Cool News
POLAR EXPRESS review
Prepping for seeing POLAR EXPRESS began the night before… Friday night at Pedazo Chunk, my sis was having her monthly wing-ding at the store… Band jamming out back – films playing in the screening room – beer flowing for free and movie geeks and Austin CULTure floating about chatting freely. Father Geek and I were enjoying the White Russians and Vodka – when my nephew arrived. We had the responsibility to take him back to Geek Headquarters for an over-night stay. These nights rule, cuz they usually afford us time from brain washing and influence.
This particular night, it was prepping him to wake up at like 8am to go see Robert Zemeckis’ POLAR EXPRESS. With 4 year olds – one must prepare the kiddo for the movie they’ll be watching. I showed him the poster and he was quite cool to it. Didn’t want to see it. I showed him the trailer, and still… he just wanted to go see THE INCREDIBLES again. Frankly, I didn’t blame him. If you’re just looking at trailers and posters… THE INCREDIBLES looks much much more fun. But – I had a press invite for POLAR EXPRESS, not THE INCREDIBLES that next morning… and frankly – I was curious how the bizarre pseudo-dream-reality look of POLAR EXPRESS would affect a munchkin of 4.
So – I explained to Gio that the movie was about going to Santa Claus’ home at the North Pole. His eyes opened wide, “Santa Claus’ home?” “Yeah, see the little boy? He gets on the train for Santa Claus’ house!” “The train go Santa’s House?” “Yep, sure does.” “I go to Santa’s house?” The kid was hooked. At the age of 4, he’s just at that stage of evolving his own belief system in regards to Santa. He knows the songs of Santa, he knows about the reindeer and the sleigh. He’s met Santa and knows he tells Santa what he wants for Christmas. But Santa’s home, that there was a train that little boys and girls could catch? This was something new for him. A new piece of the puzzle.
Now, as you may have guessed… I’m a sucker for Christmas. I love it. I love the season, the lights, the visible breath, the tree, the wreaths, the songs, the films, the stories, the gifts, wrapping the gifts, shopping for the gifts, writing the Christmas cards, putting on the Santa hat, driving around town looking at decorations at night… I live to help Santa, he’s da man! Lasso the Moon, Now I have An Uzi, Hee Haw and on and on and on…
What is POLAR EXPRESS?
It is a lovely Christmas film that I found myself enraptured by. The 4 year old boy sitting besides me, sat transfixed by every second. His jaw slack – forgetting the popcorn, candy and drink in little lap. In fact – I’d say of the 40 or so films I’ve taken my nephew to, this was the one that most captured him. He was drinking in every second. Remembering to hold on to his ticket, if he ever gets it. Taking in the vast empire that Santa rules at the North Pole… The “Big Brother” style majesty to the spying equipment… The beauracracy of Elves, and much much more. Afterwards, he had a million questions about Santa – and he wants to be a very very good boy. At that very simple level the film is a glorious triumph. For a simple story about a boy, a train and a man in a flying sleigh to keep a kid fascinated not only for the entire running time, but to fill him with the dream of Santa and questions about jolly ol St. Nick for the rest of the day… That’s the dream of any good Christmas film.
He never questioned the technique or the expense of the film. Never complained about the realism or lack thereof in regards to the visual effects. His young brain observed only a story of a boy (and other children), a magically awesome train trip and of course the wonders of the North Pole. He reacted by giving the film his complete and undivided attention.
So – that was how the “kid” reacted… How about me?
Well, there is no getting around the technique of the film. If you were to go frame by frame through this movie, you’d find what would seem to be hundreds of thousands of beautiful paintings in sequential order. Each one quite arresting. HOWEVER, no matter how much rhetoric or spin Zemeckis and the crew want to spin about the film… This is ultimately just an insanely expensive version of a rotoscope film. I found the majority of the character work to be rather characterless. The voice work was good, but the characters seemed too stiff, They lacked the “character” that great animators can give to “simulated” performance. Back at the beginning of animation when rotoscope was innovated – the classic animators quickly learned that it had it’s place. For example, it provided a great “guide” for an animator, but that when employed with fantastic key frame work which essentially enhanced the “reality” of the “performance capture” that rotoscoping was. Go get your SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS dvd and look at the motion studies and reference work that was done for Snow White’s dance with the elongated Dopey. It is the differences between what was captured in reality and the work the great animators did to make the performance and the character work greater than any mere tracing job could do.
