Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
This was one of the most mixed experiences I’ve ever had in a movie theater.
On the one hand, I thought the film was a marvel technically. I went to the Universal Citywalk theaters where they have a massive IMAX screen. I knew that I wanted to see the film presented in 3-D. I’ve read about how they decided a year and a half ago to do a release this way, and much of the film was directed with that in mind. I can’t imagine going to see the regular flat 2-D theatrical print. It’s like the difference between seeing a film in pan-and-scan or letterboxed for scope. From the opening frames, as the snow seems to fall out into the audience, it is stunningly beautiful. The 3-D process is immersive and involving, and I would highly recommend that anyone interested in the process see it this way, or not at all. If nothing else, it’s got me incredibly eager to see what James Cameron is going to do with BATTLE ANGEL in a few years.
As far as my reaction to the film itself goes, I’m deeply conflicted. I think the painterly design of the thing can be beautiful at times, but I am still not sold on the magic of motion capture for this type of film. There’s a reason the greatest animators have always exaggerated motion and personality in their characters. By creating something larger than life, they manage to capture perfectly the things we recognize about our own behavior. There’s a wooden, doll-like quality to a lot of what we see here. Yes, the eyes are disconcerting. There also seems to be a pronounced technical problem with tongues making odd, random appearances and looking like they have minds of their own.
Beyond that, though, there’s the story. Or the lack thereof, I should say. We see that the main boy has his doubts about the existence of Santa Claus in the opening scene. Then he gets picked up by a train, whisked off to the North Pole, introduced to Santa who gives him a present, and brought home again. And, yet, somehow, this is supposed to be a fable about how belief is what’s really important. I think I’d be a lot more secure in my beliefs about Jesus if he gave me a personal guided tour of Jerusalem sometime. Seems to moot the point a bit.
What the film packs the movie with instead of character development or thematic examples is a series of rollercoaster rides. Literally. The train goes up, then races down, then rides around some wild bends, then hits an icy lake, then rolls backwards, and on and on and on. It’s like one big giant soulless Disney theme park ride. There’s no denying that there is a visceral thrill to sitting in that IMAX theater with the glasses on. The sense of motion is astounding and quite persuasive. But throughout the entire first 2/3 of the film, I kept waiting for the actual movie to begin. I kept waiting for them to get past all the show-offy visual thrills so we could see something... anything... that demonstrated any sort of heart. When the film does finally reach the North Pole, it seems like the perfect opportunity to settle down and bring it all together with some emotional moments.
Instead, that’s about the time Robert Zemeckis goes totally barking shithouse-rat crazy. What kind of wrong-headed loony would decide to stage the North Pole as a Leni Riefenstahl inspired rally complete with the creepiest version of “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town” ever as the soundtrack? Thanks for stripping me of one of my holiday memories forever, Mr. Z. I’m now convinced that Santa is running a fascist dictatorship in which he oppresses the Jewish elves and randomly selects children to traumatize close-up every year before he sets off on his wild ride of horror across the skies of the world.
I can see how Tom Hanks would be attracted to a project like this. As an actor, there must be a great liberation to the notion that you can play any part using this technology, and I applaud the effort he obviously put into this. Of course, I’m not sure why half the characters have to look like Tom Hanks when the point is that you can play anyone or anything, but that gets back to the design issues I brought up earlier, and there’s such a dearth of good ideas on display here that nitpicking any particular one seems like overkill. Hanks meant well, and I don’t hold his excitement about the new freedoms this affords him against him at all.
I think all of my scorn and irritation should be reserved for Robert Zemeckis, a filmmaker I used to hold in the highest possible regard. I was there for you at the very start, man. USED CARS is a favorite of mine from the moment it was released. I still rewatch it at least once a year to marvel at the brash sensibility of it and the economy of storytelling in the way it’s built. I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND is, I think, underrated. I like the cast, I like the energy of it, and I think it’s one of the best films ever made about the mania that surrounds any pop icon at the peak of their popularity. ROMANCING THE STONE is, hands-down, the best RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK ripoff ever made, and that’s saying something considering how many there were. It had a sense of humor all its own, and it made great use of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner at the exact right moment. Then there are the BACK TO THE FUTURE films. The first one is probably my favorite purely commercial screenplay ever written. It’s a marvelous mousetrap, a beautifully-built machine that does everything it’s supposed to and seems effortless about it. The second film is one of the strangest, most experimental sequels ever made, and I love it for exactly that reason. And the third one is a favorite of mine because of the role you gave Christopher Lloyd, a criminally underused actor. Seeing him play a romantic lead opposite Mary Steenburgen was enough to make me forgive any familiarity that started to set in by that point. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, DEATH BECOMES HER, CONTACT... I love each of these movies for different reasons, and I honestly used to think you could do anything you wanted, and I would follow you anywhere. But it went sour somewhere, and these days, I find your films cold, inhuman, too calculating to tolerate. It started with WHAT LIES BENEATH, an empty exercise in technology that can’t disguise the fact that there’s nothing to the script itself. CAST AWAY may be a showcase for a remarkable physical transformation, but it’s hollow, especially after Chuck makes it back to society. It’s like you didn’t have any idea what to do with Hanks aside from the shock of the weight loss. I’ve taken a lot of heat over the years for my distaste towards FORREST GUMP, but I don’t care. I’ll say it again... I think it’s mean-spirited and small and cruel. I hate the message of the film. I hate the way you punish everyone in that film who dares to want anything from life, who dares to stand up for what they want. I hate the metaphor of the feather in the wind. I hate that the movie was embraced by people who seemed to completely miss that there was any subtext to it, and it quickly became one of those bumper-sticker movies, where a line or a scene became all that anyone remembered, conveniently glossing over your barely-concealed loathing of the counterculture. And now, with POLAR EXPRESS, you’ve once again left me baffled. How can someone as smart as you obviously are take imagery that is so firmly ingrained in our heads, imagery that has been studied since the release of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, and apply it to something as beloved as Santa Claus? You call to mind Red Square and Stalin, not Kris Kringle and Christmastime. It’s as misguided a move as I’ve ever seen from a major filmmaker, and your $200 million “holiday classic” ends up being a nightmare machine wrapped in a kick-ass technical demo reel.
But, hey, if you’ve got naughty kids you want to punish this holiday season, at least POLAR EXPRESS is playing at a theater near you. Hop onboard and let the hurting begin.
"Moriarty" out.
