Movie Review: THE POLAR EXPRESS

THE POLAR EXPRESS

2004
PG


"Seeing is believing, but sometimes the most real things in the world are the things we can't see."
-- The Conductor

The Polar Express is a 2004 animated film directed by Robert Zemeckis that was one of the first films to utilize motion capture technology to create an entire feature-length film. The story follows a young boy (voiced by Daryl Sabara) who has started to question the existence of Santa Claus and the spirit of the Christmas holiday. On Christmas Eve, he is awakened by a train rumbling to a stop outside his house. He goes outside to investigate and meets a conductor (voiced by Tom Hanks) who tells him that the train is on its way to the North Pole. The boy reluctantly agrees to go, and he embarks on a journey with a number of other children. The trip is long and dangerous, but once they finally reach the North Pole, they learn that Santa will choose one of them to receive the first Christmas gift of the year.

The first thing you're going to notice about this film is how stunning the visual effects appear to be. Well, stunning for the most part. Upon its release, The Polar Express faced mixed reviews, and a lot of the negative feedback came as a result of the mixed quality of the special effects. While most of the scenery and background effects are simply beautiful, there's something inherently creepy about the human characters that doesn't seem the least bit lifelike. It was so 0ff-putting that it took me out of the film, and I couldn't find a way to form any type of relationship to the characters. I blame the use of motion capture for this particular flaw. While motion capture has worked wonders in the past (see: Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, the Na'Vi in Avatar or, more recently, Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes), there's something a little off with it in this film. Still, it's not necessarily the filmmakers' fault - any time that a new technology is used, there's going to be some setbacks. It took Zemeckis to be the trailblazer, and from his start, more effective means have been found.

Sadly, the storyline and plot don't really make up for the shoddy special effects. The story seems a tad bit stale, and it's definitely rote in comparison to some of the holiday fare we've seen in the past. It so conforms to past Christmastime films that it's easily predicted. You know exactly where it's going from the very start, and that doesn't bode well for any film. A little unpredictability never hurt a movie, but a lot of predictability can kill one. Still, there's enough Christmas spirit in this one to keep a child occupied for the film's duration.

However, this is really a Tom Hanks vehicle. You'll be surprised to see that he occupies six different characters in this film, and it's all thanks to the powers of motion capture. I've already mentioned that he portrays the film's conductor (the character that most looks like the real-life Tom Hanks), but he also gives life to a hobo, Scrooge, the boy's father, the voice of an older boy reminiscing about the experience and Santa Claus himself. If you're a fan of Hanks, you'll recognize his voice in the many incarnations, and although he varies his vocal talent from character to character, it's undeniably him in each respective role. We're also getting bit parts from the likes of Michael Jeter and Steven Tyler, but if you're not paying attention, you're going to miss them.

I think the biggest reason I wanted to watch this film was for the Academy Award-nominated original song titled "Believe," which was sung by Josh Groban. The song became an instant staple during Christmastime, and I heard it over and over again in the holiday seasons that followed this film's release. For those of you unfamiliar, here's the song:

The rest of the film's soundtrack, composed by John Debney, takes its orchestral chords from "Believe," and it proves to be a delightful soundtrack overall.

At the end of the day, The Polar Express is a decent film, but it doesn't quite hold up to the holiday classics of old. The shoddy final result with the motion capture animation kept me out of the film, and the inaccessibility of the film was it's most major downfall. Had the screenplay been a bit stronger, I might've been able to look past the issues with the special effects; however, we had no such luck, so The Polar Express is destined to live in a state of mediocrity.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B-
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: CAST AWAY

CAST AWAY

2000
PG-13

Cast Away is a 2000 dramatic film directed by Robert Zemeckis that centers around a man stranded on a deserted island. Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is a hardcore FedEx executive who's known for his all-business attitude in running his shipments. He's a bit of a stickler for remaining on schedule and can easily be said to be married to his job. This causes a little bit of a strain with his girlfriend Kelly (Helen Hunt) as they constantly have to re-work their schedules in order to see one another. Such an event happens during a Christmas dinner, and Chuck takes a late flight towards Asia. However, somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, the plane experiences turbulence and a massive explosive sends it spiraling into the sea below. Through a miraculous escape, Chuck finds his way to the surface in a life raft and slowly floats to a remote and deserted island. Chuck accepts his fate and does everything he can in order to survive.

I'd go into more detail in terms of Chuck's time on the island, but part of the experience of watching Cast Away is seeing just how he goes through that time. I don't want to throw too many spoilers out there, and the more I say, the more likely I am to give away the film's final resolution; ergo, I'm going to leave you with that. Now let's get into my actual review.

