting Jim Carrey as Scrooge and the three ghosts that I thought was going to ruin this movie big time. There's not too many scenes of filler, or scenes that feel thrown in to just play on the whole 3-D gimmick. The majority of alterations that the film makes to this traditional story that do come across as creative and interesting are very ingenious. The scenes that play-out the traditional scenes from the story are done to a tee. The animation does look outstanding in a handful of scenes. And even though the film gets too scary and intense at times, I do love the grim edge that the film carries, as well as admiring the lighthearted Christmas moments that we do get. So in many ways I do think the film surpasses "The Polar Express", but the film in its long run is just as uneven by having things both smart and stupid.

RATING 3/5

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!!

And considering that it's also the second day of Chanukah...

HAPPY CHANUKAH !!

THE POLAR EXPRESS

It's Christmas Eve and before I move on to my next review I would like to briefly talk about one of my favorite Christmas stories that I loved reading as a kid which was...



What kid growing up from the late 80s and early 2000s hasn't heard or read this book. It has a timeless moral; beautiful illustrations that were imaginative, atmospheric and drenching with Christmas visuals; and a nice laid back tone that made you feel at eased, while you still felt like you were on this train ride to the North Pole through the writing and pictures. It's truly one of those children's books that stand the test of the time and makes you feel like a kid whenever you read it, as you embrace its Christmas spirit. And since the story was cherished just as much as Christmas tales like "The Grinch", "Twas The Night Before Christmas", and " A Christmas Carol" were, in 2004 director Robert Zemeckis who gave us many classics like "Back To The Future", "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", and "Forrest Gump", felt that it was time to adapt the story. Only instead of it being filmed in live action, it would instead be animated with the use of CGI and motion capture.

 

I saw the film in theaters when I was in 5th grade, and I remember enjoying it ok, and watching it occasionally over the years. But after not seeing it for quite awhile, was it really as good as I remember it; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

A young boy who's getting to the point in his life where he has trouble believing in Santa, sees a magical train pull up in front of his house in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. The train's conductor tells the boy that the train is heading to the North Pole, and invites the boy to come along for the ride. The boy (who by the way has no name) hops aboard the train and makes friends with some of the kids as he embarks on a magical journey to the land where Santa and his Elves live. Now as tempted as I am to compare the movie to the book, since I usually judge a film on its merits since they're both different mediums of entertainment, I'm going to give this film the same fair chance.



I suppose the best place to start when reviewing this movie is the motion capture animation that everybody seems to hate or admire. I personally am kind of mixed about it. On one hand it is at times looks impressive for how realistic the character’s expressions and movements look, where they seem more natural than the motion capture for something like the Halloween TV Special "Night Of The Headless Horseman". But there are still a good amount of times where they look creepy for how unnatural and stiff their expressions and movements are at times. There are scenes where they move like how the actors would in real life, but there are plenty of over the top cartoony moments that break as much physics as a "Looney Tunes" cartoon would, where the two just don't jell together too well. It overall feels like Zemeckis doesn't know if he wants to make a live action Christmas film because of how realistic he wants the animation to look, as you wonder why he just doesn't shoot this film in live action; or if he wants to make a Christmas cartoon, where find yourself asking why bother making it look realistic with the motion capture animation, and not let the animators go all out creative like they usually do since they're too busy copying the majority of the movements and expressions from the actors. It's a bit of a mess, and to me I would have been more happy with the idea if the film was just filmed in live action with the use of real actors and CGI for half of the effects, as the other half of the effects are practical, kind of like the "Harry Potter" or "The Lord Of The Rings" movies for example, which would also make the film look less creepy. But as much as I think the film would work better in live action, the film’s animation does have a gigantic size, scale, and weight to it from the way they're shot, animated, and paced, as we look at some beautiful Christmas colors and imaginative landscapes while hearing an extraordinary Christmas score by Alan Silvestri (even if it does sound at times sound a little to similar to the music in "Elf") that all give the film such a heavy atmosphere as if you were going on for the ride with the characters. I remember that when the film first came out it was also being released in IMAX 3-D (at a time where releasing films in 3-D wasn't as common as it is now), where I was curious in seeing the film in three dimension, but instead I had to settle for seeing it at my local town movie theater. And whenever I watch this film, I always find myself imagining how epic it would look to see all these grand visuals on the big screen in 3-D with a huge sound system to make you really feel like you're on the journey which would make the film feel like an experience than just a movie, almost like how I dream about seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey" on the big screen in IMAX (just without the added in 3-D effect). Sure I would have to look at some creepy motion capture animation for a good chunk of the time, but honestly it isn't all that scary. At least not scary enough to warrant nightmare fuel as many other critics have claimed.