That POLAR EXPRESS is mainly a “Traced” film isn’t a reason to dismiss it. Technique is never the reason to applaud or dismiss… in film it ultimately comes down to the story. Frankly, I love the story. But in watching THE INCREDIBLES a week before, coming to POLAR EXPRESS – I can’t help but wonder how much greater all the character animation would be had the film been in the hands of a Pixar. This isn’t to discredit the astonishing beauty of the film. It is absolutely stunning. But – I’d say the best two characters animated in the whole film were the long red bearded guy and the fat guy that both controlled the engine of the train. They seemed more alive than any of the other characters. They felt less stiff and more… well, animated. And in my book, that’s what I want to see. I tend to watch animated features for extraordinary motion that can not exist in the real world. Does that mean there isn’t extraordinary motion or action in the film? Far from it. But to me, the performances in THE INCREDIBLES showed a higher degree of nuance and emotion out of their characters.
Having said that, what about Tom Hanks playing every other character in this? To me, it isn't a vanity deal like some will no doubt say, but rather using CG the way Kubrick and Sellers used make up in DR STRANGELOVE. Now... having said that... Does Hanks succeed as well as Sellers did? Not on your life - of course - these are far more 'simple' characters and not the showboats that Kubrick gave Sellers to sink his chops into. I still liked em... especially the "hobo" character. Liked that one quite a bit!
Zemeckis’ desire to create a moving painting overall was successful. Ultimately the story of recapturing one’s faith in magical things you can’t see, or that most never see… well, it’s strong. Some of the “cooler” production moments like the Hot Chocolate dance number, I enjoyed the transparent floor borrowed from Busby’s day, but nicely applied, and I’m sure for many, it’ll be innovative – but long before computers – this was done just fine. Still, it was cool to see again.
Later this week, I’ll be seeing POLAR EXPRESS on IMAX in 3-D. As a 3-D movie, this could very well be astonishing. The sense of motion, speed and just the general child’s eye framing of the film, should make it all the more magical. Will the film hit as big as something like THE INCREDIBLES? Don’t bet on it. Hopefully it will do well though. It’s a lovely little Christmas tale, no matter how big it wants to look.
The intimacy of the book has been expanded upon, but to me, it’s every bit as magical. My guess is that the film will be a seasonal fave. Ultimately, whether it makes Warner’s money now… I know it will be loved over time. Though – it’s always nice to be loved from opening day like Brad Bird’s work of genius!
-
+ Expand All
-
Nov 08, 2004 3:47:27 AM CST
It looks pretty but I think the motion capture thing just makes
by tall_boy
That's the problem. At least Incredibles has an animated look to it. Oh, speaking of Increidbles I should really go back to that review.
-
Nov 08, 2004 3:51:14 AM CST
I think Polar Express and Final Fantasy occupy that weird "null
by tall_boy
y'can't quite get into it because it looks so real yet your brain is telling you its CG. But you can't enjoy in a CG level cuz if you squint it looks so dangblasted real. Of course, Polar Express probably has a better story than final fantasy, but at least most CGI movies don't try to convince you they're done with real people. And I think that Tom Hanks is playing EVERYBODY makes this a bit of a glamour project.
-
It's called the Uncanny Valley
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/u/un/uncanny_valley.html -
It is a robotics term used to describe the sense of unease when an automaton gets too close to appearing human without actualy succeeding. As a robot is made more human, we tend to like it more. Then it hits a point where it looks too real, but not real enough, and there is a sense of unease and disgust that destroys any sense of pleasure we derive from viewing it. It is almost like looking at a corpse. It looks real, but wrong. I think "the valley" may be reached in this movie.
-
Oops. Sorry, krackbaby.
-
And damn me If I didn
-
I couldn't be bothered to read the review. Sorry. I will say that this movie looks creepier than "Saw".
-
Nov 08, 2004 8:18:24 AM CST
I keep hearing good things, but I just can't get myself interest
by minderbinder
Hanks sounds lame doing many of the characters (especially his Santa), and the movie looks like it has no plot.
-
Nov 08, 2004 8:22:08 AM CST
$165 million and these are the best facial expressions they can
by fluffyunbound
It's the faces that are the problem. But they're a big problem. But hey, I thought Jim Carrey looked creepy as the Grinch, too, and look how much money that film made. Make your film be about Christmas and every parent in America will drag their kid to it - and 4 year old kids like anything.