I'd like to start with the film's acting before I get into the screenplay because that bit could take a little while to talk about. Obviously, the acting centerpiece is the performance delivered by two-time Oscar-winner Hanks, who also garnered an Academy Award nomination for this particular role. Although I wasn't entirely impressed by the performance as a whole (his scenes away from the island are pedestrian at best), the stranded Chuck Noland is pitch-perfect and, considering that's the man we see for the majority of the film, Hanks can be deemed a success. He brings a subtlety to the role (that's definitely shown in the script - more on that momentarily) that you wouldn't necessarily expect with a man who's slowly going mad as a result of being away from civilization. Had this film been made closer to 2011, I wouldn't be surprised to see an over-the-top performance in the lead role rather than the one Hanks brings to the table. He's damn-near flawless when he's on the island, so kudos, good sir.

Because Hanks is the main person we see for at least ninety percent of the film, it's almost not worth mentioning the supporting work at all. However, we do have a decent performance from Oscar-winner Hunt, so I suppose she's worth noting here and now.

And now for the film's screenplay. Like Hanks' performance, I think the script works best while we're on the island. In fact, the film's execution on the island is so good that it probably would've worked perfectly on its own. Sadly, we're book-ended with some off-the-island moments that prove to be ridiculously cliché and much too cheesy and sappy. The off-the-island scenes were so bad that they almost ruined the film for me. Fortunately, the island was simply brilliant. Going into the film, I thought we'd be getting an in-depth look at Chuck's life on the island, chronicling his every movement and every emotion as he tried to figure out how he was going to survive. That's not what Cast Away gives us. Instead, we get a series of snippets of his life that doesn't really give the audience an opportunity to get too emotionally involved with Hanks' character. Normally, that wouldn't be a good thing, but here, it works perfectly. If they had shown every minute struggle he had to face, it would've been an overwhelmingly emotional flick. By showing the little moments without any real sense of segue from one scene to the next, the audience creates a bit of an emotional distance. That's not to say that the film isn't emotional - in fact, it has some extremely heart-wrenching scenes. However, because we're not getting the constant stream of emotion, the scenes of true emotion are all the more powerful because we're not really expecting them to happen. Because they're few and rather far in-between, the power of each of the scenes is truly punched home.

The island is where the film succeeds - everything else is excess fluff that keeps Cast Away from reaching the ranks of brilliance in my books. If they would've cut out the final thirty minutes of the film, this movie would easily have skyrocketed onto my list of greatest films of all time. Unfortunately, it falls just short of scratching that particular surface. Still, it's definitely worth a watch if you've got a little over two hours to kill.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B+
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III

BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III

1990
PG

Back to the Future Part III is the third and final installment in the Back to the Future franchise directed by Robert Zemeckis. It picks up just where Part II leaves off, with Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) stuck in 1955 and Dr. "Doc" Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd) stuck in 1885. With the help of the 1955 Doc, Marty unearths the hidden DeLorean, fixes it up and takes it back to the Old West to bring the Doc back to the future after learning that he's going to be shot and killed by a notorious gunslinger named Buford 'Mad Dog' Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson). Marty arrives in the past and finds the new township of Hill Valley, taking on the name "Clint Eastwood" around the townsfolk. After a brief run-in with Tannen, Marty finds Doc and tells him of his fate. The two start to plan their escape back to the future, but things become complicated when the Doc finds himself falling in love with a schoolteacher named Clara Clayton (Mary Steenburgen). As the two try to plan their way home and deal with the ever-present threat from Tannen, twist after twist comes to pass, making their trip home all the more difficult.

Literally everyone I've talked to about the Back to the Future franchise has told me that this third installment is the bad egg of the bunch. Considering our heroes were being sent way, WAY back in time, I can imagine why so many people would think so. Still, I went in with an open mind considering I've loved the franchise thus far, and to be honest, I loved this one almost as much as the rest. I'll admit that the screenplay isn't quite at the standard of the previous two films, and that magical aura that was presented in the original flick doesn't quite permeate into the sequels, but I thought that Part III was original enough to make an entire film devoted to life in the 19th century. The storyline is relatively predictable, but the film carries that lightheartedness that the rest of the franchise has had, so you're still in for an enjoyable adventure.

One of the things that I liked most about this installment is the fact that we get to see a more human side of Doc Brown. In the first two installments, Christopher Lloyd is damn-near brilliant as the manic scientist, and it plays well for the time. However, seeing him lose touch with logic because of a woman presents the real man inside the machine, giving us an emotional touch to a character we thought we already knew. Don't worry - he doesn't completely toss logic out the window, but Part III works well to add another dimension to his character. I also rather enjoyed the outlaw turn that Wilson takes as 'Mad Dog' Tannen this time around. In the past two films, Wilson was always a sore spot for me because I felt like his style of over-acting was just a little too much at times. I loved his Biff, but I could only take so much of him. However, as this gun-toting Western bad guy, you can hardly see the resemblance, and the over-acting is pitch-perfect for the setting. It's the best performance Wilson has given in the trilogy, and I think he should be commended for it.