The film's primary star is academy award winning actor Tom Hanks who has previously worked with Zemeckis in classic films like "Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away", who plays a wide variety of characters in the film such as the conductor, a magical hobo, the boy's Father, the narrator, Santa Claus, and even serves as the motion-capture for our young protagonist. I love Tom Hanks; I think he's a great well rounded actor, who can do both comedy and hardcore drama to a tee! And I do find it cool that he's given a wide variety of characters to play. But aside from the motion-capture that he provides for the boy, his voice and mannerisms are so distinctive that I can never see the characters he plays as separate characters since its clearly obvious that its Hanks playing them all, which comes across as distracting and kind of takes you out of that magical environment when you constantly acknowledge that these different fantasy characters that the boy meets are mostly played by Tom Hanks. Even as a kid I found myself a bit distracted by it. I am aware that the reason for this casting choice is because each character played by Hanks is supposed to represent the Holy Trinity to help the kid's faith in his beliefs in Santa Claus, with Santa being god, the Conductor being Jesus to help lead the kid down the right path, and the mystical Hobo being the Holy Ghost, which is a clever concept, that in a way makes this film a modern day Christmas Carol considering that three magical characters are trying to help change the boy for the better. But since they are supposed to be their own individual characters it still comes across as distracting.




On top of the obvious casting of Hanks playing these different roles, out of all characters that he portrays, the one who I felt the least enchanted by is the conductor for how strict he is as a host. For the majority of his on-screen appearance he's always shown to be yelling, looking frustrated, and acting a bit snobbish at times. And I get that he overall means well, is very understanding, and that dealing with a train full of children is no easy task. But I hardly felt a welcoming or gentle presence whenever I'm around him since he always seems like he's going to crack at any second. He even at times comes across as a tad bit creepy, especially when he quietly tells the kid that he should hop aboard the train as if he was a pervert telling a kid to get inside his van. I didn't even find him that fun to watch either. And I know that there are other fantasy characters like the conductor that try to help a protagonist in a children’s film who can be harsh and weird like Willy Wonka (the Gene Wilder one of course) or Mary Poppins for example. But they still came across as characters that were interesting and charming, despite coming off as odd and rude at times. With the Conductor on the other hand I didn't find him that intriguing of a character, or anywhere near charming, especially since I know I'm watching Tom Hanks putting on a performance, when with Gene Wilder and Julie Andrews I see them strictly as the characters. I won't go far to say that he's a horrible character, or that Hank's performance isn't entertaining, but let's say that I wouldn't consider myself going on a magical life changing journey with someone who's always constantly yelling and glaring at me weird with those dead CGI eyes.




The character that Tom Hanks' played who I did enjoy spending time with is the hobo. He to me comes across as a more fun, interesting, and inviting character than the Conductor is. He can be over the top and cartoony, but he can also be subtle and laid-back. He'll say and do a few negative things to the kid regarding his belief in Santa, but you get the impression that's he's just using his negativity to test the kid’s faith as if he knows the answer to the kid’s question all along. And despite that we know little about this hobo, like what exactly he is, or why he doesn't believe in Santa despite that he's riding on a magical train to the North Pole, that’s what overall makes him such a fascinating character. Hank's performance as this mystical wisecracking bum was also the closest out of all the other character's he's played where I hardly sensed him just putting on a performance, even though I clearly know its still him. I'd much rather sneak aboard the Polar Express with this guy showing me around the train and testing my beliefs, as opposed to feeling intimidated every time the conductor walks in.


 

The group of kids who we experience the journey with; they're for the most part not that charming or all that interesting of characters. The lead boy as basic of a character as he is, Daryl Sabara's voice acting with Hanks' motion capture are good enough for us to relate and identify with what he's going through with his troubles of keeping his faith. But the other kids just come across as bland generic stereotypes that we've seen before who are hardly ever intriguing. The little girl who loves Christmas (voiced by Nona Gaye) is annoyingly as pitch perfect as a character can get. The poor kid Billy (with Peter Scolari motion-capture and Jimmy Bennett's voice) just feels there. And the nerdy kid (voiced by Eddie Deezen that's playing his usual nerdy self) is just a forced comic relief character who isn't funny, and hearing a grown man's voice coming out of an animated kid who's supposed to look as realistic as a kid in real life just comes across as weird and distracting, where I wish they would just throw Mandark from "Dexter's Laboratory" in his place since he's an animated boy who's not meant to be animated like a real life child and made to look like A CARTOON! Much like how I feel about Tom Hanks as the conductor, the kids supporting our lead are tolerable enough to get through the film, but they still stink as characters for how one note they are.

While I'm on the topic of discussing the kids, there was a great idea that I thought the film was going for that just felt completely wasted. When the kid has doubts about entering the train, the conductor pulls out a sheet of paper that list the things he didn't do when taking part in the Christmas traditions involving Santa as a way to convince him to climb aboard to help him keep on believing. And the next person that the Polar Express picks up is a kid who has clearly given up on Christmas because of the poor conditions he lives in. At first I thought the idea for the Polar Express was to bring kids who have lost the spirit of Christmas, or are at the age of their life where they stop believing in Santa and magic, where the trip will give them one more chance for them to try and keep the faith before they go their own way if they'll keep believing and cherishing the spirit of Christmas or not, which I thought was an ingenious idea. But it unfortunately turns out to not be the case. The train is just picking up random kids who seem to be all from the same the town whether or not they believe which I thought was a complete missed opportunity. It would've been such a unique concept.