-
i found myself enraptured by the majesty of the blah blah blah.
I've never read so many reviews that involve men getting weepy over movies aimed at 8 year olds.
But hey, whatever moves you. -
This is a dumb idea from the start, why not just have Tom Hanks and some kid rather than CG that looks like an bizarro Tom Hanks and some kid? To see how cheap the production values are, look at the feature on the movie in this weeks issue of Entertainment Weekly. The kid's leaning out of the train, his hand is grasping a pole...and going through it. You can actually see the pole going through his hand. Complete garbage.
-
there is no god. from IMDB: Actress Natalie Portman ordered director Mike Nichols to remove her full frontal nude scenes from her latest movie Closer - despite playing a stripper in the film. Nichols is very protective of the 23-year-old beauty and agreed the topless footage was acceptable, but decided raunchy shots of her fully nude were gratuitous and should be deleted from the drama. Portman explains, "He wants to see my bare ass much less than (even) my father would. He's as or more protective of me than my parents are. So doing sexual, physical stuff for him felt very uncomfortable." ..... Damn you Nichols! Damn you all to hell!
-
Nov 08, 2004 11:17:31 AM CST
Creepy stnthetic humans are this flick's Achilles heel.
by nocturnaloner
Especially within a week of Pixar once again schooling everyone on how it's really done. Ebert predicted that The Polar Express will steal The Incredibles' fire, but I doubt it. A lot.
-
cripes sake.
-
Nov 08, 2004 11:29:47 AM CST
Nicholls is a Moron, Portman's Nudity is the only commercial app
by bigtuna
The trailer was the most dull looking i've ever seen.
-
I'll see anything Zemeckis does, but this one has me worried.
-
It's the first time for this technology, give it a chance. The First Toy story 10 years ago doesn't look as good as the Incredibles does. And I actually agree with Ebert, I think PE will steal some of the Incredibles thunder. Incredibles will be a huge hit, but PE will take away some of the perspective 2nd and 3rd viewings by some families. Incredibles will not be as big as a hit as Finding Nemo.
-
I don't like to judge a flick before I see it. But when I first saw the teaser for this, the art direction was beautiful, but the characters were kind of creepy. There's a vacancy in their eyes and a stiffness to their motions. It sort of reminds me of the animatronic presidents and pirates at Disneyland. It's definitely "The Valley of the Uncanny". Also the range of motion in the facial expressions is somewhat lacking. They all appear to have had Botox recently. By the way, I've seen "The Incredibles" twice already and if Ebert said that "The Polar Express" was going to leave it in the dust he's got another thing coming. Pure joy from begining to end. A perfect superhero movie with sets that look like they were designed by Ken Adam and a score that sounds like every Bond film from the 60's AND it's animated by Pixar?!? Oh yeah, Express has a chance. And you'll find that chance chained to a rock in Hell.
-
By the way, Dark Horizons have posted the one sheet for WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Check it out...
www.darkhorizons.com
Depp looks strange. -
Nov 08, 2004 12:26:35 PM CST
Imagine a movie that is filmed with marionettes just like the 60
by l.h.puttgrass
Now imagine it's made by those crazy bastards from South Park. Are you there yet? O.K. now imagine that Harry never sees it! Doesn't work does it. Come on Harry! Are you ever going to review "Team America: World Police"?
-
She saw it last weekend and has had nightmares ever since because of the scary mouth movements and lifeless bodies. It freaked her out worse than any zombie movie ever has me. Has anyone else had this experience?? The movie did nothing for me honestly, didn't inspire anything, neither fear nor warmth.
-
But I can see how children might be concerned about some of the harsher parts of the movie, such as when Santa finds a "bad little boy", tears the top of his skull off and defecates all over the kid's dying brain...
-
This shit isn't even on the same planet as Pixar's stuff. The Incredibles is a work of art.
-
Nov 08, 2004 3:03:33 PM CST
"Of course, Polar Express probably has a better story than Final
by yo_shebitch
Uh, what's the story for the Polar Express again? A kid gets on a train and goes to the North Pole. That's all I know. Even if the animation intrigued me, which it doesn't, I still don't know what the plot of this movie is. There doesn't seem to be any conflict or villain. Maybe there is, but if so, they sure aren't making it known or marketing it correctly. Rare is the movie that appeals to both adults and children equally. The Incredibles has done that perfectly. So did Finding Nemo. But Polar Express looks like it was made purely for 8-year-olds. I have no interest in seeing this movie. I'm with Harry's nephew before the brainwashing - I'd rather see The Incredibles a second time.