As I did during my review of the second film, I'd like to commend Alan Silvestri for his musical composition for this installment. A lot of it is the same as we've heard, but we also get some of that western-style twang inserted throughout, and it gives the setting a little more authenticity.

Overall, I have to say that I loved Part III just as much as I loved Part II. Is it as good as the first two films? Not really, mostly because it's a little more mindless than the previous two. Does that make it a bad film? Absolutely not. It's a fantastic conclusion the three-parter, and it solidifies the Back to the Future franchise's spot as one of my favorite film trilogies of all time.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

Addition to Rankings:
Best Sequel - #18

Movie Review: BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II

BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II

1989
PG

Back to the Future Part II is a 1989 adventure comedy directed by Robert Zemeckis that serves as a direct sequel to the 1985 film, Back to the Future. The second installment picks up exactly where the first film left off, with Dr. "Doc" Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd) whisking Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) and his girlfriend Jennifer (Elisabeth Shue) into his time-traveling - and now flying - DeLorean. He takes them into the future in order to prevent Marty's son (also played by Fox) from being imprisoned, but during their covert mission, Marty purchases a then-dated sports almanac that holds every sporting result from 1950 to the year 2000. He hopes to take it back in time to use it to make money, but Doc Brown strongly insists against it. While attempting to rescue Jennifer during a brief mix-up, an elderly Biff Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson) finds the almanac and steals the DeLorean, taking the book to his high school-aged self in 1955. Unaware of Biff's plot, Marty and Doc Brown take Jennifer back to 1985 only to find it turned into a downtrodden slum controlled by a multi-millionaire Biff. Through his wit, Marty learns that Biff received the sports almanac from a grizzled old man during high school, so he and Doc Brown return to 1955 to prevent Biff from ever being able to use the book, hoping that it will return the present (1985) to its normal state.

I know I probably overloaded the above synopsis with quite a bit of plot detail, so please forgive me if it sounds a little flustered. I just finished the film, and I'm still in a little bit of a daze as a result. I know that I probably should have seen this film ages ago, and after watching it, I know I've caught bits and pieces here and there, but I've definitely never seen this sequel in its entirety. Fortunately, I had the chance to watch it this afternoon, and boy am I glad!

Talk about turning a storyline on its ear! This film's screenplay works exceptionally well considering it's a sequel which, to quote Randy Meeks from Scream 2, are "by definition alone...inferior films." In the first film, the audience only had to shift twice, moving from 1985 to 1955 then back to 1985. The train of logic was sturdy and easily accessible. But according to the logic again proposed in Scream 2 (forgive the references - they're on the mind), sequels have to be a little bit more grandiose in their delivery. This time, we're given three jumps in time, shifting between 1985 (the "present"), 2015 (the "future") and 1955 (the "past"). The situations that lead the characters to the future ultimately lead them back to a changed present; those situations lead them back to the past where they want to re-establish order in the present. It's like a mindless, pre-1990s Inception, but it's a hell of a ride.

I wasn't particularly fond of the part of the story that took place in 2015. Aside from a couple of clever jokes and gags, it felt completely like the plot device that it was meant to be. There was never any intention for the characters to enjoy a prolonged stay in the future, and you get that vibe right away. Fortunately, it all picks up a little bit once you're back in the altered 1985, which spurs the film's real conflict: finding Biff and destroying the sports almanac before he can use it to craft the present into what Doc Brown and Marty have seen. The shift back to 1955 serves more of a nostalgic purpose, adding an additional layer to a story audiences already knew. Using footage from the original film, additional shots are added in the foreground and background to make it seem as though there was actually more going on. This is where the film succeeds, flawlessly executing the story within a story and making it entertaining all the way through. See how the Inception analogy is starting to tie together? Yeah, neither do I, but I figured I'd throw it out there anyways.

There isn't much to say about the acting, considering we're given the same characters we saw in the original film. Yeah, they're all playing the same characters at different ages (depending on the year we're in), but there's nothing all that impressive about it, aside from some of the trick camerawork that was used to bring the same actor on-screen with himself or herself.

We're also given another rendition of Alan Silvestri's fantastic score composed for the original film. It's definitely one of my favorites, as is evidenced by its inclusion on my list of favorite film scores. The music fits seamlessly with the film, so I think it should once again be commended.

Is Part II better than the original Back to the Future film? Of course not. The first installment held an aura of magic and wonder that no sequel was ever going to match. However, it still serves as a fantastic and entertaining follow-up to our original story, and I would highly recommend viewing it. I can't wait to watch Part III, the final installment in the series.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: A-
1.5 Thumbs UpAddition to Rankings
Best Action/Adventure: #41
Best Sequel: #11