The rest of the cast of magical characters that we meet in the film are pretty much just the Elves and the train's engineer and fireman Smokey and Steamer. As decent as the Elves designs are, they come across as a bunch of nasty little turds. They aren't jolly, they're incredibly rude and obnoxious, and at times look and act kind of scary. The last word that ever comes to my mind when I think of these little creatures is cute. And it doesn't help either when they shoehorn in a painfully out of place cameo appearance of Steven Tyler from "Aerosmith" as an Elf singing rock songs to dancing Elves. I love Steven Tyler, I love "Aerosmith", but his cameo in the film is just as cringe worthy and stupid as seeing Dan Aykroyd as the "Ghostbuster" Ray Stantz in "Casper". Smokey and Steamer are clearly a set of pointless extra of comic-relief characters that the film isn't really yearning for. But they are fun to watch, who provide a few good laughs, and after noticing every single role that Tom Hanks plays in the film, I never would have suspected that these two characters are not only played by one guy, but are also played by the late and great Michael Jeter in his last performance of his career. Maybe the film should've starred him instead of Hanks.




Another major problem that I noticed with the film is that there a lot of scenes of filler. Scenes like the boy losing the girl's ticket, the train almost crashing, and the kids getting lost in Santa's Workshop, give you the feeling that the film is trying to cram a few pointless obstacles as an excuse to lengthen the film to an hour and a half, and show off its animation and 3-D effects. I mean really, how many roller-coaster simulation scenes do we see in this movie? Why do we get a whole sequence dedicated to a ticket flying around when it will eventually go back inside the train? And why do the train-tracks lead to a frozen pond and a steep mountain that has danger written all over it? The film also has a pointless scary moment where a Scrooge puppet comes to life to scare the boy, that doesn't even come close to scary either since we quickly find out that the bum is controlling the puppet which makes the scene come across as comical instead. But as plain as it is that these scenes are only in the film to make it longer, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy some of them, or in the very least don't see why other people might enjoy them. The scenes with the runaway ticket and runaway train are part of what makes the film feel likes an experience thanks to its animation. The city where the Elves live and how they work is cool to explore. And I do like the grim concept and tone for the room where the broken toys and puppets are (which if you look carefully you can see some of the toys in the room appear in the last scene of the film). They are pointless detours that really stand out to me, but I guess that's all part of the film's experience.




What I do think are the most painfully forced moments in the film that feel incredibly awkward and out of the blue are the song scenes. There's only two musical numbers in the whole movie, and these songs come and go just as quickly as the songs in "The Nutcracker: The Untold Story" as you start to wonder if these songs were even worth being shoved in. Ok the "Hot Chocolate" song with the dancing waiters, as incredibly random as that scene is, the animation and motion-capture is still impressive for how fast, energetic, and visually heavy it is. And the song itself is kind of catchy. But the song that the girl and the lonely boy sing on the train together as they gaze at the auroras is clearly the most contrived one out of the two. The song is generic, and forgettable. How the song just suddenly happens is unbelievably corny. And the visuals for the auroras as pretty as they are, almost feel like they're trying to be as forcefully whimsical as the song is, especially when we see presents in the sky. I just get the impression that this song was only thrown into film so that it can eventually be a hit Christmas single that we'd hear on radio stations constantly during the holiday season's like "Where Are You Christmas" from "The Grinch" (that I still think is a boring Christmas song) since the scene is trying to be all cute and touching! I can understand why many other people may be touched by that song, but for me it just comes across as manipulative.

On the whole I don't think the film is the Christmas masterpiece that audiences have claimed it to be, but I don't think it's as terrible as other people have made it out to be either. Nearly everything that the film has to offer is pretty much hit and miss, where the majority of scenes and characters are hammered in to give the film a longer run time and play on the Holiday tropes that Christmas films and Specials are known for just to please us, as we look at motion-capture that can at times look impressive and freaky. But as clumsy as the film is, there is an overall feeling that there was a lot of heart and effort being put into the movie. You can tell that Zemeckis was trying really hard to capture the spirit of a timeless Christmas tale, even if the final product doesn't stand as tall. Maybe if the story was adapted as a 30 minute short cartoon like how "The Grinch" and "The Snowman" were, it could've been just as beautiful and timeless. But for what it is, it's not that bad. I do like watching it every now and then during the holiday season for the things that are good, and if IMAX ever decides to re-release the film in 3-D, I will definitely purchase a ticket to see the film the way that it's supposed to be seen.

RATING 3/5