-
"Killa Kristmazz Robotz!!!" and you've got a contender for a New Midnight Movie with all the cult potential of, say, "Donnie Darko" or "Showgirls"!
-
Isn't that the cover of a Cyndi Lauper greatest hits?
-
Nov 08, 2004 5:14:32 PM CST
"kid gets on a train and goes to the North Pole" is still a bett
by tall_boy
- because FF's plotline was shite. You know it to be true.
-
Anytime you can work a Jaws reference into a TB you do it. Anyway, I'll be seeing this...it looks interesting enough and Hanks and Zemekis have done enough good work that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
I am somewhat interested in this movie even though its more of a ride kind of like Eddie Murphy's "The Haunted Mansion" looked. Another reason to see this is that the Willy Wonka remake teaser trailer will be attached to it. Like to see that one too even though Johnny Depp looks like Marilyn Manson in that poster. I've heard of people going on a talk show talking about having nightmares to that movie Robin Williams made "Toys" (I'm not shitting here either, even though I never saw it but only heard about it) besides others having nightmares because of "28 Days Later" or that Satan from South Park. The animation looks beautiful but they still have quite a few more leaps and bounds before they could even conceive of trying to replace flesh and blood actors (might be one of the reasons Team America hasn't done better). I have to get on that bandwagon too, please see Team America Harry it was funny as hell. Yes Michael Moore dies in it but it is as a suicide bomber and not by someone else's hand. That is how far he is taking one for his ideologies in that movie (snort, snicker, heh heh).
-
He keep heaping praise on "The Incredibles," which is Pixar's most mediocre film to date. So I can't say I trust Harry completely on this one. Speaking of Harry's constant references to his love of "The Incredibles"...why do that when you haven't even posted a review for it yet?
-
To make a movie for everyone who thought Forest Gump just wasn't maudlin enough
-
Sounds pretty dope, i better make sure i'm lean when i watch it, innit!
-
Nov 08, 2004 9:53:31 PM CST
"The Incredibles," which is Pixar's most mediocre film to date.
by jimmy_009
Bug's Life is Pixar's most mediocre film to date, that is if Pixar and mediocre isn't actually an oxymoron.
Incredibles was 2 hours of pure animated joy. -
Nov 08, 2004 10:12:38 PM CST
you could have read the Polar Express BOOK to the kid
by screamingpenis
but i forgot...no one reads books anymore.
-
Nov 08, 2004 10:35:46 PM CST
Anyone who says "The Incredibles" was mediocre simply has no sou
by tall_boy
Seriously, wow. Go in for counselling, dude.
-
I know it can be done - everyone has seen that dancing Mr. Peanut commercial
-
I hear the term "photoreality" being tossed around a lot in this thread. As the term itself implies, photoreality is the attempt to recreate REAL environments and characters in the computer. Final Fantasy is an appropriate example of attempted photoreality. The point a lot of people seem to be missing is that Polar Express was NEVER meant to look photorealistic. It's supposed to be a recreation of the visual style and color palette of the original book's illustrations. In that regard, it is indeed remarkably successful. Now, this doesn't mean that some of the characters aren't creepy looking. I get a weird vibe from the bits I've seen too. But bashing it for not being photorealistic completely misses the point. That's like saying that Mr. Incredible failed as an animated character because he's not as realistic as Gollum.
I personally doubt Polar Express will make as much money as The Incredibles, but I think it will still be a moneymaker. Several Talkbackers have pointed out that The Incredibles is a near-perfect superhero movie, as if this ensures its success. But don't forget that there's a whole world of moviegoers out there who don't visit AICN or CHUD or Dark Horizons who don't give a shit about superheroes. I don't know about you, but my circle of friends is varied enough that I know people who won't see The Incredibles specifically BECAUSE it's about superheroes. These same people WILL see Polar Express because good Christmas movies don't come along very often. -
Nov 09, 2004 4:58:39 AM CST
Dark Horizons Marilyn manson and the Chocolate Factory Poster
by judge doom
What a fuck?! BURTON RULES!!!!!
-
Nov 09, 2004 5:26:52 AM CST
With so many movies without a Harry review..Harry reviews this..
by jon e cin
I dont understand.
-
Is the definition of photorealism different when speaking in CGI terms? In the visual arts world, photorealism means to take a photograph and copy it by hand with a canvas and paint, striving for as close a copy as possible. If there are different terminologies, all of the crap I said back in the day about that Spider-man 2 poster with half a Peter face and half a Spidey face is outta whack. -Raul Monkey
-
...in that you are using a specific medium, be it paint or pixels, to create a representation of something that really does exist. In your definition of photoreality, you're using paint to copy a photograph (which is itself a two-dimensional representation of reality) as accurately as possible. Although none of the images in Final Fantasy actually existed, I think the goal of SquareSoft was to treat every object, place and person as if they really did exist. Regardless of how successful they were, I truly believe that this was their intent. No one can make that same statement for Polar Express. It isn't even trying to represent reality. Rather, it's taking the intentional "unreality" of the books illustrations and bringing them to life via motion, shading and perspective.
-
Nov 09, 2004 12:13:23 PM CST
Authors must cringe when they hear Zemeckis and Hanks are involv
by diskatopia
...at least after Zemeckis and Hanks took major parts in the travesty known as "Forrest Gump". Of course the realist side of me says "hey, it's all about the Benjamins." But surely it must take a big, big paycheck for an author to sell his/her creations, his/her "children", to people who seem to think the original story is extraneous. I sure hope they didn't butcher the "Polar Express" story like they did "Forrest Gump".
-
Right now it looks like there are 2 distinct aesthetics for animated films, keyframed -like Incredibles- and motion captured. I think an animated film, like Akira, would translate great into CG using performance capture. Or to make the Watchmen in CG with performance capture. I think this realistic animation technique works great with a trippy story, I can see Burton doing an animated film with this technique. (Keyframe animation is great too, but have you seen Pixars Cars trailer? Is this the future of animated films? Kind of lame.)
-
Why would you take a living actor and spend millions of dollars to motion capture him and render him in CGI in an attempt to make him look like himself? It's supposed to look like a story book or some gay thing like that.
-
Nov 09, 2004 1:29:19 PM CST
I may see this only to see how they do the ending of the book
by terry_1978
I swear that last page still chokes me up, dammit. I believe, Santa...I believe!!!!
-
It has been noted that the ending has been slightly changed. It has also been noted that the author is satisfied with this adaptation though.
As creepy as the characters look, this Hollywood flick sure as shit makes up for that unwatchable atrocity "Surviving Christmas." -
Nov 09, 2004 5:39:50 PM CST
I think Ebert is right, Incredibles will have a big drop off...
by bigtuna
It may be great for a bunch of adults saying how great it is. But I don't think it will entertain kids as much as pixar's past films. It's too long and a lot of the jokes in the first half kids won't get or find fun in anyway. It's a hit, but it won't get those 2nd and 3rd screenings by a lot of families that Finding Nemo did.
-
Nov 09, 2004 6:14:09 PM CST
Will The Polar Express bomb at the box office like 1985 shitfest
by fd resurrected
That's up to the movie gods. Robert Zemeckis haven't had a box office bomb since...ah, who remembers? Tom Hanks haven't had double-whompy bombs since Bonafire of the Vanities and Joe versus the Volcano in 1990. I saw Sinbad: Beyond the Veil of Mists, a motion capture CG movie with the voice cast of Mark Hamill, Brendan Fraser and Leonard Nimoy at a cheap theater. That movie seriously blows because of terrible, fake acting and awful script. The Incredibles look to make shitloads of money which I hope will topple Finding Nemo and (maybe) Drek 2.
-
Nov 09, 2004 8:42:46 PM CST
Uh . . not to suggest irresponsibility or anything, but . . .
by harrisonsdad
If Harry and Father Geek were drinking, who drove them and the kid home? Just curious.
-
For shame.
-
""Portman explains, "He wants to see my bare ass much less than (even) my father would. He's as or more protective of me than my parents are. So doing sexual, physical stuff for him felt very uncomfortable." "" ....................................................................................................... So, Natalie's dad wants to see her ass MORE than director Mike Nichols? I feel dirty now. First, I think about her bare ass, then .8 seconds later it's incest. DAMN YOU Natalie Portman! DAMN your jaded sense of humor! .......................................................................... But I digress. I am now back to thinking of her bare ass. Thanks for reading.
-
Nov 10, 2004 8:55:30 AM CST
Actually Hanks' last two bombs in a row were Ladykillers and Ter
by minderbinder
I think this will probably do OK, but it cost 165 million????? That's almost double what Incredibles (or any other cgi feature) cost. Incredibles will hold up fine, it has great reviews and audience reaction has been great. In defense of Capone, Ebert and another reviewer also mentioned that the north pole has a very military look to it (Ebert said it looked like a political rally and described the elves as a mob). The only think likely to get me to go is the 3D Imax release. Shrek was supposed to get released that way, shame when it finally happened it was PE instead of one of the Pixar films, Incredibles in Imax 3D would fucking rock.
-
Harry's positive review came out after it already had several so so reviews. Coincidence? I think not. I'm not saying Harry is a sell out, no no, he's corporate whore! I just want to know does Harry get paid in porn and chicken wings or does he take cash...GFY
-
Too many reviewers use the word "creepy". It's like that word has affixed itself to this film like a lamprey. Maybe because the characters ACTUALLY DO LOOK CREEPY, and there's no other way to describe it. It's hard for a Christmas movie to overcome "creepy". Wasn't there a Christmas movie once with Dudley Moore in it, where it just looked so creepy that no one went to see it?
-
That was fast...glad I managed to save the Depp ones to my hard drive... Best 1st out of the gate scoop from this site in a while. Sure others got the teaser poster, but award goes to AICN for the best shots of Depp seen to date.
-
I just saw this terrible excuse for a holiday film and I am pissed off! I am pissed that people are saying it's good, I am pissed that I paid money to see it, and I am pissed that this movie stoled an hour and 45 minutes of my soul. This film is so bad on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Story, lets talk about story. Last time I checked the most important thing about a movie was the story. Well don't worry about that because this film doesn't have one. Basically a kid doesn't believe in Santa then he does, the end. Lets talk about character motivation, this movie decides to force every character into doing stupid and unbelievable things that no rational being, real or even a character in a movie, would do. Example, risking your life to give someone their train ticket? I might risk my life to save a drowning baby, or to save a bus load of orphans from falling off a cliff, but returning a train ticket to a girl I just met is way low on my list of life risking activities. Everything the main character does is unmotivated and unbelievable. Another good thing to have in a movie is likable comic relief characters, you know the Timone's and Pumba's. The guys that are there purely to help add levity. The "funny" character in this film annoys the shit out of you instead. That voice actor should of had his card pulled years ago, his voice is loud and void of any emotion. Mandark you are fired from voice acting forever! Pacing is a great way to draw the audience into a movie, setting the tone and helping to move the plot along. Someone should have told that to Zemeckis before he started this project because there is no pacing in this film, it just cost along at the same rate the entire time, and that rate, boring. Even the "exciting" parts were boring. The "action" scenes seemed more like a motion simulated ride at an amusement park, but since they weren't good maybe I should say they were a ride in a Bemusement park, PUN INTENDED AND HORRIBLE AT THE SAME TIME! And boy oh boy is Tom Hanks good at playing Tom Hanks only slightly different. Every voice he did sounded exactly like his normal voice. But the worst part, the part that had me cringing in my seat where the characters. They are the creepiest things put on film since the little girl in The Ring. The girl character on the train's face was absolutely terrifying. Everytime she talked it made me want to turn away. Her mouth was atrocious.The little poor kid was like Hali Joel Osmonds GHOST. And the annoying kid with glasses was frightening. If any character in this movie opened their mouth more then an inch it looked distorted. But the most terrifying thing of all, the scariest thing I have ever seen in my life, the one thing in the movie that made me shiver with fright, THE DEMON ELVES!!!!! They all looked so scary that my nightmares may never end. Each one looked like a cancer patient. They looked like at any moment their teeth were going to sharpen, wings would sprout out of their backs and they were going to eat the children. There are so many other awful things about this movie, but my fingers are tired and I just want as many people to read this as possible, so that I may save someone from wasting their time and money on this turd. DON'T BELIEVE!!!! DON'T BELIEVE!!!! Don't let this be a success, it is a sham and Zemeckis knows it. He knows that he is in deep shit if his 165 million dollar movie isn't successful and he is holding nothing back in promoting it to save his ass. DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So they jerked it off....the site
-
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/041109c.php
-
Nov 11, 2004 12:17:44 AM CST
why won't Zemeckis do something edgy again like USED CARS?
by beamish13
that film is hilarious. BACK TO THE FUTURE III was probably his last great film before he caught Spielberg's over-sentimental germs
-
I'd like to see you make four brilliant films in a row, which he did with VIRGINIA WOOLFE, THE GRADUATE, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and CATCH-22
-
Nov 11, 2004 8:28:08 AM CST
Gettin' off topic but...Anyone else annoyed as hell by christmas
by minderbinder
What pisses me off is all the radio and TV ads, but even if I was interested in this, wouldn't the time to see it be about December 15th? Who wants to see santa while there are still leaves on the trees and the halloween candy hasn't run out yet?
-
Nov 11, 2004 9:21:05 AM CST
The NYTimes makes the Leni Riefenstahl comparison, too.
by fluffyunbound
So it looks like Quint is off the hook, and isn't "paranoid" after all.
-
http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73544
It's only the two Depp ones, the ones of the kids aren't there. Sorry Harry & co. for having to have to link to another movie news site for these..but to pull them from here with no explanation was kinda uncool. Surprising that even the the thread was removed. I wonder who called and said pull them, Iguess that means they are authentic.
-
Here's a few quick grabs from rottentomatoes. Seriously folks, to there or to metacritic and count the uses of the word "creepy": "The end affect was characters that just looked creepy. The animation looked stilted, and the facial expressions on all of the characters looked like hollow mannequins with big robotic eyes."
"It's baffling that Mr. Zemeckis, who can make the screen churn with life, didn't see how dead these animated characters look."
" more or less, digitalizes humans and their movements into something that looks vaguely human, vaguely animated."
"a breathtaking visual feast peopled by dead-eyed mannequins."
"To quote an old cliche, the eyes are the windows to the soul -- so these characters look soul dead."
"Knowing that Zemeckis is a notorious perfectionist, his attraction digital environments with digitized actors is obvious, but the result of him having complete control over the piece finds the performers' humanity sacrificed at the feet of the almighty megabyte."
"Unfortunately, the result is rather creepy, with most of the "humans" coming off as little more than slick automatons. Just call this The Stepford Movie."
-
I caught the little Hot Chocolate thing the other night on the WB. It was laughably bad. The animation was poor, the Tom Hanks voice was lame, and the concept was too contrived and devoid of any sense of "magic". Two word review for Polar Express: Shit Express.
-
But after farthead's review, I guess I'll have both Hanks and Zameckis hunted down and killed.
-
The palm trees bedecked in colored lights . . . peppermint nutmeg Frappucinnos at Starbucks on Rodeo Drive . . . the botoxed babes with their pointy red caps and flip-flops . . . a drunken black Santa in the gutter asking for spare change . . . I do get so sentimental at this time of year.
-
Yesterday's estimate says it only dropped about 27% from the previous week. Yep, that's better than Nemo or Shrek 2. And PE hasn't even been making half what Incredibles has, even with a week's head start. So Incredibles looks like it will make at least twice as much, on half the budget. And PE probably won't even break even, could be one of the biggest money losers of the year.
-
a estimated opening weekend of 23 million is not enough to give Hanks the hit he's craving for. I haven't seen the film yet, but I did see The Incredibles and no way there's a better 3D animated film outthere.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Antepenultimate THRONES!! Lane Pryce Returns To MAD MEN!! Roger Waters On 60 MINUTES!! Plus GIRLS, VEEP, SIMPSONS, BURGERS, KILLING, METALOCALYPSE, SHERLOCK!! THE LAST SUNDAY OF SWEEPS!! -- 102 total posts 95 posts
- Duncan Jones To Tell The Story Of Ian Fleming! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- SNL Says Goodbye To Kristen Wiig!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts
- Hercules Picks Next Season’s 10 Most Promising New Broadcast Series!! -- 131 total posts 43 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will traumatize you. -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 34 total posts 34 posts
- There Can Be Only One... Ryan Reynolds?! -- 404 total posts 30 posts
- Dan Harmon Done As COMMUNITY Showrunner!! -- 148 total posts 21 posts
- Quint thinks John Hillcoat's prohibition-era flick LAWLESS is violently awesome! Cannes 2012! -- 69 total posts 20 posts
- Adrian Hieatt Gives Us His Second Daily Report From KAPOW! Comic Convention in London! The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! TOTAL RECALL! DC NEW 52! DAVE GIBBONS! And More! -- 18 total posts 18 posts